Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Debate: Should the Child Allowance be scrapped?

Options
  • 27-01-2017 7:33pm
    #1
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭


    The Children's allowance is a subsidy which helps incentivize private citizens to have children and forces taxpayers to pay the cost of other peoples responsibilities, regardless of whether or not those children were planned or not.

    The Child allowance should be scrapped as it is not fair to expect tax payers to foot the bill for other people decisions and it only fosters a culture of dependence and irresponsibility among its recipients.

    Agree or Disagree? Thoughts?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    If be in favour of scrapping it and putting the money into free/further subsidised child care. Provides support to parents while allowing them to return to work. Good for families and the economy.


  • Options
    #3
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Every single one of the parents I know are taxpayers.

    Most would pay more than the average industrial wage in direct taxation.. Myself and my wife included.

    So less of the taxpayer and parents being mutually exclusive groups..

    However I'm not in support of universal payments. It should be stopped and diverted to providing full time childcare.


  • Options
    #4
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Scrapped and replaced with a affordable childcare for working parents ,
    This whole idea of a universal payment or reward for having kids should be done away with
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #5
    Silane
    Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Silane


    I agree with scrapping it and putting the money towards childcare. As it stands it encourages the wrong people to have kids, putting more and pressure on the social welfare system.


  • Options
    #6
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Just playing devils advocate here..

    Given that Childrens allowance is currently paid as long as the children are in full time education , so late teen for a lot of them - How does universal Child-care address the older kids needs?

    I agree it's a very blunt instrument and needs significant overhaul , but I don't think it's as simple as scrapping it and creating a load of free Creche places.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Yeah I'm not sure either. I suppose the idea behind it was a good one back in the day when the woman didn't usually have any income of her own. It ensured that children could be taken care of whether the father was a shocking alcoholic or whatever.

    Now I don't know. I still think children should be a priority in society so maybe it could be channeled into other things that look after them directly.

    Like maybe free childcare and free meals at school.


  • Options
    #8
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    If the money continued to support children like providing meals at school, after school clubs etc then sure.


    Unfortunately we need people to have children. Who do you think will pay taxes as everyone else ages? It is in the country's interest to incentivize people having children up to a point. You pay for them now and then they will pay for you. Unless you want to get rid of pensions as well?


  • Options
    #9
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,730 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Parents should get equal benefit from "Chidren's Allowance" regardess of whether they decide to take a break from working to raise their kids or return to work, it would be unfair to focus on the former and disregard the latter imo. We all paid our taxes up to the point we had the kids so it would be unfair to penalise a cpuple where one wishes to remain at home for a few formative years and raise the children prior to their attending school.


  • Options
    #10
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Every single one of the parents I know are taxpayers.

    Most would pay more than the average industrial wage in direct taxation.. Myself and my wife included.

    So less of the taxpayer and parents being mutually exclusive groups..

    I never said they were. Question still remains: Should parents and non-parents who are tax payers have to foot the bill for children's allowance?


  • Options
    #11
    Silane
    Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Silane


    BabyCheeses wrote: »
    Unfortunately we need people to have children. Who do you think will pay taxes as everyone else ages? It is in the country's interest to incentivize people having children up to a point. You pay for them now and then they will pay for you. Unless you want to get rid of pensions as well?

    We do need more children but only if they contribute to society, otherwise it's counter productive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Silane wrote:
    We do need more children but only if they contribute to society, otherwise it's counter productive.


    So we kill off the children who don't seem like they'll contribute anything?


  • Options
    #13
    Silane
    Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Silane


    pilly wrote: »
    So we kill off the children who don't seem like they'll contribute anything?

    No, just don't encourage the parents to have them in the first place by offering free houses and free money to people who have no intention of ever contributing anything.


  • Options
    #14
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Silane wrote:
    No, just don't encourage the parents to have them in the first place by offering free houses and free money to people who have no intention of ever contributing anything.

    I was waiting for the 1st free houses post.

    The OP started an intelligent well reasoned debate. I'd rather think about it and answer in the same way.


