Issue of child benefit

Lord TSC · 08-08-2011 12:14PM

dvpower wrote: »

That's exactly what it does - provides some support. It goes nowhere near the real cost of raising a child (and rightly so).

Why only one or two?

I guess its a arbitary number. My real problem comes from the fact there seems to people people who try and have three kids by 20 and more after in order to get as much social welfare payments as possible.

Someone posted figures in another topic which showed that the more kids you have, the more money you get per kid. That's not right. It breeds a culture where people have loads of kids not because they want them but because they want the money. Furthermore, I dont believe these huge amounts of money being given out for 4-5 kids and more is going towards the kids wellbeing. If at that stage some forms of vouchers were brought in, fine, but it strikes me that some people have kids just for the benefits.

I say one or two cause that gives people A chance to make a mistake and even a second. If you have a third kid when you cannot afford it, it should not be the state's responsibility to pay for that kid. You should not have kids if you're not in a situation where you can sensibly determine if your finances can afford another one.

dvpower · 08-08-2011 12:15PM

wild_cat wrote: »

I seem to have the ability to control mine though. Where's my self control payment?

It will come when you retire - the children being raised now by all of the parents in the state, with some contribution by you, will pay your pension and your health care costs.

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 12:15PM

dvpower wrote: »

Why does two appear to be the magic number? Is there some research that point to four as the optimum family size?

Two isn't even a replacement rate.

I watch a lot of documentaries about population. Mainly in relation to the environment.

This one is probably the best. http://phill.co/interesting/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth-one-of-david-attenboroughs-best

It's an Attenburough doc so its fierce credible to. That blog has it broken down into 6 parts from you tube as well. The whole doc that is.

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 12:17PM

dvpower wrote: »

It will come when you retire - the children being raised now by all of the parents in the state, with some contribution by you, will pay your pension and your health care costs.

Not all of us rely completely on the state for our futures. Private health care and investments. I'm going to be left a good few assets to.

dvpower · 08-08-2011 12:17PM

wild_cat wrote: »

I watch a lot of documentaries about population. Mainly in relation to the environment.

This one is probably the best. http://phill.co/interesting/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth-one-of-david-attenboroughs-best

It's an Attenburough doc so its fierce credible to. That blog has it broken down into 6 parts from you tube as well. The whole doc that is.

Can you give us a tl;dr on that?

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 12:19PM

Absurdum wrote: »

it's better than going out on the piss like a lot of "parents" do

That's quite true. It ended up being spent on being out on the piss and clothes from top shop in the end though. Boosting consumer figures though so I suppose that's alright.

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 12:20PM

dvpower wrote: »

Can you give us a tl;dr on that?

No. Why should I? It's not exactly an essay.

dvpower · 08-08-2011 12:20PM

wild_cat wrote: »

Not all of us rely completely on the state for our futures. Private health care and investments. I'm going to be left a good few assets to.

Sure. Nor do you fully fund the raising of children now.
You pay a little now, you'll get a little later.

Not to forget the fact that if you grew up in Ireland, you have already benefited from CHB

dvpower · 08-08-2011 12:22PM

wild_cat wrote: »

No. Why should I? It's not exactly an essay.

Bit tetchy today?

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 12:22PM

dvpower wrote: »

Sure. Nor do you fully fund the raising of children now.
You pay a little now, you'll get a little later.

Not to forget the fact that if you grew up in Ireland, you have already benefited from CHB

Yeah. I'm not going for a complete ban here. Just payment for two children. You shouldn't have any more if you can't afford them. If you can by all means go ahead. But if you can't don't whinge.

Mickeroo · 08-08-2011 12:23PM

dvpower wrote: »

Can you give us a tl;dr on that?

It just says we'll reach our max global population(15.1 billion) in the latter half of this century. Then there's a documentary to watch.

dvpower · 08-08-2011 12:25PM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Someone posted figures in another topic which showed that the more kids you have, the more money you get per kid. That's not right. It breeds a culture where people have loads of kids not because they want them but because they want the money.

It goes up marginally after the second kid - I can't see the sense in this myself.

But its not nearly enough to bring up kids, so I can't see it as being a strong incentive.

Citizens info wrote:

The rate for the 1st and 2nd child is €140.00 per month, €167.00 for the 3rd child and €177.00 for the 4th and subsequent children.

Mickeroo · 08-08-2011 12:27PM

wild_cat wrote: »

Yeah. I'm not going for a complete ban here. Just payment for two children. You shouldn't have any more if you can't afford them. If you can by all means go ahead. But if you can't don't whinge.

