nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Children's Allowance

eyescreamcone

I think Children's Allowance should be means tested and abolished for fourth and subsequent children.

There are families collecting more than 1000 per month regardless of their income, just because they have large families. This to me is absolutely crazy!!!

Maybe there is a case for helping existing large families who grew up with this system, but we need to draw a line at this stage and tell people that if you want to have a big family - you will have to look after them yourself.

I think there was some family on the Late Late recently with 11 children and collecting around 1800 children's allowance per month.
This to me is just taking the piss.
Is there any logical justification for this???

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SEPT 23 1989

These children will pay your pension when you retire

dark crystal

I honestly have no idea why this payment is not means tested. There should be an income cut-off point, definitely.

biko

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I think there was some family on the Late Late recently with 11 children and collecting around 1800 children's allowance per month.
This to me is just taking the piss.
Is there any logical justification for this???

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

jimmurt

biko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

Yeah it does, but why should we pay for it. If the family can't afford it, stop having kids.

SunnyDub1

jimmurt wrote: »

Yeah it does, but why should we pay for it. If the family can't afford it, stop having kids.

Maybe they can afford to have that many kids. But I think it's fair to say of a person is offered money by the state they will take it, Regardless of what kind of money the earn.

rainbowdash

I think they should reduce the allowance for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th kids etc.

Say €160 for the first then €20 each less for each subsequent child.

This is on the basis that 1 car will bring 3 kids to school for the same cost of having 1 kid in it, if they are in bunk beds then 2 or more can share a room that costs the same to build, heat and light as for 1 kid, clothes, schoolbooks, bikes etc. can be passed down from child to child etc. etc.

seamus

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Is there any logical justification for this???

If we stop breeding, the economy collapses.

In reality, as I've said before it should be linked to tax credits. You get tax credits for every child after the second one, meaning that those on higher salaries are encouraged to have more kids and those on lower salaries are encouraged to avoid having more (because they get little or no benefit) unless they can afford it.

davet82

lets just start castrating people

thebigbiffo

I've never taken a f'ucking cent in welfare or any other allowance and have paid huge amounts of tax for the last 12 years...i'm raising two kids to become the next generation of taxpayers.

take the only bit i get back away from me and i'll treat you to some kneecap readjustment.

davet82

thebigbiffo wrote: »

take the only bit i get back away from me

pffft... me, me, me, me, me, me, thats all i ever hear

jimmurt

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

Maybe they can afford to have that many kids. But I think it's fair to say of a person is offered money by the state they will take it, Regardless of what kind of money the earn.

I 100% agree with you there. That is why I think it's up to the state to come up with an alternative. I don't blmae the families.

In some cases it's taking from the poor (some tax payers) and giving to the rich (some families).

jimmurt

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I've never taken a f'ucking cent in welfare or any other allowance and have paid huge amounts of tax for the last 12 years...i'm raising two kids to become the next generation of taxpayers.

take the only bit i get back away from me and i'll treat you to some kneecap readjustment.

OP mentioned means testing not take it away from everyone.

BTW your second sentence completely contradicts the first part of your first sentence.

davet82

jimmurt wrote: »

BTW your second sentence completely contradicts the first part of your first sentence.

i think we got what he ment in all fairness, leave the nit pickin for lice infected scalps please

frag420

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

Not the most popular idea but I bet it would work. Although cost of staples in some estates will go through the roof!!

Sappa

In the Uk if one earner or both incomes are over 48k sterling the childrens allowance is stopped.
It's a joke here,there's a family near by with 7 kids,not married and claiming everything while the husband works every day given as a tradie.
It should be 140 for the first,120 second,100 3rd and 50 quid for every other child,that or means test it but this spineless govt are too fearful of doing that or touching the oap's.

muppetkiller

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

These children will pay your pension when you retire

I think you'll find the children the OP's referring to will never contribute taxes in the future either

Apologies if I'm reading you incorrectly OP.

Omar82

biko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

So am I- that's why I won't be having 11.

As much as I would love my own football team of kids, I don't plan on having any until I can afford them.

