Should child benefit/children’s allowance be taxed?

Dinarius

An explosive topic.

To my mind, it’s a no-brainer. There is moral imperative to tax those who don’t need it and filter it down to those who do.

At what level you impose that tax, and how you redistribute it are another matter.

I can feel the burn.

D.

freshpopcorn

I don't think anybody has mentioned this on Boards.ie before.

Allinall

It's extra income, so should be taxed as such.

Most other social welfare payments are taxed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058228683/should-child-benefit-children-s-allowance-be-taxed

How do you decide who doesn't need it? Where is your cut off point?

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058228683/should-child-benefit-children-s-allowance-be-taxed

What’s an allowance? Parents called it pay. For work about house. Yard work. But if you wanted to income tax me back when I was a minor. Then I would want to be allowed to vote. So that I can help decide how my tax money was spent. Otherwise I might consider dumping your tea in Boston harbor.

Greyfox

Yes, definitely as I don't have kids. Although I'll be complaining about how ridiculous it is if I ever have kids

Atlantic Dawn

Rather interesting if you have twins you get 1.5 times the allowance for each kid so 2 kids gets you a payment for 3.

Tow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058228683/should-child-benefit-children-s-allowance-be-taxed

You need to perform a cost benefit analysis. When the government got to idea to tax illness benefit it brought in an extra few hundred thousand, but cost much more to actually implement.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118495644#Comment_118495644

That’s easy. You just include it as income for taxation purposes every year.

Gatling

Use it and pay it directly to childcare providers and cut if off after senior infants if you choose not to get back to employment you lose if ,if you go back to work or full time education/ training give it as a tax credit

Dale Parish

Should really just be a tax credit

The Mighty Quinn

Try getting a tax credit past those who don't/have never/will never work, who'll just be given the benefit anyway

elperello

IBEC are lobbying for this and want the money saved re-directed to subsidise child care for lower paid workers.

Join the dots.

Rustyman101

IBEC also want to extend pension age in line with life expectancy, in other words work till you die !

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496254#Comment_118496254

It's so you can pay for two prams.

iamwhoiam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496773#Comment_118496773

Until they are 16 ?

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496765#Comment_118496765

Beware of business lobby groups sticking their noses into social policy.

MakersMark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058228683/should-child-benefit-children-s-allowance-be-taxed

There should be a moral imperative that those who can work must work.

Why should my kids get less because I work hard?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496815#Comment_118496815

Obviously.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496420#Comment_118496420

That wasn't what I asked.

I asked how should it be determined who needs it, and where is the cut off point?

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496969#Comment_118496969

if you are a PAYE employee then your child benefit will be included in your income each pay period. The same as if you were in receipt of any other SW taxable benefit. Thus, like your wages/salary it will be taxable. If you’re self employed then you’ll include it in your tax return. If you’re entirely reliant on SW then it’s not going to bring you into taxable income even if you are getting CB for 10 kids.

Mr Burny

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496453#Comment_118496453

Then the lazy dolers would miss out and they need it for their fags jars and lotto

AckwelFoley

No. Because it would be one more way that those that work would get **** shafted

Lad up the road from me. One eyebrow, tonnes of kids, shorts worn into tesco 365 days a year. Not a care in the world.

House paid for by the taxpayer, dole paid for by the tax payer for him and her, healthcare paid for and children's allowance or "Mickey money" as its known in the trade also paid for.

His kids are no more important than mine, so why should i be taxed on it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497120#Comment_118497120

That's still not what I asked. I didn't ask how you would assess it for tax purposes.

I asked how you would determine who needs it (as stated in the OP) - and where the cut off point (to determine need) should be.

madeiracake

I think it should be reduced once you reach 3 children. Parent should have incentives to keep children in school. Let me a payment to child attendance. The system needs to be changed so young people are encouraged to stay in school and not have babies. Having one baby when you are young is a mistake, having three more when you can't afford to is ridiculous. I think working parents should get more tax relief so that even one parent working is more beneficial than being on the dole. Also mandatory parenting classes for anyone having children.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497249#Comment_118497249

The need is assessed in the tax cut off point/tax credits already awarded to the recipient. Everyone claims the appropriate tax credits and allowances that they’re entitled to. I honestly don’t know how you don’t understand this. Child Benefit should be treated by Revenue as an extra income. Like overtime. Or a second job. And taxed as such.

Everyone is still awarded Child Benefit for each entitled child. But through Revenue, if you’re already a high earner, you might end up returning most or all of it to the exchequer. If your already a low income/no income family then it won’t bring you into taxable income, or if it does it will be very little and you get to keep all/some of it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497371#Comment_118497371

That is not how to assess whether the family need the payment or not.

The only way to do that is to means test each family's income against their outgoings.

touts

Leave it as it is but pay it in time limited vouchers that can only be used to purchase certain items that are directly related to the care of the child. Food, school uniforms etc. No bouncy castles, cigarettes, drink, bookies, holidays, etc. And certainly no way to have it paid straight into a savings account in the post office for their university fees. Use it or lose it and use it on the kids not yourself.

jimmycrackcorm

It should really be used to fund things like school meals and creches / Montessori. My own personal bugbear about it is that I have an Irish child that is living outside the EU and I'm not entitled to child benefit for that child, unlike the children I have here. It's discriminatory.

tscul32

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496773#Comment_118496773

But if one payment is enough for one pram then surely two payments are enough for two prams?

