Measures in the works for wealthy to "hand back" their children's allowance.

14-08-2012 9:16am #1

There's a piece in this mornings times detailing a new measure in the works from Minister Joan Burton's department to allow wealthier recipients of the child benefit payment to hand it back to the state voluntarily, should they feel they don't need it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0814/1224322139092.html

Is this really a genuine attempt by Ms. Burton to cut our costs in the area of child benefit or is it simply some lip service to further avoid/delay the politically difficult move towards the taxing or means testing of the payment?

spank_inferno · 14-08-2012 9:24am

Its a cop out.

Even if I was Michael o'Leary I would decline any opt out, on the principal of showing how gutless this government really are.

WRT Child benefit, the government are welcome to take it, tax it or test it.

But it seems they dont have the grapes to to any of it.

ParkRunner · 14-08-2012 9:35am

It is disappointing to hear that Joan Burton is serious about introducing this measure. Savings made from a voluntary return of child benefit will be minimal I expect.

It would be far better to make the investment of a joined up computer program between Revenue and Social Protection so that the payment can be taxed. In the long run it would generate much more savings

Sleepy · 14-08-2012 9:52am

Wonder how many of her own parties TD's will voluntarily opt out of the scheme?

Nonsense. But what else do you expect when you leave a moron in charge of welfare?

14-08-2012 9:57am

EF wrote: »

....In the long run it would generate much more savings...

That's a phrase that successive Irish governments haven't seemed to be able to get their heads around. Long term thinking doesn't exist here.

I would agree that it looks like a cop out from Burton, because in the event that CB is means tested, which she has said she is in favour of but which could take years to implement (politician's speak for having your cake and eating it) any such voluntary measure would be entirely redundant. If the system was fixed, you wouldn't need a way to voluntarily refund something you hadn't been paid in the first place.

This is a politician's way to push the onus to act away from themselves, and onto the recipients of the payment.

From a technical perspective, it's not as big a deal to integrate 2 government department's computer systems as the minister would have us believe it is. It's not an easy thing to do, certainly, but there are private sector companies in the country who have the skills and experience to do it within the current government's time in office, if the necessary resources were given to the task.

The projected savings and cost/benefit case is solid, it's a viable investment. All that's missing is the political will to do it, because of the backlash that TD's will face in their clinics back home, which makes me wonder if FG/Lab are serious about making the really unpopular decisions, now that they have nowhere easy left to cut.

Scortho · 14-08-2012 10:17am

Do all these wealthy people not have to apply for it in the first place?
If thats the case what on earth makes Joan Burton think that people will hand it back? Afterall they went to the effort of applying for it in the first place!
The only thing I could see O Leary do is use it as a publicity stunt!

Sleepy · 14-08-2012 11:14am

Nope, if memory serves my other half simply started receiving it within a few weeks of our daughter being born.

johnnyskeleton · 14-08-2012 11:55am

MackDaddi wrote: »

EF wrote: »

....In the long run it would generate much more savings...

That's a phrase that successive Irish governments haven't seemed to be able to get their heads around. Long term thinking doesn't exist here.

I would agree that it looks like a cop out from Burton, because in the event that CB is means tested, which she has said she is in favour of but which could take years to implement (politician's speak for having your cake and eating it) any such voluntary measure would be entirely redundant. If the system was fixed, you wouldn't need a way to voluntarily refund something you hadn't been paid in the first place.

This is a politician's way to push the onus to act away from themselves, and onto the recipients of the payment.

From a technical perspective, it's not as big a deal to integrate 2 government department's computer systems as the minister would have us believe it is. It's not an easy thing to do, certainly, but there are private sector companies in the country who have the skills and experience to do it within the current government's time in office, if the necessary resources were given to the task.

The projected savings and cost/benefit case is solid, it's a viable investment. All that's missing is the political will to do it, because of the backlash that TD's will face in their clinics back home, which makes me wonder if FG/Lab are serious about making the really unpopular decisions, now that they have nowhere easy left to cut.

The Criminal Assets Bureau have access to both revenue and welfare records right now, so even just with a few checking off exercises they could have some joined up thinking tomorrow if needs be.

Or, use self declaration for child benefit and prosecute anyone not complying.

A difficulty / potential unfairness is a high earning family with one person salaried and the other claiming CB. It would be difficult to intervene here, given that the notional purpose of CB is to assist stay at home parents with the cost of child rearing by means of an independent payment.

hidinginthebush · 14-08-2012 12:02pm

I may be showing my ignorance here, but surely you have to show up to collect children's allowance? In that case, if these "wealthy" people were in a position to hand it back, would it not be safe to assume they wouldn't have collected it in the first place?

