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

Helix · 22-11-2011 03:39PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Who decides how much income you need to have before you get to have a kid?

a responsible adult with a bit of cop on should be able to manage just fine

Galtee · 22-11-2011 03:48PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

Huh? I don't get your logic? Where are you coming from with this? Why would abolishing child benefit mean everyone paying the one tax rate?

What tax rate would you propose? I might fair better off myself in the long run, so maybe! :-)

seanmc1980 wrote: »

why are you comparing social welfare payments with tax credits? i don't understand what your trying to convey?
soical welfare spend is taotally sepreate to the states revenue generating system?

Firstly, the tax credit is something for free in its simplest terms and hence the same principle applies to abolishing the child benefit. Why should you automatically be entitled to child benefit? Well why should you automatically be entitled to a tax credit? It's part of the system we live within.

Secondly, In order to have a lower tax bracket you need to have a higher one so in effect the higher tax payers are subsidising the lower tax payers if you want to be pedantic about it. If there were no higher tax earners then the tax rate would have to be raised for all to ensure that exchequer targets are met.

My name is URL · 22-11-2011 03:54PM

Helix wrote: »

a responsible adult with a bit of cop on should be able to manage just fine

So those who are irresponsible and have a kid should just be allowed to fall by the wayside, and the kid face a life of hardship because of its parents? I'm no clairvoyant but I can imagine that leading to a lot more problems in future, and ultimately at a greater social cost than giving them some help when they need it.

Of course in an idealistic utopia; where everything is picture perfect and fits your world view, only responsible adults would ever have kids. But there's right and wrong, and good and bad; and somewhere in between there is life as it is; which is rarely so black and white.

Helix · 22-11-2011 04:00PM

My name is URL wrote: »

So those who are irresponsible and have a kid should just be allowed to fall by the wayside, and the kid face a life of hardship because of its parents?.

no, the kid should be taken from them and put into suitable foster care

if you cant afford to have children, which means if you are really relying on the children's welfare to pay for them, then you're selfish and irresponsible if you have kids

Wompa1 · 22-11-2011 04:01PM

Galtee wrote: »

Firstly, the tax credit is something for free in its simplest terms and hence the same principle applies to abolishing the child benefit. Why should you automatically be entitled to child benefit? Well why should you automatically be entitled to a tax credit? It's part of the system we live within.

Secondly, In order to have a lower tax bracket you need to have a higher one so in effect the higher tax payers are subsidising the lower tax payers if you want to be pedantic about it. If there were no higher tax earners then the tax rate would have to be raised for all to ensure that exchequer targets are met.

I might be wrong about this but isn't Tax Credits based on what you are making and is weighted on assumptions i.e. You gave this much in tax, so we will credit you this much because we should make interest on what we are taking off you. So your money should be generating your own tax credits? Like social security in the States that leads to your own state pension...Essentially kicking the can down the road. So we'll have to pay you blah blah in the event of...we won't worry about that until it happens though and then we'll be in the situation we are all in right now. Can't afford to support the current system.

Wouldn't say that's free in any sense. I'd gladly allow them to do away with Tax Credits if I can have more take home pay, I'd just invest the take home pay myself and incur my own risk. Rather than have the politicians losing my money anyway and then charging me more afterwards.

I still don't see how it fits into this discussion though....

Sparkyd2002 · 22-11-2011 04:04PM

Galtee wrote: »

Firstly, the tax credit is something for free in its simplest terms and hence the same principle applies to abolishing the child benefit. Why should you automatically be entitled to child benefit? Well why should you automatically be entitled to a tax credit? It's part of the system we live within.

Secondly, In order to have a lower tax bracket you need to have a higher one so in effect the higher tax payers are subsidising the lower tax payers if you want to be pedantic about it. If there were no higher tax earners then the tax rate would have to be raised for all to ensure that exchequer targets are met.

LOL you are entitled to a tax credit because you are employable and have a job i.e you give something back to the economy. I have 2 children and a decent job and im damned if i think i deserve an allowance just because i chose to have children. Just because our system pays you to have children in this country doesn't mean its correct. The system has to change. You cant just say to everyone "here i will give you money to have kids". yes those on lower incomes or in particular those who encounter hard time sneed help but this cant just be a cheque made payable to all from Michael O leary down.

