Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Issue of child benefit

13

Comments

  • #62
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


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

    Are you going to roll it out...

    "your not a parent so you wouldn't understand".


    I'm never going to be a parent either. :)


  • #63
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Nope just the cash payment.
    So if the governement were to remove the CHB and put the money into other children's services like childcare, would that be acceptable?


  • #64
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    dvpower wrote: »
    So if the governement were to remove the CHB and put the money into other children's services like childcare, would that be acceptable?

    Yes. Most definitely. More people would have a chance to get back to work. Jobs would be created for people who have done child care studies etc, people would have a chance to get back into education as they wouldn't have to worry about child care costs.


  • #65
    thebigbiffo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭thebigbiffo


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Are you going to roll it out...

    "your not a parent so you wouldn't understand".


    I'm never going to be a parent either. :)

    nah that doesn't apply here - money is tangible. i'm sure you'd understand what being deprived of 240 a month felt like :)


  • #66
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Yes. Most definitely.
    So its not about the money. Its just about who controls the money.
    Do you think the governement would get better value out of its spending on children's services than parents do?

    btw, I'd love if the govt were to fund childcare rather than pay me CHB - my CHB covers about a fifth of my childcare costs.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    thebigbiffo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭thebigbiffo


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Yes. Most definitely. More people would have a chance to get back to work. Jobs would be created for people who have done child care studies etc, people would have a chance to get back into education as they wouldn't have to worry about child care costs.

    the money saved on the children allowance wouldn't even come close to providing free child care.


  • #68
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Jobs would be created for people who have done child care studies etc, people would have a chance to get back into education as they wouldn't have to worry about child care costs.

    What do you think people do with their CHB?
    They pay for private childcare (and have an incentive to get a good deal that the state wouldn't have to anything like the same extent). They buy food and clothing, school books etc...

    If the government wanted to fund childcare they'ed have to massively increase theit budget - the current rate of CHB is a drop in the ocean.


  • #69
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    dvpower wrote: »
    What do you think people do with their CHB?
    They pay for private childcare (and have an incentive to get a good deal that the state wouldn't have to anything like the same extent). They buy food and clothing, school books etc...

    If the government wanted to fund childcare they'ed have to massively increase theit budget - the current rate of CHB is a drop in the ocean.

    Well we'd probably have less children for a start. If people knew they weren't going to be directly bank rolled for having them. So the amount of children needing childcare etc would drop. Therefore it'd probably be the same as now.

    I still think it is wrong to have a child you can't afford to buy school books for, cloth etc out of your own pocket. Where's the self responsibility in that?

    But I do think the child care is a good idea. It would create employment in the wider community, get people retrained etc so they could then go into private child minding and thus afford the clothes, books themselves. Plus you'd have people that would go private anyway... therefore the cost of minding their children is take out of the loop already.


  • #70
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    Although I appreciate that there are people getting it who don't really need it and obviously we don't have the money, I don't understand why it just stops at 18. I'm going to be in full time education for the next 5 or 6 years, I can't get a job anymore than I could last year because I spend all my time studying and I have huge registration and books to pay for come next September, yet I can't apply for anything.


  • #71
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Well we'd probably have less children for a start. If people knew they weren't going to be directly bank rolled for having them. So the amount of children needing childcare etc would drop. Therefore it'd probably be the same as now.
    I think you've got it the wrong way around. If there was free childcare, lots of people would have more children.
    The high cost of childcare at the moment disincentivises most couples on normal incomes from having any more than one or two kids.
    wild_cat wrote: »
    I still think it is wrong to have a child you can't afford to buy school books for, cloth etc out of your own pocket. Where's the self responsibility in that?
    If the government were paying for childcare there would hardly be any problem with affording school books, clothes etc.
    But you already agree with the government funding the education service - if they didn't do this, hardly anyone would be able to afford to have kids.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Plus you'd have people that would go private anyway... therefore the cost of minding their children is take out of the loop already.
    You want the state to get directly involved in the childcare business. :(

    Besides, it costs between 8-10k a year for childcare (that's nearly €20k before tax per child). Only the very rich would choose not to avail of free childcare.