I don't expect others to pay for them. I think the whole CA should be periodically abolished, or at a minimum, as the opening post suggests, it should be means tested.
I'd also cap it at 2/3 kids, after that if you want them, be prepared to pay for them.

davet82

Omar82 wrote: »

I'd also cap it at 2/3 kids, after that if you want them, be prepared to pay for them.

or drown them :cool:

John Doe1

Yeah rabble rabble one child policy

iguana

The thing I don't really understand about child benefit is why parents of multiples get so much more. If you have twins you get child benefit for 3 children. If you have triplets you get child benefit for 6 children. I understood why there was a 3 times in a life 'bonus' for multiples, at birth, starting school and, I think, starting secondary. Having two or more children of the same age and having to buy two lots cots, school uniforms and books, instead of being able to hand down to your second and subsequent children can be a financial hardship on those occasions. But why, month on month, would the parents of twins have more expenses than the parents of children born one after the other?

davet82

iguana wrote: »

The thing I don't really understand about child benefit is why parents of multiples get so much more. If you have twins you get child benefit for 3 children. If you have triplets you get child benefit for 6 children.

Is this true?? Gettin the missus some IVF then, ching ching

Super-Rush

Well this is a refreshing thread subject.

I think everyone should be means tested before being allowed to post on boards.

davet82

Super-Rush wrote: »

I think everyone should be means tested before being allowed to post on boards.

i fcukin knew there would be a tax on boards!

jaja321

frag420 wrote: »

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

Not the most popular idea but I bet it would work. Although cost of staples in some estates will go through the roof!!

Charming.

frag420

cheers......:p

Abi

Omar82 wrote: »

I don't expect others to pay for them. I think the whole CA should be periodically abolished, or at a minimum

That would cause ructions to say the least, it would need to be phased out. Some people depend on CA, it's the ones that don't need to be filtered out by means testing. Drastic measures like the above would cause an uproar.

I completely agree that it should be capped at two children.

eyescreamcone

14,736 euro per year for having 8 children.
This is before any other benefits are given out.

Why are we offering financial incentives to have a large family.
Most people would struggle to cater for more than a few kids so why is the state encouraging these large families???

Also, giving this money to wealthy persons is so wasteful it's not even funny.

Step 1 Tax all handouts (if you are under the threshold for paying tax - you pay none)
Step 2 Abolish new payments for fourth and subsequent children.

Step 3 Reduce these payments and number of people who qualify (especially those who earn more than 50,000 euro per year.

This would be far easier to implement than by asking people to volunteer payments (as per the household charge).

Also, it would start sending people a message that they need to fend for themselves and not be looking to the state for handouts!!!

iguana

davet82 wrote: »

Is this true?? Gettin the missus some IVF then, ching ching

It still is at the moment. They got rid of the 3 times a lifetime grants but still have the larger monthly payments. I guess on the other hand working mothers lose out on maternity leave if they have twins as maternity for a single birth and a multiple birth are the same length. Tbh, I think maternity should probably be a bit longer for multiples, with more time off given before the birth as twin + pregnancies are generally a lot more uncomfortable than a regular pregnancy.

Hobbes

eyescreamcone wrote: »

There are families collecting more than 1000 per month regardless of their income, just because they have large families. This to me is absolutely crazy!!!

"In 2012 Child Benefit is €140 per month for each of the first two children. From 1 Jaunary 2012 the rate for the third child is €148 and for the 4th and each subsequent child is €160."

So making over 1000 per month would require at least 7 children.

I take it you don't have children, because a 1,000 a month isn't worth the hassle of 7 kids.

seamus

iguana wrote: »

But why, month on month, would the parents of twins have more expenses than the parents of children born one after the other?

Maybe try looking after two babies at the same time and see if it's two or three times the effort of looking after one

It's probably something to do with how much more of a restriction twins/triplets places on the parents everyday life above a single child. You will have more difficulty finding babysitters to take your children, you have to use the buggy to go everywhere rather than a sling, and so on and so forth, which can end up directly affecting that parent's ability to earn, above the normal restrictions created by a single child.

Just as an example, a neighbour has twins born nearly a year ago and he works for himself in an on-call capacity. He is quite literally twice as wrecked as a normal parent (the guy looks like **** every time I see him

), but still has to get up and out in the van whenever the phone rings. So I can see how having twins would make it more likely for him to ignore a call and stay in bed than just having the one child. So not only are his costs doubled, his earnings are also affected.