I think that's fair enough. If the pregnancy is planned then it's pretty irresponsible to have children at all if you can't afford to raise them yourself imo.

dvpower · 08-08-2011 12:29PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

It just says we'll reach our max global population(15.1 billion) in the latter half of this century. Then there's a documentary to watch.

Ah right. What we need so is to get some of the young people from the high population growth areas to come and live here.

Incentivise people to have kids or more immigration. That looks like the menu. Tough choice for some of the AH regulars.

thebigbiffo · 08-08-2011 12:31PM

My wife and I both work and earn good salaries. However - because of the government backed development policy (our large mortgage), our own naive decisions and the banks' willingness to throw money at us, our reduction in take home pay due to cuts to bonuses and the like, the increase in the cost of essential services, the outrageous cost of childcare and the governments seeming unwillingness to address that problem and the general high cost of living in this country the childrens allowance is an essential part of our monthly budget.

If we were means tested or it was taken away at the higher tax band - as per the UK - although none of us would starve, it would mean a very large impact on our lifestyle.

I am very protective of child benefit because the way I see it it's the ONLY concession I get from the Gov. My wife and I have never drawn the dole or taken any other form of benefit from the governent and have paid tax constantly for over 13 years now - giving me back a little to ensure as good standard of living as possible for our children is hardly the worst of the country's money worries.

Amirani · 08-08-2011 12:50PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I am very protective of child benefit because the way I see it it's the ONLY concession I get from the Gov. My wife and I have never drawn the dole or taken any other form of benefit from the governent and have paid tax constantly for over 13 years now - giving me back a little to ensure as good standard of living as possible for our children is hardly the worst of the country's money worries.

Never use hospitals, schools or call the police no?

thebigbiffo · 08-08-2011 12:52PM

niallsparky wrote: »

Never use hospitals, schools or call the police no?

eh...i pay my taxes for the use of those services

(unlike a very large section of society too may I add - at both end of the rich/poor divide).

what I'm talking about here is actual monetary help.

3DataModem · 08-08-2011 01:01PM

Twins get 3 payments, triplets get 6 payments.

Awesome, eh?

dvpower · 08-08-2011 01:43PM

3DataModem wrote: »

Twins get 3 payments, triplets get 6 payments.

Awesome, eh?

Source?

Citizens Info wrote:

Multiple births
The rate of child benefit paid for twins will be 1.5 times the appropriate monthly rate for each child.
The rate for the 1st and 2nd child is €140.00 per month, €167.00 for the 3rd child and €177.00 for the 4th and subsequent children.

Pherekydes · 08-08-2011 02:55PM

dvpower wrote: »

Source?

Child Benefit is paid at one and a half times the appropriate monthly rate for twins, and at double the appropriate monthly rate for triplets and other multiple births.

So twins: two times one and a half equals three.

Triplets: three times two equals six.

:pac:

dvpower · 08-08-2011 03:08PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

So twins: two times one and a half equals three.

Triplets: three times two equals six.

:pac:

Ah. I misread that.
That's pretty shocking. I can imagine that there are some particulary difficult times for parent of triplets, but to get double payments for the entire duration of the benefit is mad.

Amirani · 08-08-2011 03:17PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

eh...i pay my taxes for the use of those services (unlike a very large section of society too may I add - at both end of the rich/poor divide).

what I'm talking about here is actual monetary help.

That's what you pay taxes for? Why do you expect anything else back from the Government?

Children's Allowance should be scrapped and replaced with an expanded clothing and footwear allowance. Too many people I know have it paid directly into a savings account that is untouched. Too many others spend it down in the pub. The system is a waste of money.

Wertz · 08-08-2011 03:28PM

Don't have kids, but solution seems obvious: scrap current one size fits all system...
Then;

Those getting a social welfare payment get a supplementary amount for each child up to a set amount of kids (this happens already, increase it by an equal amount to what the cutting of the monthly payment amounts to), maybe only apply the payment every 4 weeks if that makes it easier for parent(s).

Those in taxable employment get (a more susbstantial) extra credit applied to their tax credit for each child (with no upper limit to the amount of children) Such a credit should be universal regardless of level of income and amount to an equal sum as to what any recipient would loose over the year. Added bonus of encouraging people in to work (when it's available)

Proof of having child dependents in either case should be easier to prove through birth register and a "for life" PPS number than costly means tests methods (which can be duped) and collecting taxes on payments already made from the tax pool.
Probably more to it than what I've outlined, but the willy nilly handing over of cold cash to those that may or may not need it can't continue in it's current guise...
Savings made could perhaps be put toward a proper means of state assisted childcare for working parents.

