He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

Amirani · 21-11-2011 08:08PM

Galtee wrote: »

He's ignorant to the fact that people need it and hence scrapping it altogther and making people go through 6mths of paperwork to get it back isn't a viable solution.

Just think about this for a sec; lets say the top half of income earners stop getting children's allowance. This by definition can let the bottom half (more needy) to have their children's allowance double. Does this not sound like a fairer solution?

Alternatively, you can scrap children's allowance and use it in other ways that guarantee it fulfills its purpose (provide for the child). You can do this by providing free school books, free school uniforms, free lunches at school to lower income families etc. All of these things reduce the burden on parents who have children and ensures that the money isn't spent down the pub as it is in a lot of cases at the moment.

Saila · 21-11-2011 08:08PM

niallsparky wrote: »

The OP didn't express an opinion so it's hardly a relevant question to be asking?

he did its all there in the title

OP wrote:

He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

sounds like he agrees with it

For Forks Sake · 21-11-2011 08:08PM

Storminateacup wrote: »

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have them.

Oh here we go... *lights pipe*

hondasam · 21-11-2011 08:08PM

Saila wrote: »

thats the thing though it costs time and resources and money to do this, probably as much as they end up saving too!

like the man says take it away and make it like a community welfare allowance like payment, you have to show why you need it.

I would be in favour of anything that meant only the people who need it get it.
I do think the payments per child are to high here, could it be a payment per family instead for eg?

Abi · 21-11-2011 08:09PM

hondasam wrote: »

They have to means test it and stop wealthy people getting it.

This, pure and simple.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 21-11-2011 08:10PM

He's just saying it to promote his ****ing airline. If people didn't act so outraged at everything he said he wouldn't say anything.

hondasam · 21-11-2011 08:11PM

Storminateacup wrote: »

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have them.

I kinda agree tbh.

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Oh here we go... *lights pipe*

Storm has a point, it's parents responsibility to look after their children.

For Forks Sake · 21-11-2011 08:11PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

The only way you get childrens allowance is if you apply for it. Why are the rich putting their claims in if they say they don't need it?

Don't bother applying if you don't want it.

When you register the childs birth with the state (legal requirement) the details automatically go to the Dept of Social Protection who issue the child with a PPS number and start a claim for Childrens Allowance. Parents don't apply for it, it's automatically issued.

Only went through the process 6 weeks ago when my daughter was born. And I would be in favour of means testing, for the record.

hondasam · 21-11-2011 08:13PM

For Forks Sake wrote: »

When you register the childs birth with the state (legal requirement) the details automatically go to the Dept of Social Protection who issue the child with a PPS number and start a claim for Childrens Allowance.

Only went through the process 6 weeks ago when my daughter was born.

you saying the payments come automatically ? no need to apply ?

gerryo777 · 21-11-2011 08:13PM

Braelyn Bewildered Timekeeper wrote: »

He's just saying it to promote his ****ing airline. If people didn't act so outraged at everything he said he wouldn't say anything.

Like O'leary needs to promote his airline :rolleyes:
He should be running the country!!

tayto lover · 21-11-2011 08:13PM

Did O'Leary return his Childrens Allowance to the state I wonder, but knowing that he charges to use the toilets on his planes I doubt it.
Its very easy to plan a diet just after you have eaten.

xsiborg · 21-11-2011 08:14PM

i have a child myself (before anyone jumps in to ask do i have children!) and it was myself and my wife's choice to bring into the world, i wouldn't expect the state or anyone else to pay for me or my lifestyle choices whether that be to have one child or ten.

so the government decides to give us €140 a month for our child, but takes an extra €40 a week off us in taxes? it doesnt take a math genius to work out that i'd sooner have the government scrap this child allowance payment and then they wouldn't have to take extra off us in taxes to pay for child allowance for everyone elses kids! i was going to say "paying for others lifestyle choices that they CHOOSE not to put something on the end of it!", but it sounded too much like jeremy kyle! :pac:

efb · 21-11-2011 08:15PM

He doesn't charge- that was free marketing

For Forks Sake · 21-11-2011 08:15PM

hondasam wrote: »

you saying the payments come automatically ? no need to apply ?

A form is sent out to the mother to confirm all details are correct and to confirm method of payment. That's it done.

Amirani · 21-11-2011 08:15PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Did O'Leary return his Childrens Allowance to the state I wonder, but knowing that he charges to use the toilets on his planes I doubt it.
Its very easy to plan a diet just after you have eaten.

How would you suggest someone goes about returning their Children's Allowance to the State. To whom should they address their cheque?