Hells Belle · 22-11-2011 04:11PM

Helix wrote: »

no, the kid should be taken from them and put into suitable foster care

if you cant afford to have children, which means if you are really relying on the children's welfare to pay for them, then you're selfish and irresponsible if you have kids

Foster carers still get childrens allowance. :rolleyes:

Foster carers also get paid €312 per week per child (which they totally deserve, hats off guys).

So you've torn apart families and you've saved us how much with this idea? Cruelty is a horrible trait.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 04:11PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

I might be wrong about this but isn't Tax Credits based on what you are making and is weighted on assumptions i.e. You gave this much in tax, so we will credit you this much because we should make interest on what we are taking off you. So your money should be generating your own tax credits? Like social security in the States that leads to your own state pension...Essentially kicking the can down the road. So we'll have to pay you blah blah in the event of...we won't worry about that until it happens though and then we'll be in the situation we are all in right now. Can't afford to support the current system.

Wouldn't say that's free in any sense. I'd gladly allow them to do away with Tax Credits if I can have more take home pay, I'd just invest the take home pay myself and incur my own risk. Rather than have the politicians losing my money anyway and then charging me more afterwards.

I still don't see how it fits into this discussion though....

Tax credits are not weighted based on what you're paying.
And, the principle is the same, the general concensus in here is that cb should be taken away because it's given for free and I'm making the comparison that tax credits are given for free and that noone is moaning about that. Instead people prefer to blindly latch onto a comment made by someone who could just as easily have said that CB should be doubled if if suited him than to actually think about what was said and how it fits into the great scheme of things.

My name is URL · 22-11-2011 04:13PM

Helix wrote: »

no, the kid should be taken from them and put into suitable foster care

if you cant afford to have children, which means if you are really relying on the children's welfare to pay for them, then you're selfish and irresponsible if you have kids

Really? And what of the parents? Do you think that people would simply accept such extreme intervention from the state? I suppose we could just lock them up if they don't accept our terms, right?

And again, who decides what is an appropriate income to have before you are permitted to have kids?

If somebody relies on the children's allowance to help them raise a child they are irresponsible parents? Get real ffs. Wealth is far from the only indicator of responsibility.. and not nearly the most important.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 04:13PM

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

LOL you are entitled to a tax credit because you are employable and have a job i.e you give something back to the economy. I have 2 children and a decent job and im damned if i think i deserve an allowance just because i chose to have children. Just because our system pays you to have children in this country doesn't mean its correct. The system has to change. You cant just say to everyone "here i will give you money to have kids". yes those on lower incomes or in particular those who encounter hard time sneed help but this cant just be a cheque made payable to all from Michael O leary down.

And, in the system you live in you are entitled to a child benefit because you have children. You can't just pick and choose what suits you. :rolleyes:

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 04:15PM

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. it costs about €200,000 to raise a child from birth until they reach 21/ finish college. If every single person were required to show that they can afford to do that before they have kids then hardly anyone would be giving birth. Who decides how much income you need to have before you get to have a kid? I'm sure you can see 20 odd years into the future though, in your infinite wisdom; and guarantee that you will never ever depend on help from anyone else.

as said before i think general cop on will tell you if you can afford a child or not.

Galtee wrote: »

Firstly, the tax credit is something for free in its simplest terms and hence the same principle applies to abolishing the child benefit. Why should you automatically be entitled to child benefit? Well why should you automatically be entitled to a tax credit? It's part of the system we live within.
.

I think you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the tax system, of course you can do away with tax credits but i will result in people paying about 10k extra a year in tax. i'm sure a reasonable gov would adjust rates to bring the tax payers effective rate down to what it was when they had a tax credit.
your comparing apples and oranges in fairness.

you earn 40k per year. tax rate is 21% you get a tax crediit of 2000. you pay 8400-2000 = 6,400
do away with tax credits you pay 8,400 per year.
Gove do away with credits but reduct tax rate to 16% = tax payable of 6,400
The above are 3 mentods of collecting tax

Now have a kid = 140*12 = 1680 cash in hand.

