Should child benefit/children’s allowance be taxed?

You said mothers staying at home is "enshrined" in our constitution.

"Enshrined" implies it's a right protected by law, and it's not - that's all I was saying.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499447#Comment_118499447

Financing? ah here

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499175#Comment_118499175

If you think €32 a week is the only benefit you get, you are leading a very sheltered life.

Someone did a breakdown when that Margaret Cash one did her stunt, you'd have to be pulling in around €140k a year to get the benefits she was pulling without doing a tap, including child benefit, HAP leading on to social housing, One Parent Family Payment, ECCE scheme, Back to School clothing and footwear allowance, medical cards, free dental, National Childcare Scheme, .

xckjoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499575#Comment_118499575

Ah here. First it was the definition of "endeavour", now it's "enshrined". I made no reference to protection by law. I intended the lay person usage of it being important.

My post was in reference to the "stay at home parent" system being something fundamentally ( : with regard to what is basic, essential, or fundamental) recognised as important in the constitution of the country. Next time I'll get the lawyer to review my wording first

It might be better to just increase social welfare to include child benefit and give increased tax free allowances to working parents.

It’s a contentious issue, no doubt, but it could be tweaked to give better value, especially to working parents.

The discussion is related solely to CB, none of the above are qualifiers to receive it & using such an extreme example as her further cements my point that no one, at all, is having babies for CB.

Maybe they’re doing it for other reasons, but I can assure you it’s not for CB.

crinkley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499281#Comment_118499281

seems far more sensible to attract already educated productive members of society than to encourage people to have kids hope that they never leave and pay tax to fund their pensions

dxhound2005

In Europe some countries are already seeing too few births to replace deaths. The EU population is going to fall in the second half of the century. Everyone at work is productive. Ireland is likely to be competing with other countries to attract workers to fill vacancies. Probably more especially in care homes and meat factories, which need educated people. But there will a lot fewer workers in future, and a lot more retired people, so discouraging procreation might be a bad approach in the longer term.

Italy’s population is expected to decrease from 59.6 million people in January 2020 to 47.6 million in 2070, it predicted, representing a drop of 20 percent.

Whereas in 2020, the average age of Italians was 45.7, it is expected to rise to 50.7 by 2050. And continuing a trend begun in 2007, in which deaths have surpassed births each year, within less than three decades, deaths are expected to outweigh births by a factor of two, 784,000 against 391,000.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499447#Comment_118499447

No, we need universal benefits so that the payers in are also able to take out.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499711#Comment_118499711

The "lay person usage" is often quoted to imply that as mothers, women have some kind of a right to stay at home under the constitution, and be supported by the State.

They don't.

Just clearing that up for anyone who read your post and thinks it does. It actually doesn't mean anything nowadays, and there has been talk of amending that article or removing it from the constitution altogether, so not as important as you might have thought.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500441#Comment_118500441

The thing is that there’s no actual fix for that. A smaller reproductive age population would need more than two kids to make up for excess deaths when the population structure is an inverse pyramid. If there’s always fewer people being born than there are old people the pension crisis lasts even as the population declines.

dxhound2005

While the population of Europe is set to decline, other parts of the world will keep going up. Immigration will be the solution.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500879#Comment_118500879

Most countries will have falling populations except sub Saharan Africa. I doubt if immigration is going to stop Italian decline anyway.

KaneToad

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

Makes sense. With multiple kids (of different ages) there are savings to be had reusing cots, clothes, high chairs, push chairs etc etc... With twins you don't have this option, you need to double up on everything at every stage.

KaneToad

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

I think more should be done to encourage 1 parent to stay at home to raise their children, particularly, but not exclusively during their primary school years.

BringingSexyBack

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

People like Michael O'Leary , God of Ryanair, made the point that rich people like him should not get child benefit

However, I do not know about that. Rich people pay way way more tax than most of the low income earners (which is most people in retail and hospitality) . Not just on income tax, but on CAT and CGT . If they are paying so much tax, shouldn't they get something out of it ?