Bluefox21 · 21-11-2011 08:15PM

Abi wrote: »

Oh I read it alright, if you don't understand my issue with it, it's not my fucking problem.

Who the fuck is he to be shouting about this shit?

Does he think he's coming up with some new radical idea about cutting CB for the better off? *slow clap* More beneficial to families my arse. Re-naming so as to leave them even further out of pocket if you ask me.

Did he hand back all the child benefit his family didn't need? I seriously doubt it. The hypocrisy is just delicious.

In fairness to the man, he is probably the best person in the world for achieving cost effective performance. His job is to run a low cost airline which he does extremely well. I would seriously consider any suggestions he has to reform our current systems which imo are a joke.

The best argument against his suggestions (not from you admittedly) are that the government is incapable of implementing a more effective proposal. This speaks volumes.

Why should he hand back his child benefit and what difference would it make? The reality is that a sizable proportion of families who receive CB are not dependent on it and it could be put to better use. Fair play to the man for bringing the issue into the public eye.

Abi · 21-11-2011 08:15PM

For Forks Sake wrote: »

When you register the childs birth with the state (legal requirement) the details automatically go to the Dept of Social Protection who issue the child with a PPS number and start a claim for Childrens Allowance. Parents don't apply for it, it's automatically issued.

Only went through the process 6 weeks ago when my daughter was born. And I would be in favour of means testing, for the record.

My understanding of it is that the parents must send a copy of the childs birth cert to childrens allowance before the payments start. Is this still not the case?

Temptamperu · 21-11-2011 08:16PM

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

You don't know how much it costs to raise a child, do you?

You know how much it costs to run a mercedes? Thats why I dont have one. Some people should think like this before having kids.
Cant afford them? dont have them. Simple really.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 21-11-2011 08:17PM

gerryo777 wrote: »

Like O'leary needs to promote his airline :rolleyes:
He should be running the country!!

Of course he needs to promote his airline and it's new routes. Everyone knows you can fly to London for a tenner but they didn't know about the new routes from Knock, until he mentioned a touchy subject to make the headlines. Jack. Pot.

For Forks Sake · 21-11-2011 08:18PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Did O'Leary return his Childrens Allowance to the state I wonder, but knowing that he charges to use the toilets on his planes I doubt it.

How the bloody hell do you return money to the state? Stick it in an envelope marked "Returns Section, The Government, Dublin 2" and toss it in the nearest postbox??

Also the charging for toilets was a joke survey they ran on the website which, in typical Ryanair fashion, got lots of people hysterical over something they had no intention of implementing, and the Ryanair name all over the media for a week, which was their intention

Run_to_da_hills · 21-11-2011 08:20PM

O'Leary should also confine those with screaming kids to the rear of his planes while he is at it.

tayto lover · 21-11-2011 08:20PM

niallsparky wrote: »

How would you suggest someone goes about returning their Children's Allowance to the State. To whom should they address their cheque?

I'm sure the Dept. of Finance would take it from him if he addresses it to them and attaches a little note containing his name and address. After they get up of the floor of course.

For Forks Sake · 21-11-2011 08:21PM

Abi wrote: »

My understanding of it is that the parents must send a copy of the childs birth cert to childrens allowance before the payments start. Is this still not the case?

In our case, there was an office on the maternity ward of the hospital (Mullingar) to which you could register the birth on the spot without having to go to the SW office. The person handling the registration then took a copy of the cert as soon as she's done the formalities and sent it on to the relevant SW section.

Micky Dolenz · 21-11-2011 08:21PM

It's the most stupid of allowances. It should come in the form of a tax credit.

Bluefox21 · 21-11-2011 08:21PM

Braelyn Bewildered Timekeeper wrote: »

Of course he needs to promote his airline and it's new routes. Everyone knows you can fly to London for a tenner but they didn't know about the new routes from Knock, until he mentioned a touchy subject to make the headlines. Jack. Pot.

Which is also going to ensure the stability of 500 jobs in the Knock region. Don't understand all the hatred towards Ryanair and O'Leary. Without him we'd all be paying extortionate prices with Aer Lingus.

Snickers Man · 21-11-2011 08:21PM

Storminateacup wrote: »

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have them.

This is the pisstake forum right? We don't have to take any of these arguments seriously, OK?

Good. Well then Stormforce in a teacup, I take it you have no ambition to live into old age where you will have to rely on a younger generation to take care of you in your frail dotage.

I hope you have put aside sufficient funds for your pension, which in your case will be enough to purchase a simple cyanide capsule to end it all once you get to 65 or whatever the retirement age will be when you reach it and just put yourself out of your misery.