  • Options
    #15
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    Pete29 wrote: »
    I never said they were. Question still remains: Should parents and non-parents who are tax payers have to foot the bill for children's allowance?

    Should people who work foot the welfare bill for those that don't? What about people who don't end up in hospital, why should their taxes pay for those that do?

    In the op you mention "private" citizens, what are they? Does that mean there are public citizens?

    Fwiw, i think it should be means tested and reviewed.


  • Options
    #16
    zindicato
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭zindicato


    BabyCheeses wrote: »
    If the money continued to support children like providing meals at school, after school clubs etc then sure.


    Unfortunately we need people to have children. Who do you think will pay taxes as everyone else ages? It is in the country's interest to incentivize people having children up to a point. You pay for them now and then they will pay for you. Unless you want to get rid of pensions as well?

    My next door neighbours has 5 kids on the social, never worked a day in her life, long term sick??? but shes always out and about , husband doesnt work too , apparently he is too depressed to work and has back problems following a RTA a decade ago, but doesnt stop him from riding his motorbike around the estate and going on motorcycling holidays/ trips with his friends.... so you tell me that its just ok that they just mooch of the system since its an incentive for the country that they have 5 kids,:rolleyes:....... for me really if you cant afford to have kids then dont even bother , if you cant provide properly for your kid, without resorting to childrens allowance then think about it first before having or planning a kid or wait a bit till you are financially stable enough or upskill so that you can get a decent enough job that you can afford to provide for your kid.


  • Options
    #17
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Owryan wrote: »
    Should people who work foot the welfare bill for those that don't? What about people who don't end up in hospital, why should their taxes pay for those that do?

    Those are good questions.
    Owryan wrote: »
    In the op you mention "private" citizens, what are they? Does that mean there are public citizens?

    A private citizen is a citizen who does not work for the state or hold any public position and has control over most aspects of their lives without state or popular interference. A public citizen would be someone who is at the command of the state or public in most, if not all, aspects of their lives.


  • Options
    #18
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    pilly wrote: »
    The OP started an intelligent well reasoned debate.

    And then you went and said this:
    pilly wrote: »
    So we kill off the children who don't seem like they'll contribute anything?
    :eek:


  • Options
    #19
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Phoebas wrote:
    And then you went and said this:


    Fair point. I lost the head a bit there.


  • Options
    #20
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Pete29 wrote:
    The Child allowance should be scrapped as it is not fair to expect tax payers to foot the bill for other people decisions and it only fosters a culture of dependence and irresponsibility among its recipients.


    I remember Michael O'Leary *Ryanair* joking that he didn't need the CA to encourage him to have sex with his wife. Oddly he forgot that CA is not an automatic payment. You have to apply, despite all Michael's millions his Missus still applied for the CA. It is an important payment for families and the only support the state gives to families. There is not tax credit to help offset childcare costs. School costs etc. When broken down the amount is roughly €35 a week. Not a fortune despite the claims form certain individuals. As for don't have kids if you can't afford them, newsflash circumstances change not everyone is a psychic.


  • Options
    #21
    neonsofa
    Registered Users Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    zindicato wrote: »
    My next door neighbours has 5 kids on the social, never worked a day in her life, long term sick??? but shes always out and about , husband doesnt work too , apparently he is too depressed to work and has back problems following a RTA a decade ago, but doesnt stop him from riding his motorbike around the estate and going on motorcycling holidays/ trips with his friends.... so you tell me that its just ok that they just mooch of the system since its an incentive for the country that they have 5 kids,:rolleyes:....... for me really if you cant afford to have kids then dont even bother , if you cant provide properly for your kid, without resorting to childrens allowance then think about it first before having or planning a kid or wait a bit till you are financially stable enough or upskill so that you can get a decent enough job that you can afford to provide for your kid.

    While this is a valid point, those people are not relying solely on child benefit. Scrapping it would not make a difference in that case as they will still get their disability payments and increases for the children. I'd say the benefit helps alright but scrapping the child benefit wouldn't change cases like this imo. They will still have a regular income which provides for their children.