Can you see the difference
apples and oranges

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 04:32PM

My name is URL wrote: »

So those who are irresponsible and have a kid should just be allowed to fall by the wayside, and the kid face a life of hardship because of its parents? I'm no clairvoyant but I can imagine that leading to a lot more problems in future, and ultimately at a greater social cost than giving them some help when they need it..

please think of the children mrs lovejoy!!!

if the parents were that **** in the 1st place i'm pretty sure 140 quid a month won't make a difference as i said before its usually spend on drink and fags anyway. funny concept for the parents, get a job! pay for your own chidren??

Hells Belle · 22-11-2011 04:34PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

please think of the children mrs lovejoy!!!

if the parents were that **** in the 1st place i'm pretty sure 140 quid a month won't make a difference as i said before its usually spend on drink and fags anyway. funny concept for the parents, get a job! pay for your own chidren??

Still waiting on a link for that.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 04:39PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

as said before i think general cop on will tell you if you can afford a child or not.

I think you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the tax system, of course you can do away with tax credits but i will result in people paying about 10k extra a year in tax. i'm sure a reasonable gov would adjust rates to bring the tax payers effective rate down to what it was when they had a tax credit.
your comparing apples and oranges in fairness.

you earn 40k per year. tax rate is 21% you get a tax crediit of 2000. you pay 8400-2000 = 6,400
do away with tax credits you pay 8,400 per year.
Gove do away with credits but reduct tax rate to 16% = tax payable of 6,400
The above are 3 mentods of collecting tax

Now have a kid = 140*12 = 1680 cash in hand.

Can you see the difference
apples and oranges

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. :rolleyes: Also, how much tax credit do you get that will result in you paying 10k extra a year in tax if taken away. Misunderstanding indeed. Also, if you read my previous posts properly you'll see that I mentioned the tax credit as an example of people being hypocritical about the system. ie People seem to think they can pick whatever they want from a system and then moan about everything else. I wouldn't mind but this thread was started on the back of a comment made by a man who could just as easily have said double child benefit if he thought he'd get more publicity out of it. :rolleyes:

pwurple · 22-11-2011 04:49PM

The reason child benefit was given as money to the mother, and not as a tax credit was because historically there was a problem with working fathers not handing over a penny to the mother for the children. This was a ringfenced payment given to the mother for that exact reason.

Maybe times have moved on, but I would hazard a guess that scenario isn't gone completely.

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 04:50PM

Hells Belle wrote: »

Still waiting on a link for that.

here's one for cigs,

http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=2010Charts/Chart3.3.jpg

low income groups make up over 60% of smokers

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 04:56PM

pwurple wrote: »

The reason child benefit was given as money to the mother, and not as a tax credit was because historically there was a problem with working fathers not handing over a penny to the mother for the children. This was a ringfenced payment given to the mother for that exact reason.

Maybe times have moved on, but I would hazard a guess that scenario isn't gone completely.

unfortunately the system was massively abused by single mothers and their partners in the last 10 yrs.

mr kr0nik · 22-11-2011 05:01PM

Believe it or not but there are mothers (generalising here) who would be considered living in a high income family that don't get a penny from the husband and can only survive on the child benefit.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 05:02PM

I would guess that the system is actually being abused more through tax avoidance by big companies than it is by single mothers having children specifically to claim benefits.

Wompa1 · 22-11-2011 05:03PM

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Believe it or not but there are mothers (generalising here) who would be considered living in a high income family that don't get a penny from the husband and can only survive on the child benefit.

but why is that the tax payers problem? couldn't that kind of lady apply for an assistance grant rather than just be given one?

Wompa1 · 22-11-2011 05:05PM

Galtee wrote: »

I would guess that the system is actually being abused more through tax avoidance by big companies than it is by single mothers having children specifically to claim benefits.

Two wrongs don't make a right....

That's been a common approach to debate on Boards over the last few years.

But the politicians do this or that, corporations do this or that so why shouldn't I?

