Child benefit ending at 18

Barnaboy

My eldest son turns 18 in less than 2 weeks. I know that I am about to lose this benefit. Still in school. Think that's very unfair but a different story.

Reason I am posting is that I am wondering exactly how the payment ends. Am I paid in full for December, pro-rata up to his birthday December or into January?

Fann Linn

Barnaboy wrote: »

My eldest son turns 18 in less than 2 weeks. I know that I am about to lose this benefit. Still in school. Think that's very unfair but a different story.

Reason I am posting is that I am wondering exactly how the payment ends. Am I paid in full for December, pro-rata up to his birthday December or into January?

Same thing with my youngest. Got the full payment for the month of her birthday, and cut off in full the following month.

Fordcspri23

What a lot do now is have a few kids so constant income.

TCM

Barnaboy wrote:

My eldest son turns 18 in less than 2 weeks. I know that I am about to lose this benefit. Still in school. Think that's very unfair but a different story.

Nothing unfair at all. Your child becomes an adult at 18. Simple.
In Ireland under the Child Care Act 1991, the Children Act 2001 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Fordcspri23 wrote: »

What a lot do now is have a few kids so constant income.

Spread out the gap though, every 7 year is the thing now. Spoke to a lady recently, her eldest is just gone 7, she gave birth weeks before that event. No sign of any man around.

Fordcspri23

Emely Attractive Actress wrote: »

Spread out the gap though, every 7 year is the thing now. Spoke to a lady recently, her eldest is just fine 7, she gave birth weeks before that event. No sign of any man around.

She must have AI so

Barnaboy

TCM wrote: »

Nothing unfair at all. Your child becomes an adult at 18. Simple.
In Ireland under the Child Care Act 1991, the Children Act 2001 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18.

Wasn't my intention to discuss that part, only came here for basic information. Anyway, the reason I think it is unfair is that the adult, as he technically will be, is still in school and cannot provide for himself.

The parents still pay for everything. Isn't the whole point of child benefit to help parents to raise their children?

I think a fairer system would be CB until they leave secondary school or turn 18, whichever happens second.

No intentions of adding any more to the conversation but would be interested in other people's views.

Curlysue76

Barnaboy wrote: »

Wasn't my intention to discuss that part, only came here for basic information. Anyway, the reason I think it is unfair is that the adult, as he technically will be, is still in school and cannot provide for himself.

The parents still pay for everything. Isn't the whole point of child benefit to help parents to raise their children?

I think a fairer system would be CB until they leave secondary school or turn 18, whichever happens second.

No intentions of adding any more to the conversation but would be interested in other people's views.

I agree, it should finish when child leaves secondary school, whether that be 16 or 19.

Thoie

Barnaboy wrote: »

My eldest son turns 18 in less than 2 weeks. I know that I am about to lose this benefit. Still in school. Think that's very unfair but a different story.

Reason I am posting is that I am wondering exactly how the payment ends. Am I paid in full for December, pro-rata up to his birthday December or into January?

From http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/child_benefit.html

You'll get the full payment for December, but that will be the last one.

Dravokivich

It's an interesting question, considering NTA have a child card that can be used by an 18 year old.

liquoriceall

It's a choice to do TY and if it is chosen then it makes the child older how is that the fault of the taxpayer?

road_high

Curlysue76 wrote: »

I agree, it should finish when child leaves secondary school, whether that be 16 or 19.

Fairly sure mine continued onto 19? This was early 2000s. Even remember getting something signed in university for it. Has that changed?

Avatar MIA

road_high wrote: »

Fairly sure mine continued onto 19? This was early 2000s. Even remember getting something signed in university for it. Has that changed?

Yes, changed during our recent recession where it was changed back to 18, regardless of going into 3rd level or not.

CA was increased significantly during the boom, so was not surprising to see it clawed back.

marketty

Barnaboy wrote:

Wasn't my intention to discuss that part, only came here for basic information. Anyway, the reason I think it is unfair is that the adult, as he technically will be, is still in school and cannot provide for himself.

Barnaboy wrote:

The parents still pay for everything. Isn't the whole point of child benefit to help parents to raise their children?

Why can't an 18 year old get a part time job and support himself? I was paying my way from 16 while still in school because as far as I was concerned I was an adult and wanted my own money. This is not that long ago either!

eviltwin

marketty wrote: »

Why can't an 18 year old get a part time job and support himself? I was paying my way from 16 while still in school because as far as I was concerned I was an adult and wanted my own money. This is not that long ago either!

At 18 he's probably doing leaving cert. I wouldn't want an LC student working. Their focus should be on their exams.

road_high

marketty wrote: »

Why can't an 18 year old get a part time job and support himself? I was paying my way from 16 while still in school because as far as I was concerned I was an adult and wanted my own money. This is not that long ago either!

Can be very hard juggle the leaving cert with paid employment.

Sunflower 27

eviltwin wrote: »

At 18 he's probably doing leaving cert. I wouldn't want an LC student working. Their focus should be on their exams.

Of course, but when do people think payment should stop? Should it be paid indefinitely until /if the adult starts working?

ebbsy

Fordcspri23 wrote: »

What a lot do now is have a few kids so constant income.

And then go to the papers. You might get an apartment as well.

eviltwin

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Of course, but when do people think payment should stop? Should it be paid indefinitely until /if the adult starts working?

Once they finish school whatever age that may be.

cannotlogin

Why should the tax payer subsidise the cost of having children when it's a personal choice to have them or not?

Children's allowance, subsidised child care etc.

Avatar MIA

marketty wrote: »

Why can't an 18 year old get a part time job and support himself? I was paying my way from 16 while still in school because as far as I was concerned I was an adult and wanted my own money. This is not that long ago either!

If they are in full time education it makes sense for them to devote their time to education and improve their long term earning capacity rather than short term gain which is a false economy.

marketty

eviltwin wrote:

At 18 he's probably doing leaving cert. I wouldn't want an LC student working. Their focus should be on their exams.

I worked from the summer before 5th year until a few months before the LC. Weekends only during the school year. Plenty of time during the week for focusing on exams.

Avatar MIA

cannotlogin wrote: »

Why should the tax payer subsidise the cost of having children when it's a personal choice to have them or not?

Children's allowance, subsidised child care etc.

Because they will fund this generation's pension.

You're not naive enough to think any particular generation has funded their own pension?

cursai

Avatar MIA wrote: »

If they are in full time education it makes sense for them to devote their time to education and improve their long term earning capacity rather than short term gain which is a false economy.

Truth. I worked in Crazy Prices for 2.47 an hour part time through my exams. It does take some encouragement and support by a parent though.

Avatar MIA

marketty wrote: »

I worked from the summer before 5th year until a few months before the LC. Weekends only during the school year. Plenty of time during the week for focusing on exams.

It doesn't take a great deal of education to join the army, which is poorly paid by most measures. Others see education as a long term investment, and it is.

eviltwin

marketty wrote: »

I worked from the summer before 5th year until a few months before the LC. Weekends only during the school year. Plenty of time during the week for focusing on exams.

Everyone's needs are different. As a parent, I didn't want my LC student to work. Plenty of time for that during the summer. Down time from study needs to be proper downtime. The long game is what's important.

marketty

Avatar MIA wrote:

It doesn't take a great deal of education to join the army, which is poorly paid by most measures. Others see education as a long term investment, and it is.

Nice dig!

You know nothing about me or what I've done since leaving school as regards education, career advancement or earnings.

Post history doesn't tell everything you know

splinter65

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Of course, but when do people think payment should stop? Should it be paid indefinitely until /if the adult starts working?

Children stop being children at 18. You can leave school at 16 so the 2 extra years is personal choice and nothing else. TY is personal choice, nothing else. 3 months school holidays every year, let them find summer jobs to go to and then they can buy all the little extras that they want themselves including Nike runners Converse and IPhones.

marketty

eviltwin wrote:

Everyone's needs are different. As a parent, I didn't want my LC student to work. Plenty of time for that during the summer. Down time from study needs to be proper downtime. The long game is what's important.

That's grand, but the topic is that the OP can't afford to support the LC student without the child benefit payment. So I suggested the kid get a job. Its great if you can afford for your kid not to, fair play.

Just on the point about the long game, will you take the same approach through college, up to postgrad level? Not saying you shouldn't, but that's a huge financial stretch for most.

splinter65

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Of course, but when do people think payment should stop? Should it be paid indefinitely until /if the adult starts working?

Seriously! CB until they get a job? There are 35 year olds out there still living at home never had a job (never will) still wondering what they want to do when they “grow up” and you think their parents should still be getting CB?

Avatar MIA

marketty wrote: »

Nice dig!

You know nothing about me or what I've done since leaving school as regards education, career advancement or earnings.

Post history doesn't tell everything you know

You may have gone on and done amazing things since, but could it have been done sooner if you started earlier.

In general, but not in all cases, working while in education is not the best. Especially for children

marketty

Orlando Tasteless Tailgate wrote:

Anyone putting someone through LC now knows the workload and stress...... Impossible to work if they are aiming for decent points... Its a hard stressful exam. Until you've a child sitting it you've no idea.. Its nothing like when i sat mine

I disagree. Not terribly long since I sat mine, and I got good results.

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

Everyone's needs are different. As a parent, I didn't want my LC student to work. Plenty of time for that during the summer. Down time from study needs to be proper downtime. The long game is what's important.

Yes and thats your personal choice made by you on behalf of your child. So you must bear the financial brunt of that personal choice, not the taxpayer. Your teenager had 3 months of free time before the leaving cert started and 3 months the summer previous to get a job and have some money in reserve. If you chose to allow them to spend all that time at their total leisure then let that be on you, not everyone else.

n!ghtmancometh

marketty wrote: »

Nice dig!

You know nothing about me or what I've done since leaving school as regards education, career advancement or earnings.

Post history doesn't tell everything you know

If you're going to have digs at someone just asking a question and reply in a way that suggests you believe that they are bleeding the taxpayer dry, don't get tetchy when they give it back to you.

cannotlogin

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Because they will fund this generation's pension.

You're not naive enough to think any particular generation has funded their own pension?

A patronising reply that provides little in terms of substance. Perhaps a reduced spenfing on children could subsidise pension costs or alternatively people could fund their own rather than relying on others to cover their costs all the time?

OU812

Curlysue76 wrote: »

I agree, it should finish when child leaves secondary school, whether that be 16 or 19.

This is an interesting point. It would encourage completing the second stage of education & discourage kids dropping out after Junior cert.

There's also an argument for continued (reduced) payment until the end of college.

eviltwin

marketty wrote: »

That's grand, but the topic is that the OP can't afford to support the LC student without the child benefit payment. So I suggested the kid get a job. Its great if you can afford for your kid not to, fair play.

Just on the point about the long game, will you take the same approach through college, up to postgrad level? Not saying you shouldn't, but that's a huge financial stretch for most.

During term time I do but I'm happy to do it, my child is studying a very intense course with a lot of competition for jobs, I didn't pay all those fees to have her struggle to find work or emigrate. For me, my children's education is the best way for me to spend my money, it's an investment.

I don't doubt there are people out there who do really well in education while working but my kids need the time. There's no way they would be doing the course their doing if they had worked in LC year.

yabadabado

Barnaboy wrote: »

Wasn't my intention to discuss that part, only came here for basic information. Anyway, the reason I think it is unfair is that the adult, as he technically will be, is still in school and cannot provide for himself.

The parents still pay for everything. Isn't the whole point of child benefit to help parents to raise their children?

I think a fairer system would be CB until they leave secondary school or turn 18, whichever happens second.

No intentions of adding any more to the conversation but would be interested in other people's views.

What if the child decides to go to college ?
Maybe they study medicine, should the state keep paying until they are 24/25.


18 years of CB is plenty and that age threshold is perfect cut off.Its a brilliant payment ,state pays 18 years without any means test to help raise your child.

marketty

Avatar MIA wrote:

In general, but not in all cases, working while in education is not the best. Especially for children

When parents can afford to financially support the kids through education that's grand. The OP is saying she can't without the child benefit payment. But an 18 year old isn't a child.

I guess my auld pair just had a more holistic approach to parenting. They trusted that I had the maturity and cop on to apply myself to school work and manage my time effectively in that regard. They also believed in teaching me the value of money and taking responsibility for making my own choices in life.
Where other lads in my year had parents paying for everything including cars so they could drive to school and then college, I had to decide things like that for myself with my own money. So I got the bus and spent it on hobbies and travel. Maybe not the wisest, but sure I was only a young lad! Any mistakes I made, I made with my own money. That kind of financial independence has, I believe, made me into a more rounded adult. Some of those guys I went to school may be making more money than me nowadays in their late 20s/early 30s, but they've still got the paw out to mam & dad for the big wedding, house deposit, free childminding etc.

n!ghtmancometh

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes and thats your personal choice made by you on behalf of your child. So you must bear the financial brunt of that personal choice, not the taxpayer. Your teenager had 3 months of free time before the leaving cert started and 3 months the summer previous to get a job and have some money in reserve. If you chose to allow them to spend all that time at their total leisure then let that be on you, not everyone else.

Jesus, you've bought the Tory/FG manifesto hook line and sinker.

If a child is still in full time second level education, where it makes sense for them to focus on the huge exam that will greatly shape their income potential and thus ability to fund your pension and hospital services down the road, surely it makes sense to pay CB until that second level education is complete. How anyone could argue against that is beyond me.

The people who do argue against it seem to be those idealistically opposed to any sort of welfare system for struggling people (never seem to mention corporate welfare/tax breaks for landlords etc funnily enough) or the usual ignorant and mean people who've made "hilarious" remarks in this thread about having more children etc.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Because they will fund this generation's pension.

You're not naive enough to think any particular generation has funded their own pension?