    I like the idea of having a subsidy towards childcare instead of a universal payment.
    I also wouldn't be opposed to a yearly voucher system instead of a monthly cash benefit, book/school supplies/uniform vouchers or something each year at beginning of school year. Similar to the way the clothing and footwear allowance works but a universal one and not cash. Dont know if that is possible in reality though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    It should probably be scraped but only gradually over a period of a couple of decades - too many people currently depend on it.

    It money saved should be put into directly lessening the cost of raising children - school books, pre school places, after school care etc.
    I wouldn't like it to be simply directed at the less well off; that'd just create a poverty trap.


  • Options
    #23
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    Ah ok, some of those Freeman cranks refer to themselves as "private citizens". Just making sure.

    But why the need to split people based on income? Everyone gets some form of support off the state, be it tax credits, ecce, sw, child all.

    I think we need a fundamental change in sw. Universal benefits should be means tested and something done about the lifetime dole collectors.


  • Options
    #24
    Mr McBoatface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Mr McBoatface


    Cap it at one child (or the number of children from one pregnancy in the case of twins, triplets and so on) For children after that you have a second scheme which pays the same or more but if only it's granted if both parents have enough stamps built up between them, for arguments sake lets say 6 years stamps paid. This will encourage working people to have families and helps avoid a situation where non-workers are rewarded for popping out kids.


    It'll never happen....... unfortunately


  • Options
    #25
    Dr Turk Turkelton
    Registered Users Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Dr Turk Turkelton


    Or almost six year old has over 9k in her post office account that's it's paid into (some post office scheme when we were applying for it).
    Will be great for her in the future should she need it for college or starting out in life. Also doing the same for the two year old as well and will keep doing it for as long as we can afford it.


  • Options
    #26
    Elemonator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭Elemonator


    Should be turned into childcare. I have seen wanton waste of it and it infuriates me. Or maybe turn it into a tax credit for certain groups, possibly with older children?


  • Options
    #27
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Pete29 wrote: »
    The Child allowance should be scrapped as it is not fair to expect tax payers to foot the bill for other people decisions and it only fosters a culture of dependence and irresponsibility among its recipients.

    When said taxpayers come to retirement, who do you think will be paying for their state pensions?


  • Options
    #28
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,483 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    When said taxpayers come to retirement, who do you think will be paying for their state pensions?

    Said model is doomed to fail as it requires a larger working population than retired, and that's disregarding people live longer.


  • Options
    #29
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Varik wrote: »
    Said model is doomed to fail as it requires a larger working population than retired, and that's disregarding people live longer.

    The problem is that it's not a model.


  • Options
    #30
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,192 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Pete29 wrote: »
    The Children's allowance is a subsidy which helps incentivize private citizens to have children and forces taxpayers to pay the cost of other peoples responsibilities, regardless of whether or not those children were planned or not.

    The Child allowance should be scrapped as it is not fair to expect tax payers to foot the bill for other people decisions and it only fosters a culture of dependence and irresponsibility among its recipients.

    Agree or Disagree? Thoughts?

    I don't agree with your rationale for the abolition of children's allowances. Today's children are tomorrow's taxpayers who will fund your retirement income and health care. They need to be properly provided for and educated.

    However, I do agree with a complete reform of Child Benefit. I wouldn't abolish it for existing children. Instead I would reform it for newborns, putting in place a system of benefit from childbirth to school-leaving, possibly even college.

    This would range from packs for new mothers and extra maternity leave, to free kindergarten places and childcare where both parents work, to free schoolbooks and lunches as well as free after-school childcare and free homework clubs right up to supports for leaving cert students.

    The advantage of this is that it would be phased in as the original children grew rather than one big bang of trying to put all of that provision in place the first year.

    It would end the waste of some child benefit funding ski breaks, other being smoked and drank and other being sent abroad to be spent elsewhere. Funding wouldn't necessarily have to increase as the cost might not be too different and the state could benefit from large-scale procurement of school books etc. Any funding left over could be used to maintain a lower level of child benefit, similar to other European countries.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement