People who bash social welfare recipients but claim child benefit

jonevin

I was thinking of this the other day .. my boss looks down his nose on people who claim fis or social welfare benefits such as the medical card.. but yet while they are extremely well off his wife claims child benefit for their three children .. does this not make them equal?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Not at all. I presume he contributes to the pot so who would be more entitled to take it back? Surely all children should be equal? Why punish one child because their parents aren’t afflicted with sticky mattress syndrome

Undividual

jonevin wrote: »

I was thinking of this the other day .. my boss looks down his nose on people who claim fis or social welfare benefits such as the medical card.. but yet while they are extremely well off his wife claims child benefit for their three children .. does this not make them equal?

Nah.

Society is dependent upon the raising of productive, civil workers. That requires money, among many other things.

LessOutragePlz

jonevin wrote: »

I was thinking of this the other day .. my boss looks down his nose on people who claim fis or social welfare benefits such as the medical card.. but yet while they are extremely well off his wife claims child benefit for their three children .. does this not make them equal?

No because the after hours logic dictates that everyone is entitled to child benefit and I'm fairly sure 99.9% of people claim it. Whereas people on the dole are scroungers/wasters because they are "choosing" to be on it, is usually what is said around these parts.

Undividual

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No because the after hours logic dictates that everyone is entitled to child benefit and I'm fairly sure 99.9% of people claim it. Whereas people on the dole are scroungers/wasters because they are "choosing" to be on it is usually what is said around these parts.

Less outrage plz

punisher5112

I getz no Childers benefits

Child benefit is not "claimed" it's a monthly payment provided to every child in this country and it is not means tested therefore every family are treated the same, from Michael o learys kids to the kids sharing a room with their family in emergency accommodation in some hotel. And why do you say "his wife claims benefit"? If they are married it's both their benefit. I think you need a hobby mate

Gimme A Pound

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No because the after hours logic dictates that everyone is entitled to child benefit and I'm fairly sure 99.9% of people claim it. Whereas people on the dole are scroungers/wasters because they are "choosing" to be on it, is usually what is said around these parts.

I don't think anyone thinks absolutely everyone in receipt of social welfare is a scrounger/waster - obviously plenty of people need it through no fault of their own.

And those who work are entitled to children's allowance, so I don't think that's a valid comparison to those cases of choosing not to work so as to avail of the dole.

Ultimate Seduction

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Child benefit is not "claimed" it's a monthly payment provided to every child in this country and it is not means tested therefore every family are treated the same, from Michael o learys kids to the kids sharing a room with their family in emergency accommodation in some hotel. And why do you say "his wife claims benefit"? If they are married it's both their benefit. I think you need a hobby mate

Isn't Michael o Leary one of the only people in the country to refuse child benefit or is that just a myth?

LETHAL LADY

Deleted User wrote: »

Child benefit is not "claimed" it's a monthly payment provided to every child in this country and it is not means tested therefore every family are treated the same, from Michael o learys kids to the kids sharing a room with their family in emergency accommodation in some hotel. And why do you say "his wife claims benefit"? If they are married it's both their benefit. I think you need a hobby mate

It's not an automatic payment so technically it is claimed.

Dakotabigone

Is this a country version of a dole bashing thread?

Stacksofwacks

The way I look at it, the top 1% could feed the world countless times over and still be stinking rich, so claim whatever the **** you want to claim, it makes no difference

BeerWolf

I am a child at heart. Can I make a self-claim?

One eyed Jack

jonevin wrote: »

I was thinking of this the other day .. my boss looks down his nose on people who claim fis or social welfare benefits such as the medical card.. but yet while they are extremely well off his wife claims child benefit for their three children .. does this not make them equal?

No, as child benefit isn’t based upon employment status, it’s based on the number of children a person is entitled to claim child benefit for.

It’s interesting though that you’re looking for ways to equate your employer with people claiming social welfare benefits, so you bring up the fact that his wife claims child benefit. His wife is not your employer.

Hoboo

If you cant afford kids don't have them.

Should be means tested like everything else, and a card supplied which allows payment for food, children's clothes, medical etc, not a cash reward.

Mundo7976

Ahhh, mickey money.

kippy

Hoboo wrote: »

If you cant afford kids don't have them.

