Two tier child benefit

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123836522#Comment_123836522

It can be done in non obvious ways (like clothes and books), but it is dependent on an easy way to do means testing and then a sliding scale to avoid poverty traps.

Polly701

There are good points being made on both sides but I still see it as making some families more dependent on benefits - it's easy to become reliant on that extra income. Its a huge commitment from the government as it would be very difficult to reverse.

I think targeted support is a much better way of helping these children. Free books in school is a great example.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123838083#Comment_123838083

That’s fair. But the limit should be set fairly high. Lots of people outside the lower rate of income tax miss out on benefits like medical/GP cards. CB is possibly the only state benefit the squeezed middle get.

noodler

Yet the child poverty target we are trying to achieve is (partly) based on getting more people to 60% of median income.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123838366#Comment_123838366

This is probably impossible in reality… because the 60% of median will also increase with success.

I think that’s a lazy/pick a random % target. It should be more concrete.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123838510#Comment_123838510

You are, of course, correct.

And it's the reason that child-poverty will, by definition, NEVER be solved.

no.8

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123836182#Comment_123836182

Disagree heavily with your last point. Why should those who contribute most to the tax take per capita receive no childrens allowance versus someone who doesn't? You may argue that they don't need it, but why would they out of pocket considering contribution levels?

Peregrinus

Taking people's money off them in order to give it back to them is an obviously inefficient process; it would cost less not to take it off them in the first place. From that point of view it would make sense to have a child tax credit, and to provide children's allowance on a means-tested basis, to those who don't earn enough to benefit from the tax credit.

But, by the same argument, there should be no universal old-age or retirement pension; both should be means-tested, and should go only to people whose working-life income was not sufficient to enable them to save for their own retirement.

But long experience in many countries shows that the political and economic stability of a welfare system depends on it including some universal benefits, or at least benefits that are not means-tested. People will much more happily support and participate in a system for transferring wealth from the haves to the have-nots so long as they themselves receive something from the system, or at least will do so in circumstances that are meaningful to them, as well as contributing to it.