On a more serious note, shouldn't the government be taking the lead when it comes to increasing revenue through reduced spending or tax increases, rather than relying on the wealthier parents in the country to do some soul searching and decide they will voluntarily give back money that they are entitled to.

murphaph · 14-08-2012 12:14pm

It should be abolished as a cash payment altogether if the intention is that this money really finds its way to children.

The money should be spent directly on children at school for those of school going age (books, meals, uniforms etc.) and should be spent on providing subsidised childcare for those of preschool years.

People on the dole presumably need childcare as well so they can search for employment, right?

seamus · 14-08-2012 12:16pm

hidinginthebush wrote: »

I may be showing my ignorance here, but surely you have to show up to collect children's allowance? In that case, if these "wealthy" people were in a position to hand it back, would it not be safe to assume they wouldn't have collected it in the first place?

No, it's paid directly into your bank account. Unlike payments like the dole, there's no "checking" that has to be done to ensure that you're still entitled to it, so it would be a huge waste of resources to require people to go in and collect it.

It's a completely pointless exercise. A few hundred people will voluntarily hand it back or opt out of it. If you offer people money, they will take it, and rightly so.

They need to just scrap it already and come up with a better system that provides the bulk of the child support to working families and social assistance to families in need.

dharma200 · 14-08-2012 12:24pm

murphaph wrote: »

It should be abolished as a cash payment altogether if the intention is that this money really finds its way to children.

The money should be spent directly on children at school for those of school going age (books, meals, uniforms etc.) and should be spent on providing subsidised childcare for those of preschool years.

People on the dole presumably need childcare as well so they can search for employment, right?

If that was implemented I think you would find the amount of families becoming homeless and the amount of families going hungry might actually give those who have no understanding of the hardships unemplouyed and low waged workers alike are suffering right now, and in some cases it is only the child benefit that keeps peoples head above water and a roof over the head.

I( always think it is great all the people who have an opinion on child benefit usually do not have families, are not finding themselves screwed since the economic downt turn. A school uniform is nice, so would subsidised childcare... having a roof over your head and food in your families mouth would take precedence over this. What might seem like 'worthy' ways to spend it for one family could be the breaking of another.

Child benefit needs to be means tested. Simple, and the means should not be ridiculously low, but should take into account a family of four, both parents on low wages.. not just welfare recipients. it seems to me it is the families who are working who are really struggling.

School uniforms should be generic. there should be no branding.

There is subsiding of childcare already. The problem is when the parents get work the childcare then becomes so expensive it means the workers are worse off. there should be a system whenre the chilcare costs rise gradually over a three year period after resuming work.

The measures for people to hand back child benifit is laughable. Disgusting really , Giving the wealthy a choice just because they are wealthy. Those nice rich people of course will hand it back.. not.

The current government is disgusting. The amount of child poverty in this country is disgusting.

RedXIV · 14-08-2012 12:25pm

I'd happily hand CB back for some kind of subsidised childcare. Don't need it all paid for but just enough to make it an OPTION for us. We've three kids, two of which are too young to go to school and as much as my partner would like to work or go back to education, the childcare costs are making it almost impossible.

Solair · 14-08-2012 12:27pm

You can already 'hand it back', by just not claiming it in the first place.

Nobody forces you to go down to the post office and apply for child allowance if you're on a good income and don't need it.

dharma200 · 14-08-2012 12:30pm

RedXIV wrote: »

I'd happily hand CB back for some kind of subsidised childcare. Don't need it all paid for but just enough to make it an OPTION for us. We've three kids, two of which are too young to go to school and as much as my partner would like to work or go back to education, the childcare costs are making it almost impossible.

There are subvention schemes... Check your local community creches and ask them about subvention. This dramatically reduces the cost of childcare.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcya.gov.ie%2Fviewdoc.asp%3Ffn%3D%252Fdocuments%252Fchildcare%252FCC_Subvention_Scheme%252FCC_Subvention_Scheme.htm&ei=ozYqUKPAAYuDhQes0IH4AQ&usg=AFQjCNGyVOcL3q19JE0e9O9vu5TlWIsjPA&cad=rja

sorry I mis read that you were both not working, The link might be handy for others who are unemployed, or on back to eduction etc.

seamus · 14-08-2012 12:46pm

dharma200 wrote: »

The current government is disgusting. The amount of child poverty in this country is disgusting.

Of course the issue with child poverty is that the children most at risk are the children who will least benefit from any kind of direct benefit payment.
These are the children whose parents will spend the child benefit on smokes and booze, so they stand to get the most benefit out of indirect assistance like that which murphaph mentions.

spank_inferno · 14-08-2012 1:09pm

dharma200 wrote: »

The amount of child poverty in this country is disgusting.