Should be means tested like everything else, and a card supplied which allows payment for food, children's clothes, medical etc, not a cash reward.

Most of the population cant actually afford kids.
Most couples would be financially prudent never to have kids.
There was no way my parents could afford to have had had 6 of us on their income levels or indeed how many couples I know afford to have two or three kids on vastly more income yet they do.
Most people can't actually afford houses either, yet get them often times with support from the state.

Frank O. Pinion

Anyone ever try to explain Child Benefit to American friends, especially ones with kids? The look on their face is priceless.

kippy

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Anyone ever try to explain Child Benefit to American friends, especially ones with kids? The look on their face is priceless.

Yeah, they prefer to stick tens of thousands of college debt around their necks,......
To be honest they can have a look on their face all they like but their social policies leave a lot to be desired.

NIMAN

You aren't comparing like with like.

Your boss and his wife, well off as you say they are, are paying plenty of tax. They are taking out a lot less than they are putting into the pot.

Those who have never worked are taking out WAY MORE than they will ever contribute to society.

Trigger Happy

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Anyone ever try to explain Child Benefit to American friends, especially ones with kids? The look on their face is priceless.

Ah sure you would get the same look from them when you try to explain free healthcare or 27 days paid leave or redundancy terms to name a few.

The US is not the model to be looking at to be fair.

One eyed Jack

Hoboo wrote: »

If you cant afford kids don't have them.

Should be means tested like everything else, and a card supplied which allows payment for food, children's clothes, medical etc, not a cash reward.

It’s free to have children?

People who have children imagine they can afford them already, it’s a bit late when children are born to tell any parents they shouldn’t have had children.

lbc2019

OSI wrote: »

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

It's not an automatic payment so technically it is claimed.

Yes it is, once my son's birth was registered, which is a legal requirement, child benefit was automatically paid to my wife. No claim was made, no method for accepting or rejecting provided, just straight up paid into the bank once the government knew my child existed.

It certainly has to be applied for now anyway- wait! How did they know your bank account details???

aaakev

Iv 3 kids, wife is at home full time with them. I pay nearly 7 times in tax what we ger back in child benefit which is the only thing we get from the state.

Neighbours down the road have 3 kids, live in a council house and don't work at all. They are around the same age as me and my wife and are there 3 years, one worked part time for a while but nothing in the last year. Both would be well able to work.

My family are net contributors to the system, the others are a drain on it.

One eyed Jack

OSI wrote: »

Yes it is, once my son's birth was registered, which is a legal requirement, child benefit was automatically paid to my wife. No claim was made, no method for accepting or rejecting provided, just straight up paid into the bank once the government knew my child existed.

Straight from the DEASP:

You should apply for Child Benefit within 12 months of:

The birth of your baby or
The month the child became a member of your family or
The month your family came to live in Ireland or
The date you started working in Ireland if your child(ren) are living in another EU country

To qualify for Child Benefit, you must satisfy the Habitual Residence Condition. See our document on habitual residence for more information. If you are an EU/EEA citizen working in Ireland, you satisfy the condition. You can read more about Child Benefit and EU regulations below.

If your baby is born in Ireland, when you register the birth of your baby the DEASP will begin a Child Benefit claim for your child and send you a partially completed claim form for your signature and payment details.

If you are already claiming Child Benefit for another child, your new baby is added to your Child Benefit claim and payment begins automatically from the month after the birth. You will be sent a letter confirming payment.

In both cases, your new baby will be given a Personal Public Service (PPS) number.

If your child is not born in Ireland, or their birth is not registered within the required time (3 months), you must fill in Child Benefit (form CB1) (pdf) and send it to the Child Benefit Section. See 'How to apply' below for more information.

Hoboo

aaakev wrote: »

Iv 3 kids, wife is at home full time with them. I pay nearly 7 times in tax what we ger back in child benefit which is the only thing we get from the state.

Neighbours down the road have 3 kids, live in a council house and don't work at all. They are around the same age as me and my wife and are there 3 years, one worked part time for a while but nothing in the last year. Both would be well able to work.

My family are net contributors to the system, the others are a drain on it.