And the same point, some families, those who aren't high income earners, or , let us face it, have a long history of unemployment or mickey mouse part time jobs............take the piss , breeding way more children than they can afford

Thresholds maybe the only fair way to qualify Child Benefit / Allowance - is a means test whether on the number of kids one has and or the parent's income

This nonsense about moral imperative................the high earner already contributes in taxation........far more than the peasants of the council estate every will. Even contribute more in one year than the latter do in a life time. Some financial easing or pay back is due to those tax contributors . Not to mention that fact that these people (middle class and up) and the ones who provide the jobs in the Private sector

Considering the abject failure of successful governments when it comes to the allocation of affordable creche facilities and support for working parents who have to spend loads of money to have the kids cared for while at work..............the child benefit is a token payment...... They are only getting back a small portion of what they already contributed to the Tax man

So, why should these particular Tax payers pay their income tax, CGT etc when they get nothing out of the system , while uneducated and unemployable yobbos live off the welfare payments contributed by the former ?

Thank God for Off Shore Accounts cough

Sleepy

No, don't tax it, scrap it. Replace it with a tax credit for those who work and an increase on the "dependent child" rate for the various social welfare payments.

Close the office, make the staff redundant or redeploy them to other areas of the civil service. Save the taxpayer a bloody fortune.

Eircom_Sucks

been abused far too long , should be capped at like 2 kids , any you have after that you are on your own

and same with housing benefits

dxhound2005

Work out the actual figures, bloody fortune is too vague. It would be a big hit to Letterkenny to lose those jobs.

The Mighty Quinn

Gonna have to side with Alena Colossal Timber here. Nobody with more than four brain cells is having children for the childrens allowance money. To say it's being abused is ridiculous. Abused how? By having a child? And you think that the €1,680 a year is going to pay for that child? HA!

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118505953#Comment_118505953

It is not the purpose of the Child Benefit payment to provide employment for Letterkenny. Working out the actual figures requires access to data that I don't have. Suffice to say common sense would tell you it would save the costs of running the offices, the financial transactions involved in making the payments and at least some of the payroll.

I don't think it'll ever happen as the Donegal TD's would fight tooth and nail against such a common sense move. It's one of the characteristics of our parish pump politics: national parliamentarians acting like local councillors up and down the country ensure we can never have a properly managed state infrastructure.

dxhound2005

Things which might seem common sense might have unforeseen consequences. Are you against the principle of decentralisation, and do you think the SW Department should be all located in one place. They have places in Longford town and Sligo town, amongst others.

satguy

I don't think Child Benefit should be taxed.

But I do think that it should be doubled for 1 & 2 child families only,, If more than 2 kids, = no increase ..

wassie

I think it would be fair to assume that for those on welfare and low to middle income earners, CB would generally return back into the economy through spending, meaning Revenue then gets its share via VAT.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497625#Comment_118497625

It's not.

Which is why it should remain as an untaxed, universal payment.

tscul32

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118503181#Comment_118503181

Is that not more of an argument for reducing the amount for subsequent kids, i.e. your first is more expensive but next ones should be cheaper cos of hand me downs, etc.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118514599#Comment_118514599

No because if the first child's is costing you 2k/ year even if second one costs you 1800/ year the two are costing you 3800/ year

jrosen

I dont think it should be taxed and I cant see there being any political will to do so anyway.

I think it needs to remain a universal benefit.

Ubbquittious

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

There will be a thread made on boards.ie by the government where posters can chime in with a figure and an argument as to why theirs should be the correct cut off point. All posts are then anonimised and sent to independent debating judges in another randomly chosen country.

The judges then pick the number with best supporting argument behind it. As a prize that poster gets 18 years worth of child benefit despite having no child to back it & an unlimited supply of Boards thanks.

screamer

No absolutely not. Working parents get SFA except bills to pay. Why take away the one thing they do get???? Layabouts get free stuff, subsidised childcare for sitting on their backsides. Working parents get large childcare bills. IMHO give more out to those who pay more in, help those with their shoulder to the economic wheel to keep it going, that’d be fairer, but of course not popular as we have to protect the “most vulnerable” aka lazy fuckers in our society. You can tax mine when you take theirs away.