I have no wish to inflict more hardship on hard pressed middle income parents who seem to rely most on the allowance but it's going to face cuts regardless and any changes should be ultimately fair to as many as possible.

thebigbiffo · 08-08-2011 03:43PM

niallsparky wrote: »

That's what you pay taxes for? Why do you expect anything else back from the Government?

Children's Allowance should be scrapped and replaced with an expanded clothing and footwear allowance. Too many people I know have it paid directly into a savings account that is untouched. Too many others spend it down in the pub. The system is a waste of money.

I'll answer your questions: 1st of all - yes. simples. it's what everyone pays tax for.

2nd: i expect something back because i put so much in. my family pay around 40k per year in taxes and we're trying the raise the next generation of citizens who'll have the education and drive to pay their bit back to this country too. expecting less than 3k of that back is not imo asking too much.

i couldn't give a fiddlers about your 'friends' - they are not me and for all you know they do not reflect the general recipient of the allowance.

in short - there's plenty of expensive allowance's in this country, not least of which is our very generous social welfare system which in my opinion disincentivizes a large proportion of people from working . scrapping a childrens allowance just once again squeezes the middle classes who pay the vast majority of prsi in this country anyway. so go after someone else for a change - either the 'poor' or the rich.

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 04:03PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I'll answer your questions: 1st of all - yes. simples. it's what everyone pays tax for.

2nd: i expect something back because i put so much in. my family pay around 40k per year in taxes and we're trying the raise the next generation of citizens who'll have the education and drive to pay their bit back to this country too. expecting less than 3k of that back is not imo asking too much.

i couldn't give a fiddlers about your 'friends' - they are not me and for all you know they do not reflect the general recipient of the allowance.

in short - there's plenty of expensive allowance's in this country, not least of which is our very generous social welfare system which in my opinion disincentivizes a large proportion of people from working . scrapping a childrens allowance just once again squeezes the middle classes who pay the vast majority of prsi in this country anyway. so go after someone else for a change - either the 'poor' or the rich.

Who will it shift onto then?

The single unmarried childless middle income earner like me and many others?

Your complaining about having to pay for the SW "lifestyle" choice.

I presume that's what you mean by the "not least of which is our very generous social welfare system which in my opinion disincentivizes a large proportion of people from working".

It's the exact same thing... I'll take a hit for your lifestyle choice....

thebigbiffo · 08-08-2011 04:15PM

wild_cat wrote: »

Who will it shift onto then?

The single unmarried childless middle income earner like me and many others?

Your complaining about having to pay for the SW "lifestyle" choice.

I presume that's what you mean by the "not least of which is our very generous social welfare system which in my opinion disincentivizes a large proportion of people from working".

It's the exact same thing... I'll take a hit for your lifestyle choice....

you have it pretty accurate but are missing the point.

it's the middle classes who pay for your lifestyle and continue to be pressed so you dont have to...get it? i'm saying enough - i work for my living and yours - it's about time i was left the f'uck alone and someone elses lifestyle was effected. unfortunately, in this case, that is you.

edit: sorry, read your post wrong...thought you said you were...never mind. but my point is pretty much the same - there's plenty of people who are not not working/not paying tax at all who should take the hit first.

dvpower · 08-08-2011 04:19PM

wild_cat wrote: »

It's the exact same thing... I'll take a hit for your lifestyle choice....

Do you object to the other subsidies that the state provide for children (like the free education service) or is it just the cash payments?

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 04:23PM

dvpower wrote: »

Do you object to the other subsidies that the state provide for children (like the free education service) or is it just the cash payments?

Nope just the cash payment.

wild_cat · 08-08-2011 04:25PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

you have it pretty accurate but are missing the point.

it's the middle classes who pay for your lifestyle and continue to be pressed so you dont have to...get it? i'm saying enough - i work for my living and yours - it's about time i was left the f'uck alone and someone elses lifestyle was effected. unfortunately, in this case, that is you.

edit: sorry, read your post wrong...thought you said you were...never mind. but my point is pretty much the same - there's plenty of people who are not not working/not paying tax at all who should take the hit first.

If I was on the dole it'd be pretty stupid of me to think I could even make an argument against you.

thebigbiffo · 08-08-2011 04:27PM

wild_cat wrote: »

Nope just the cash payment.

i have a strong suspicion that if you had kids you wouldn't object at all.

Issue of child benefit

Comments