Your kids are a drain on it. What do they contribute?

namloc1980

Had a discussion once with a group of Americans and they wouldn't believe me about child benefit, statutory redundancy and mandatory paid annual leave among other things. I never realised that there is zero mandated paid annual leave in the US. What a bizarre country.

Skihunta13

Hoboo wrote: »

Your kids are a drain on it. What do they contribute?

In all fairness his kids are more likely to contribute to it than the kids down the road.

Hoboo

Skihunta13 wrote: »

In all fairness his kids are more likely to contribute to it than the kids down the road.

Quite possibly. But right now they're a drain. They contribute nothing. They eat food, breath air, and produce waste. They are social leeches.

aaakev

Hoboo wrote: »

aaakev wrote: »

Iv 3 kids, wife is at home full time with them. I pay nearly 7 times in tax what we ger back in child benefit which is the only thing we get from the state.

Neighbours down the road have 3 kids, live in a council house and don't work at all. They are around the same age as me and my wife and are there 3 years, one worked part time for a while but nothing in the last year. Both would be well able to work.

My family are net contributors to the system, the others are a drain on it.

Your kids are a drain on it. What do they contribute?

About the same as every other kid their age in the country. Difference is I help fund it, lots of others who get it, dont.

RiseToMe

Between myself and my wife earn a six figure sum annually, and pay a huge chunk of that in tax, I'm a business owner so there's also taxes paid there.

We have a one child, another on the way. Do we need the child benefit? No. Do we get it paid out? Of course, we contribute a substantial amount in taxes. But it gets put straight into a bank account in our child's name, who will have 35k when they turn 18 as a result. So college, or house deposit or trip around the world, paid for.

We also claim every single thing back on our taxes that we can, every prescription, every doctor visit, eye exam etc and I equate the child benefit as just another way to get back what we are putting, multiples of, in.

lbc2019

And the wife. But you get a tax credit for her!

One eyed Jack

Hoboo wrote: »

Quite possibly. But right now they're a drain. They contribute nothing. They eat food, breath air, and produce waste. They are social leeches.

They contribute to society by their very existence. How do you imagine you came into being? You weren’t born an adult :pac:

Kermit.de.frog

namloc1980 wrote: »

Had a discussion once with a group of Americans and they wouldn't believe me about child benefit, statutory redundancy and mandatory paid annual leave among other things. I never realised that there is zero mandated paid annual leave in the US. What a bizarre country.

The US is quite different to Europe on welfare. No fcuking around over there.

Don't work, don't get paid.

Seems fair.

Skihunta13

Hoboo wrote: »

Quite possibly. But right now they're a drain. They contribute nothing. They eat food, breath air, and produce waste. They are social leeches.

Eh no. Their parent will most likely pay for stuff for their kids like prams, food, toys if over the age of 6 actually pay the gp for their visit and buy medicine. All with 23% VAT which goes back into the system to fund the kids down the road.
On the other hand the family doen the road are totally funded by the government so it does not matter what vat is on the items they purchase.
They most likely work for cash too as cleaners or the like which is not declared either.

rob316

Does he have someone claiming fis and a medical card working for him? If so pay some proper wages and he won't.

Your boss is an ass.

firemansam4

jonevin wrote:

I was thinking of this the other day .. my boss looks down his nose on people who claim fis or social welfare benefits such as the medical card.. but yet while they are extremely well off his wife claims child benefit for their three children .. does this not make them equal?

Did anyone actually read this post, or just decide to go off on a rant when they seen social welfare benefit recipients?

The op clearly states her boss is giving out about people claiming fis or medical cards. These are people who work and are on very low pay and get a top up on there wages to help with the cost of children.

The same people here would give out that the dole is so great that it doesn't pay to go out and work, yet schemes like fis makes it worthwhile for people to take a low paid job rather than staying on the dole.

idnkph

.....

Skihunta13

rob316 wrote: »

Does he have someone claiming fis and a medical card working for him? If so pay some proper wages and he won't.

Your boss is an ass.

If he not happy with wages im sur the door swings both ways. Noy bosses failt if someone claims fis etc.

dxhound2005

rob316 wrote: »

Does he have someone claiming fis and a medical card working for him? If so pay some proper wages and he won't.

Your boss is an ass.