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497445#Comment_118497445

SW never take outgoings into account when means testing except in some tiny very exceptional circumstances. That’s because outgoings are more often then not a matter of lifestyle choice. For example take Mr O’Brien working in the same factory with Mr Ryan both with the same high salary with stay at home spouses, both with 3 kids under 12, both were married and bought houses in 2010.

Mr and Mrs O’Brien took out a mortgage of €240,000 for a huge house (now with small arrears)+ €30000 for a wedding and have an outstanding car loan of €25000 with the credit Union.

Mr and Mrs Ryan bought a fixer upper for €60000 which is paid for but not yet fixed up and drive a 2011 Renault scenic.

If they are means tested on the outgoings as well as the income then the O’Brien’s will get the child benefit but the Ryan’s won’t. How is that fair?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497563#Comment_118497563

Payment in some form of some kind of shopping voucher that "can only be used for the kids" is often put forward as an alternative to a cash payment but the reality is, if the family use their vouchers to pay for their groceries, they'll just use the cash they would have used for groceries to pay for the bouncy castle!

Administration costs would wipe out any savings from such a scheme, anyway.

There are families who use the child benefit payment to supplement their family income so they can afford for one parent to stay at home with the children. And that should be their right, to use the money how they see fit, for the benefit of their children.

Anyway, taxation of CB will never happen. Too much of a hot potato - a government once fell over introducing tax on childrens shoes. Imagine the backlash if they tried to introduce tax on child benefit.

(Disclaimer: I no longer have children of child benefit age).

Mother of Christ who in their right mind actually thinks folks are out there having babies for child benefit? I mean get a grip lads

Child benefit, per child, is €140 per MONTH. €32(odd) a week.

my kids, most days, would skin me €30 a DAY let alone a flipping week.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058228683/should-child-benefit-children-s-allowance-be-taxed

What an incredbly stupid suggestion. It's akin to proposing a tax on tax refunds. You could argue about reducing a government payment, that is efficient, but clawing back what has just been paid is stupidly inefficient - just pay out less in the first place.

Bass Reeves

Do we want to encourage people to breed tax payers or dole scroungers.

That seems a harsh reality. Means testing is a huge failure in this country. The only winners are those than can hide income. Using voucher's only add cost into any system. As it is the scroungers are nearly out breeding us.

I would leave it as is

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058228683/should-child-benefit-children-s-allowance-be-taxed

No. We need Childers. And the benefit is designed to be universal.

1wizards sleeve

If you are going to tax the rich. Then you must also deduct some payments off those who choose never to work the leeches of society.

piplip87

Abolish it. Pay Schools per month per child to provide uniforms, provide school books and abolish voluntary contributions. Child benefit should be centred on educational needs of children.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497819#Comment_118497819

You are only adding cost into the system. Why do we need to micromanage everything. You give people choice, if they want to p!SS there children's future up against a wall every third Tuesday of the month so be it. But do not punish the 80%+ who do not.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497819#Comment_118497819

Apart from being impractical and unworkable, it's a great Idea.

AyeGer

I don't think it should necessarily be axed for higher earners, these people pay a lot of tax and get very little in return as it is. But I think the whole idea of child benefit should be axed and the money put into subsidized child care for working parents.

Strumms

It should not be taxed… simply because that will leave people with less money then they need firstly.

secondly because if the state pay a certain amount it’s because that person is in NEED of it to get by most likely… so why would the state be looking for it back… it’s not like it’s 600 euros a week per head.

B.A._Baracus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497713#Comment_118497713

All apart of working the system.

While am sure you are telling your kids to do well in school, go to college, get a good job and more. However there are those who's life goal is to have a few kids, put your name down on the housing list (unmarried mothers with kids go higher on the list) and have the bloke living with them - then he's either claiming the social himself or working. Doing both if he really wants to work the system.

Eclectic Dan

It's very very generous. You get zero in England if one parent earns above £50k

Mad_maxx

No but limited to three kids

dxhound2005

Either all SW payments should be taxable, or all should be tax free. Why single out CB for a change, and not the others?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/taxation_of_social_welfare_payments.html

When it started in 1944, it was paid only if there were three children or more, nothing for the first two.

xckjoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496441#Comment_118496441

Mothers staying at home is enshrined in our constitution:

  1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Bit sexist and you could argue that it's not being achieved, but I don't see why we'd be hell bent on forcing everyone into working all the time just to survive. There's societal benefits to not farming everything out to childcare services too

crinkley

abolish it, put the money spent on it every year into state run and subsidised childcare for parents who return to full time work or education. Failing that cap it at 2 kids.

GerardKeating

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496453#Comment_118496453

Not much use to those on a very low income then, whoes income might already be lower than their tax credits.

And absolutely no use to a stay at home mum, the benefit would go to the working parent.

GerardKeating

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118496254#Comment_118496254

Are twins that common, that this is a big issue?

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498511#Comment_118498511

No they are not that common. Again it nit picking. It's a particularly expensive time for patents that do have twins. For the first few years it's a particularly expensive time for such parents.

I go back to why micromanage people lives. It's a fixed allowance. It's 140/child/month. It's paid to the mother of the children. Technically if you tax it, is then the mother pays the tax.

Again we would creat income traps. Couples on moderate income would pay tax, PRSI and Tax at the lower rate.

A sole trader or company owner where the wife did not work could use there tax credit to offset the allowance.

The rate of CA is virtually the same as a single persons personal tax credit.