Coming from what the D4 set would call a 'disadvantaged' area, I can say that childhood poverty would be all but eliminated if the allowance was not spent on the booze & bookies.

Get rid of a cash allowance and replace with a voucher system.

(those may say that the parents would then swap vouchers for cash... If that were the case, that poor child has no hope anyway considering what the mom/dad are like. No amount of cash would fix that.)

BOHSBOHS · 14-08-2012 1:13pm

means testing /taxing child benefit???
ah yes give irish couples another reason to pretend to be single
our tax /welfare systems are bad enough in this regard already.

additionally it will further reduce the incentive to work in this country.

*just cut the rate
a flat 100 euro rate (with no increases for 3+kids or twins)would save 713m
90e 850 million
80e 985 million
70e 1112 million

*abolish payment after kid reaches 6years

*introduce new school attendance payment for kids 6+ only paid when 90%+ schooldays attended in previous school year.
this will reduce transfers out of the country, reduce truancy and associated social issues/crime.

Scofflaw · 14-08-2012 1:24pm

Solair wrote: »

You can already 'hand it back', by just not claiming it in the first place.

Nobody forces you to go down to the post office and apply for child allowance if you're on a good income and don't need it.

Just to clear up this apparent point of confusion in an official sort of way, using this handy post by goldenhoarde: child benefit is semi-automatic. It starts with this:

goldenhoarde wrote: »

Actually there is a form filled in the hospital (by the hospital) which gets sent off and you then get it back just to check it and fill in the Bank Account details or you can collect in the post office like the Old age pension as you get a book!

Once that's done, you receive it automatically.

moderately,
Scofflaw

murphaph · 14-08-2012 1:29pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to clear up this apparent point of confusion in an official sort of way: child benefit is automatically paid to the mother's bank account when the birth of a child is registered. It does not have to be applied for, nor collected.

moderately,
Scofflaw

How do they know the bank account details, what if the mother has no account? I'm curious now!

seamus · 14-08-2012 1:39pm

Solair wrote: »

if you're on a good income and don't need it.

That's the kicker isn't it.

"Need".

There are very few people in a position where they can say, "I have too much money here, take that back". People in general, allocate every last piece of their cash. Even if a chunk is going to a savings account, it's allocated, and it has a purpose.

Nobody "needs" a salary over €20k. Anyone can easily cut their expenditure to meet this limit. It'll be unpleasant and will involve lots of nights sitting in reading books because you have no beer money and no TV. But then neither beer nor TV are things that people "need".

Regardless of whether someone is on €20k or €200k, you can be pretty sure that they will say they "need" the child benefit payment. I have a child on the way, and while I've no doubt I could manage without child benefit, I'm bloody well going to claim it because it will make my life, and therefore my child's life, a little bit easier. And why shouldn't it? It's there, it's being offered, so I'll take it.
When it's no longer being offered, then I'll just get on with life and I'll manage.

The same is true for 99% of people.

A couple of hundred people will avail of Burton's "scheme", at most. She's asking people to hand back money. For no reason. Why would they? Why should they?
I'll happily pay tax and contribute to the country, but not on a voluntary basis. Cos when you make things voluntary, a small number of people get screwed while everyone else takes the piss. Look at what "voluntary" taxation did to Greece.

goldenhoarde · 14-08-2012 1:41pm

murphaph wrote: »

How do they know the bank account details, what if the mother has no account? I'm curious now!

Actually there is a form filled in the hospital (by the hospital) which gets sent off and you then get it back just to check it and fill in the Bank Account details or you can collect in the post office like the Old age pension as you get a book!

Scortho · 14-08-2012 1:43pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to clear up this apparent point of confusion in an official sort of way: child benefit is automatically paid to the mother's bank account when the birth of a child is registered. It does not have to be applied for, nor collected.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Thanks for clearing that up. I got the info on having to apply from the following
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/child_benefit.html

Scofflaw · 14-08-2012 1:50pm

goldenhoarde wrote: »

Actually there is a form filled in the hospital (by the hospital) which gets sent off and you then get it back just to check it and fill in the Bank Account details or you can collect in the post office like the Old age pension as you get a book!

That bit tends to pass by in something of a blur...I suppose you could theoretically pass up the opportunity at that point, but faced with a new baby and a tired mother (or as the tired mother) one probably won't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Farmer Pudsey · 14-08-2012 1:59pm

We seem, to be going down the road of means testing CB again. I like to know at what incom level should it start at. Should one or both income's be acessed and would it be a sliding scale or just a straight cutoff.