He could be paying €40K to two people doing the same job. One of them lives with their parents rent free, five minutes walk from the workplace. The other one has to commute 50 miles, has six children and a stay at home spouse. And pays €800 a month mortgage.

How is he supposed to make them both equally financially comfortable?

One eyed Jack

Skihunta13 wrote: »

Eh no. Their parent will most likely pay for stuff for their kids like prams, food, toys if over the age of 6 actually pay the gp for their visit and buy medicine. All with 23% VAT which goes back into the system to fund the kids down the road.
On the other hand the family doen the road are totally funded by the government so it does not matter what vat is on the items they purchase.
They most likely work for cash too as cleaners or the like which is not declared either.

VAT doesn’t fund the kids down the road any more than yours or my taxes does. You don’t appear to care much for facts though.

aaakev

Hoboo wrote: »

Skihunta13 wrote: »

In all fairness his kids are more likely to contribute to it than the kids down the road.

Quite possibly. But right now they're a drain. They contribute nothing. They eat food, breath air, and produce waste. They are social leeches.

As a family we contribute a lot more than we take out, so no, they are not social leeches (they most definitely are dad leeches, but I'm om with that)

Jimbob1977

Should an unemployed person get child benefit and a middle-class taxpayer be excluded from child benefit?

Of course not. That taxpayer is paying for virtually everything the unemployed person has.

One eyed Jack

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Should an unemployed person get child benefit and a middle-class taxpayer be excluded from child benefit?

Of course not. That taxpayer is paying for virtually everything the unemployed person has.

They’re not. Income tax is only a pittance of what Revenue takes in, and social welfare payments are only a pittance of Government spending.

Jimbob1977

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not. Income tax is only a pittance of what Revenue takes in, and social welfare payments are only a pittance of Government spending.

Income Tax is the biggest Government Revenue Stream.

Income Tax €13 billion

VAT €9 billion

Corporation Tax €6 billion

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/tax-receipts-fall-behind-target-ahead-of-budget-2019-1.3618150?mode=amp

Skihunta13

One eyed Jack wrote: »

VAT doesn’t fund the kids down the road any more than yours or my taxes does. You don’t appear to care much for facts though.

What does VAT pay for genius?? Enlighten us with your extensive knowledge of facts?

Sleeper12

Raquel Yellow Signboard wrote:

Not at all. I presume he contributes to the pot so who would be more entitled to take it back? Surely all children should be equal? Why punish one child because their parents aren’t afflicted with sticky mattress syndrome

More entitled? Honestly, more entitled?

Do you have any understanding of what the social welfare is for? It's not for the well off, though it's there for them if they fall on hard times.

Social welfare is for people who have fallen on hard times. People whose income is below a certain level.

To suggest that a wealthy person is more entitled to social benefits than a poor person suggests that you need to study social welfare. It's meaning, why it was set up & for what part of society (rich or poor) it was set up for.

Sleeper12

BeerWolf wrote:

I am a child at heart. Can I make a self-claim?

I identify as a poor person. Why can't I claim?

Skihunta13

Sleeper12 wrote: »

More entitled? Honestly, more entitled?

Do you have any understanding of what the social welfare is for? It's not for the well off, though it's there for them if they fall on hard times.

Social welfare is for people who have fallen on hard times. People whose income is below a certain level.

To suggest that a wealthy person is more entitled to social benefits than a poor person suggests that you need to study social welfare. It's meaning, why it was set up & for what part of society (rich or poor) it was set up for.

I dint think this thread is about those who have fallen on hard times, its more about those who are not bothered to get up from “hard times”.
Tends to be an inherited thing!

Jimbob1977

Sleeper12 wrote: »

More entitled? Honestly, more entitled?

Do you have any understanding of what the social welfare is for? It's not for the well off, though it's there for them if they fall on hard times.

Social welfare is for people who have fallen on hard times. People whose income is below a certain level.

To suggest that a wealthy person is more entitled to social benefits than a poor person suggests that you need to study social welfare. It's meaning, why it was set up & for what part of society (rich or poor) it was set up for.

It should be a safety net, I agree

But never a 'way of life'

Sleeper12

Skihunta13 wrote:

I dint think this thread is about those who have fallen on hard times, its more about those who are not bothered to get up from “hard timesâ€. Tends to be an inherited thing!

Judgemental much?