I can assure you that I'm funding my own.

marketty

n!ghtmancometh wrote:

If you're going to have digs at someone just asking a question and reply in a way that suggests you believe that they are bleeding the taxpayer dry, don't get tetchy when they give it back to you.

Where did I have a dig?
I don't believe anything of the sort, I'm just dealing with the reality of the situation. The state, rightly or wrongly, doesn't pay child benefit after the kid turns 18. If the family is struggling to support the 18 year old financially there are some other supports available, college grants etc once they get to third level. For the time being at least, I suggested the kid might want to get a part time job so they could have their own few bob.


The person I was replying to about the dig at me wasn't the OP btw.

Avatar MIA

marketty wrote: »

When parents can afford to financially support the kids through education that's grand. The OP is saying she can't without the child benefit payment. But an 18 year old isn't a child.

I guess my auld pair just had a more holistic approach to parenting. They trusted that I had the maturity and cop on to apply myself to school work and manage my time effectively in that regard. They also believed in teaching me the value of money and taking responsibility for making my own choices in life.
Where other lads in my year had parents paying for everything including cars so they could drive to school and then college, I had to decide things like that for myself with my own money. So I got the bus and spent it on hobbies and travel. Maybe not the wisest, but sure I was only a young lad! Any mistakes I made, I made with my own money. That kind of financial independence has, I believe, made me into a more rounded adult. Some of those guys I went to school may be making more money than me nowadays in their late 20s/early 30s, but they've still got the paw out to mam & dad for the big wedding, house deposit, free childminding etc.

It boils down to whether society should increase investment in its young people to better society. We already spend a lot to get children to 18. Was the practice up to relativity recently when CB was paid up to 21 better? In the OP's case it looks like it would be a good investment.

In general it's better if our students are funded to be the best students/graduates they can be.

An alternative may be to continue to increase immigration where skills are imported.

Avatar MIA

Marilyn Dirty Trader wrote: »

I can assure you that I'm funding my own.

Well done you. Do you expect you're the only one to be living in Ireland at your retirement?

Lots of anecdotal input to this conversation, which is pretty much worthless to the general discussion.

marketty

Avatar MIA wrote:

It boils down to whether society should increase investment in its young people to better society. We already spend a lot to get children to 18. Was the practice up to relativity recently when CB was paid up to 21 better? In the OP's case it looks like it would be a good investment.

Avatar MIA wrote:

In general it's better if our students are funded to be the best students/graduates they can be.

Well now we're in agreement! But is paying child benefit to the parents of an adult the best way to do that? I'd rather see it put into a fairer SUSI grant system myself

Avatar MIA

marketty wrote: »

I'd rather see it put into a fairer SUSI grant system myself

At least that's already means tested, which is not a bad thing if it can be done economically.

marketty

If you'll indulge me with another anecdote:

My wife's brother was a painfully shy but clever 18 year old. He got great LC results and went on to study business. He had to get a part time job to help pay the bills for college. It was a customer facing sales role, and the difference in him after a year at that job was unreal. He's now a confident and chatty young man that any employer would be happy to have front of house, and has landed a place on a great graduate programme with a multinational company.

There's more to growing up and education than just focusing on exams. Just something to think about for the OP.

splinter65

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

Jesus, you've bought the Tory/FG manifesto hook line and sinker.

If a child is still in full time second level education, where it makes sense for them to focus on the huge exam that will greatly shape their income potential and thus ability to fund your pension and hospital services down the road, surely it makes sense to pay CB until that second level education is complete. How anyone could argue against that is beyond me.

The people who do argue against it seem to be those idealistically opposed to any sort of welfare system for struggling people (never seem to mention corporate welfare/tax breaks for landlords etc funnily enough) or the usual ignorant and mean people who've made "hilarious" remarks in this thread about having more children etc.

If thinking that 6ft 14 stone 16 year old teenagers don’t need to lie around the house doing nothing for 3 months of the summer is part of the Tory manifesto then paint my nails blue and call me Mrs Thatcher.
If thinking that wealthy families on €100,000 + don’t need €145 per month to keep 19 year old Tarquin happy while he’s repeating his Leaving means I’m FG then where do I sign up please?

TCM

OU812 wrote:

There's also an argument for continued (reduced) payment until the end of college.

...and might I ask what is that argument?

nervous_twitch

Is this thread actually taking the piss? Teach your child some personal responsibility. You're not investing in anything until he knows the value of how to look after himself. Doctor, artist or homeless, he should go to work.

Avatar MIA

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Is this thread actually taking the piss? Teach your child some personal responsibility. You're not investing in anything until he knows the value of how to look after himself. Doctor, artist or homeless, he should go to work.

That's grand let the kids of wealthy families get further ahead. No skin off my nose.