  • #73
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    dvpower wrote: »
    You want the state to get directly involved in the childcare business. :(

    Besides, it costs between 8-10k a year for childcare (that's nearly €20k before tax per child). Only the very rich would choose not to avail of free childcare.

    That's not my fault though is it?

    You still want me to bank roll you having children at the end of the day. I'm trying to meet you half way here. But you obviously don't understand that the money isn't in the country. People make the decision to have children they can't afford.

    It shouldn't be my problem.

    I don't have a cat because I know that brings responsibility and a cost. No point in arguing with you.

    It shouldn't be up to the childless to wage those who breed.


  • #74
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »
    That's not my fault though is it?

    You still want me to bank roll you having children at the end of the day. I'm trying to meet you half way here. But you obviously don't understand that the money isn't in the country. People make the decision to have children they can't afford.

    It shouldn't be my problem.

    I don't have a cat because I know that brings responsibility and a cost. No point in arguing with you.

    But you've already said that its not about the money. You want the government to fund state childcare services, which by any reckoning would be vastly more expensive than the current cash payment CHB system.

    By the way, I think the government should reduce the amount they spend on CHB.
    I'm not convinced that a means test would work, because a) it would be very expensive and b) there is still an appetite in the country for the state to pay CHB to middle income earners, so the savings would be small.
    Simply scrapping it is out of the question. There are too many people (read:voters) who do rely on it and would suffer (and pass on that suffering at the ballot box) without it.

    I'd favour gradual reductions accross the board over the next, say, five years, to bring it into line with what other European states pay. This would be in return for the state funding the early childcare year and other stuff like school books, reducing VAT on baby products etc..


  • #75
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wild_cat wrote: »

    I don't have a cat because I know that brings responsibility and a cost. No point in arguing with you.
    Cats do not grow up and pay tax.
    No point in arguing like that.


  • #76
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Ireland just need to fupping decide if it wants a Scandinavian style welfare state where the government pays for everything cradle to grave and the effective tax rate is 50-60%, or it wants to be a low-tax, low service economy. The desire to have it both ways - which is, frankly, greedy and short-sighted - is a big part of the reason why the country is broke today.

    Given the fact that pretty much every successive government since independence has been run by economic illiterates (with few notable exceptions), in the long term, the country would probably be better off with a bare-bones government that left more money in the hands of regular people who would presumably make better decisions about what to do with it than paying people six figures to lead useless quangos and bailing out Galway tent gombeens. I can't imagine that the population would EVER trust an Irish government with the kinds of tax revenues and service provision that the Swedes and Danes think are perfectly normal.


  • #77
    irish_eyes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭irish_eyes


    cool i'm going to have fifteen kids and live off the child benefit, whats that 15 x 150e, cool!


  • #78
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    wild_cat wrote: »
    I still think it is wrong to have a child you can't afford to buy school books for, cloth etc out of your own pocket. Where's the self responsibility in that?

    Because all pregnancies are planned and the act of procreating somehow bestows on one twenty years of complete immunity from any unexpected deterioration in their financial circumstances ?


  • #79
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Because the act of procreating somehow bestows on one twenty years of complete immunity from any unexpected deterioration in their financial circumstances ?

    But an 'unexpected deterioration' is not the same thing as a universal benefit.

    Aside from some keyboard warriors, I think few would begrudge government assistance to someone who has lost their job or who cannot work due to illness. But there are plenty of people who have never worked, and who feel entitled to their lifestyle being subsidized. And that lifestyle includes having kids that they cannot afford.


  • #80
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    irish_eyes wrote: »
    cool i'm going to have fifteen kids and live off the child benefit, whats that 15 x 150e, cool!
    Why do I get the feeling that someone is still in receipt of child benefit for you?