Marijuana should be legalized because Alcohol is legal and that causes more deaths etc.

That's a poor defence in my eyes.

pwurple · 22-11-2011 05:09PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

unfortunately the system was massively abused by single mothers and their partners in the last 10 yrs.

I don't see how child benefit can be abused. If you mean single parent allowance etc, then that is a different topic.

Wompa1 wrote: »

but why is that the tax payers problem? couldn't that kind of lady apply for an assistance grant rather than just be given one?

Any means testing is done on a per-family basis. Same problem.

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 05:11PM

Galtee wrote: »

I would guess that the system is actually being abused more through tax avoidance by big companies than it is by single mothers having children specifically to claim benefits.

elaborate how companies are abusing the system? i work in a multi national company which employees 400 people. out CT bill for FY11 was 18m. we paid the revenue 9m in paye and PRSI (provided the employment) that makes 27m in 1 year paid to the irish gov,
yeah big bad company alright

tax avoidance is legal. social welfare fraud isn't? thats the difference

Galtee · 22-11-2011 05:14PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right....

That's been a common approach to debate on Boards over the last few years.

But the politicians do this or that, corporations do this or that so why shouldn't I?

Marijuana should be legalized because Alcohol is legal and that causes more deaths etc.

That's a poor defence in my eyes.

It wasn't a defence so shouldn't have been construed as one. I was merely offering an opinion, that's all. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right but to me it's a little funny the way people in general tend to blindly latch on to one comment without looking at the big picture and you'd have to wonder why that is.

Wompa1 · 22-11-2011 05:16PM

pwurple wrote: »

I don't see how child benefit can be abused. If you mean single parent allowance etc, then that is a different topic.

Any means testing is done on a per-family basis. Same problem.

But nothing is in place yet? How do you know the means test would be family based?

mr kr0nik · 22-11-2011 05:17PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

but why is that the tax payers problem? couldn't that kind of lady apply for an assistance grant rather than just be given one?

Because she wouldn't probably qualify for one.

Hells Belle · 22-11-2011 05:18PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

here's one for cigs,

http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=2010Charts/Chart3.3.jpg

low income groups make up over 60% of smokers

And they spend all their C/A on fags? Presuming it's one child it's 300 fags per month or 70 ish per week. Depending on brand of course and you know poor people love brands....

Come on, according to your link the average smoker is a male aged 25-44, unemployed and living in Munster. Not single mothers who you seem to have the biggest problem with.

Maybe you should have read the full research before cherrypicking what you thought backed up your views.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 05:20PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

elaborate how companies are abusing the system? i work in a multi national company which employees 400 people. out CT bill for FY11 was 18m. we paid the revenue 9m in paye and PRSI (provided the employment) that makes 27m in 1 year paid to the irish gov,
yeah big bad company alright

tax avoidance is legal. social welfare fraud isn't? thats the difference

Who condoned social welfare fraud? Girls who have babies just so they can collect child benefit isn't fraud, it's perfectly legal. It may well be stupid, but it's not fraud.

Wompa1 · 22-11-2011 05:22PM

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Because she wouldn't probably qualify for one.

Galtee wrote: »

It wasn't a defence so shouldn't have been construed as one. I was merely offering an opinion, that's all. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right but to me it's a little funny the way people in general tend to blindly latch on to one comment without looking at the big picture and you'd have to wonder why that is.

Sorry defence may have been the wrong word to use. The bigger picture as I see it with obviously forgetting some things because it's off the top of my head is: All earners need to be paying tax, no exceptions. Companies need to be paying tax and following the commercial laws in place. Politicians and Public officials need to have their pays reviewed and work practices reviewed. Public spending in general needs to be heavily scrutinized. Subsidized Irish companies should be pressured into keeping things local in return for the publics assistance or they should be privatized.

Don't think anybody is missing the bigger picture, we are living with it every day.

will56 · 22-11-2011 05:26PM

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Believe it or not but there are mothers (generalising here) who would be considered living in a high income family that don't get a penny from the husband and can only survive on the child benefit.

Why is then the taxpayers responsibility ?
Surely the issue in those situations is the marriage itself.

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

Comments