"Ah wait", I hear you say. "I will have made provision for my retirement. I have invested wisely and accummulated assets which will see me through my usual level of Bacchanalian debauchery until such time as I shuffle off this mortal coil!"

To which I say "Bollox!" Whatever investment you have made for your retirement (Pension fund, property speculation, Banking deposit) is merely a downpayment on the industry and productivity of a future generation. A generation that will be spawned, nurtured and educated at least to a point by society in general. Of course the bulk of the burden will fall on their parents. That is only right and proper. But it is utterly unfair to expect the young people whose work will feed and clothe you in your decrepitude to be raised without a smidgeon of support from yourself.

That's the simple case for child benefit, or free or subsidised education or free or subsidised health care in a nutshell.

Now this bit about: "Rich bastards like Micko don't need it so cut it for everyone."

On the face of it means testing seems only fair. But in practice, such means testing only ends up with costs accelerating and little real benefit to those who need it.

Even in America, the land where there is no free lunch, ever, many died in the wool capitalists provided some services for free (eg local telephone calls) because it would cost more to calculate the bill than it would have done to make the damn thing free.

Of course civil servants love means testing; more jobs for the boys. But I would rather have the likes of Mick O'Leary get a few extra quid that he doesn't need than see some middle income family with four kids suddenly fall outside the support net.

For Forks Sake · 21-11-2011 08:22PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

O'Leary should also confine those with screaming kids to the rear of his planes while he is at it.

There should be plenty of room in the hold to confine them seeing as he sure as hell doesn't want to put any luggage in there

Abi · 21-11-2011 08:22PM

Bluefox21 wrote: »

In fairness to the man, he is probably the best person in the world for achieving cost effective performance. His job is to run a low cost airline which he does extremely well. I would seriously consider any suggestions he has to reform our current systems which imo are a joke.

I agree it is. People like him should never have been receiving child benefit in the first place. Nobody is denying the better off shouldn't be in receipt of this payment.

The best argument against his suggestions (not from you admittedly) are that the government is incapable of implementing a more effective proposal. This speaks volumes.

Why should he hand back his child benefit and what difference would it make? The reality is that a sizable proportion of families who receive CB are not dependent on it and it could be put to better use. Fair play to the man for bringing the issue into the public eye.

Why didn't he suggest means capping beyond a certain level? No he decided some controversy to get publicity was the way forward, and in turn angering those less well off in the process.

daltonmd · 21-11-2011 08:26PM

"I think you scrap it for everybody...You need to channel children's allowance (to those who need it) through income support schemes, where you're trying to channel money to those on very low incomes," he said.

Give to those who need it and take it from those who don't.

Nothing wrong with that...

hondasam · 21-11-2011 08:27PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is the pisstake forum right? We don't have to take any of these arguments seriously, OK?

Good. Well then Stormforce in a teacup, I take it you have no ambition to live into old age where you will have to rely on a younger generation to take care of you in your frail dotage.

I hope you have put aside sufficient funds for your pension, which in your case will be enough to purchase a simple cyanide capsule to end it all once you get to 65 or whatever the retirement age will be when you reach it and just put yourself out of your misery.

"Ah wait", I hear you say. "I will have made provision for my retirement. I have invested wisely and accummulated assets which will see me through my usual level of Bacchanalian debauchery until such time as I shuffle off this mortal coil!"

To which I say "Bollox!" Whatever investment you have made for your retirement (Pension fund, property speculation, Banking deposit) is merely a downpayment on the industry and productivity of a future generation. A generation that will be spawned, nurtured and educated at least to a point by society in general. Of course the bulk of the burden will fall on their parents. That is only right and proper. But it is utterly unfair to expect the young people whose work will feed and clothe you in your decrepitude to be raised without a smidgeon of support from yourself.

That's the simple case for child benefit, or free or subsidised education or free or subsidised health care in a nutshell.

Now this bit about: "Rich bastards like Micko don't need it so cut it for everyone."

On the face of it means testing seems only fair. But in practice, such means testing only ends up with costs accelerating and little real benefit to those who need it.

Even in America, the land where there is no free lunch, ever, many died in the wool capitalists provided some services for free (eg local telephone calls) because it would cost more to calculate the bill than it would have done to make the damn thing free.

Of course civil servants love means testing; more jobs for the boys. But I would rather have the likes of Mick O'Leary get a few extra quid that he doesn't need than see some middle income family with four kids suddenly fall outside the support net.

WTF?
I hope that makes sense to you because I understand none of what you are going on about.

He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

Comments