  • #81
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    3DataModem wrote: »
    Twins get 3 payments, triplets get 6 payments.

    Awesome, eh?

    Apparently you also get bonus payments when your multiples start primary and secondary school too...


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Tonto86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Tonto86


    mikemac wrote: »
    Means testing isn't the simple solution, it involves getting more staff in to administer it and there are already huge backlogs in the Department of Social Protection and while they may be transfers there is also a recruitment freeze

    Easy to call for means testing but they may be a better way of doing it.
    I don't know exactly the best way though

    From my experience the staff in these offices are useless. I've my whole case file lost.... twice. Nobody answers the phone (they're now outsourcing their phone answering)

    Maybe if we worked on making them more efficient we wouldn't need to hire more staff


  • #83
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Tonto86 wrote: »
    From my experience the staff in these offices are useless. I've my whole case file lost.... twice. Nobody answers the phone (they're now outsourcing their phone answering)

    Maybe if we worked on making them more efficient we wouldn't need to hire more staff

    Why wouldn't it just go through the tax system? You file, you claim a certain income and number of kids, and that's the credit you get for the year. It's pretty straightforward actually.


  • #84
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Why wouldn't it just go through the tax system? You file, you claim a certain income and number of kids, and that's the credit you get for the year. It's pretty straightforward actually.
    Except if you have no earnings or your earnings are under the tax threshold.


  • #85
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    dvpower wrote: »
    Except if you have no earnings or your earnings are under the tax threshold.

    Ok, I'm not familiar with the Irish tax system...in the US, you still have to file every year...well, technically you don't if you don't owe, but the tax system is used to make transfers to working poor families. So, under the Earned Income Tax Credit program, you go to the IRS website and enter your income and the number of kids you have (and a few other things), and it spits back your credit. So for a two-parent household with an income of $18,000 and two kids, they would get am EITC back of around $5,000.

    This way, there is no extra staff or anything like that - it is means-tested but purely mechanical, and it resets annually when you file your taxes.


  • #86
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Children's allowance/benefit was a payment normally collected by Mothers and it saved many Mothers and thus kids from utter destitution because their Husbands/Fathers were piss heads or gamblers or just plain evil.


  • #87
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Children's allowance/benefit was a payment normally collected by Mothers and it saved many Mothers and thus kids from utter destitution because their Husbands/Fathers were piss heads or gamblers or just plain evil.

    It is based on some pretty outdated (albeit well intentioned) assumptions though.

    Its high time it was changed so that it goes to the lowest earner.


  • #88
    moniga
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭moniga


    The way I see it child benefit is given at the wrong time. Babies,toddlers and primary school children are not expensive!:) Teenagers and funding college are! Big time. Yet child benefit ends when kids are 18. I have 2 children in college this year and between registration fees of nearly 4,000 and accomadation expenses I really could do with that extra money! Do not get grants etc. but luckily have 2 hardworking girls who will get a great education child benefit or no child benefit!


  • #89
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    moniga wrote: »
    The way I see it child benefit is given at the wrong time. Babies,toddlers and primary school children are not expensive!:) Teenagers and funding college are!

    There is this mad thing called "saving" you may have heard of ?


  • #90
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭up for anything


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Children's allowance/benefit was a payment normally collected by Mothers and it saved many Mothers and thus kids from utter destitution because their Husbands/Fathers were piss heads or gamblers or just plain evil.
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    It is based on some pretty outdated (albeit well intentioned) assumptions though.

    Its high time it was changed so that it goes to the lowest earner.

    You'd be surprised. In my time I have known some wives of high earners living on a housekeeping allowance that has to be supplemented by child benefit. Their housekeeping wouldn't have been raised to make up for the loss of child benefit either.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    moniga
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭moniga


    Have indeed! Passed this good habit on to all my children. Does not be long going on college fees,accomadation and living expenses though!


Advertisement
Advertisement