Also as we are on the subject of not needing benifits should we eliminate tax credits for people over certain income's as they will not need them say at 100k and at 200K give them no 20% band as they do not need these either. After 1 million an 80% tax rate and a 15% USC level should be appropiate.

This means testing of CB is stupid the people that will lose most are workers in mid income brackets for the government to save money it would have to have the income limits at low levels. It will discrimate against certain family's no matter what income they have.

I do not know how many childern Micheal O'Leary has. He pay all his taxes in Ireland he is entitled to CB for his childern wheather he or we like it or not. Reality if if his wife was not working under any new scheme he would still be entitled to it or if not would be able to create the situtation where he could collect it.

What is being proposed about CB is stupid it is like the level at which 3rd level grand are accessed it discrimates against PAYE workers and especially those on income's between 25-70K.

By the way I would like answers to the question highlighted above

decmanning · 14-08-2012 2:05pm

Why give them the choice to hand it back? Just take it, any family on over 100,000 a year should not be getting childrens allowance, they do not need it, all Fine Gael is concerned about is making sure they get the wealthy votes in the next general elections, its about time this government man up and target the wealthy, people have been saying this for years but now is the time to do it, people are in awful situations at the moment, money is very scarce for many families and bills cant be paid, food cant be bought, these families cant take any more cuts, the government need to hit the wealthy to make up the deficit and stop targeting the vulnurable in society

spank_inferno · 14-08-2012 2:13pm

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We seem, to be going down the road of means testing CB again. I like to know at what incom level should it start at. Should one or both income's be acessed and would it be a sliding scale or just a straight cutoff.

Incorrect I'm afraid my dear Pudsey.

We don't seem to be going down that road at all.
(It would at least be something if they were, whatever the treshold.)

Instead the cowards push the decision making burden to the citizen, because they have no spine to act themselves.

We all post here good ideas on what could be done.... Minister Bruton hasn't the bottle to do any of it though.

So in a nutshelll...... its status quo.

Sleepy · 14-08-2012 2:52pm

Just make it taxable income. Problem solved.

LeinsterDub · 14-08-2012 3:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a phrase that successive Irish governments haven't seemed to be able to get their heads around. Long term thinking doesn't exist here.

This isn't a technological issue it's a political issue between the two Departments. Yes it would be lovely to have some sort of automatic ,real time system between the two but it's not needed.

Here you go
select PPS from revenue_db where annual income < x (Get a list of people who earn less than a set amount)
File save as CSV. (Export the data, built in functionality of most Database from the last 30 years)
Email said CSV to Welfare .
select PPS from welfare_db where PPS in file Pay these people (only pay a person if their PPS appears on the list)

14-08-2012 3:27pm

seamus wrote: »

That's the kicker isn't it.

"Need".

....Nobody "needs" a salary over €20k. Anyone can easily cut their expenditure to meet this limit. It'll be unpleasant and will involve lots of nights sitting in reading books because you have no beer money and no TV...

I'm sorry, but that is quite simply not true. While i agree that the term "need" can be subjective, and depends on what your definition of many things like level of comfort, standard of living, etc, etc are, you have to accept that many people in our society have serious, inescapable financial commitments (very many of them for good, societally beneficial reasons like family, education, etc) which a salary of 20k simply will NOT cover, and very many people would not be able to "easily" cut their expenditure to bring themselves below that arbitrary point.

Do I need sky TV, or nights out at the pub?? No, as you've pointed out, they are nice to haves, but regardless of my lifestyle or social position, i don't NEED them. That's fine.

Do i need a basic level of food, light, shelter? Yes, certainly, i do, and regardless of my circumstances or means, those things CAN be regarded as a need. Most people would not argue there either.

However, do i NEED to run a car in order to allow me to do a certain job, which i am soley reliant on for income and have no prospect of replacing should i lose it, or do i need to pay for schoolbooks, uniforms, capitation fees etc to send my children to school for example? Those are more grey areas.

If i don't drive i may lose my job or be in a position of decreased security of employment depending on the nature of the position in question. If i don't properly provide for the education of my kids, isn't there a strong possibility they will lag behind at school, fail to pass their exams, fail to gain college qualifications, and not be in a position to fully contribute to society or to the exchequer? Even worse, they may end up on social welfare and being a greater draw on the state than they ever would have been, had i used a €140 per month state payment to give them what they need to have a proper educational grounding that gave them at least a chance at a better life?

This is not a black and white issue. You can't magically apply a figure of €10k, €20k or €50k or whatever, and say "right, that's all you need, full stop, no ifs, no buts". It requires a much more sophisticated system that's capable of looking at individual situations within society, considering many factors, and coming up with an approach that best shares limited resources out to those who need them the most.

In political terms, it's an absolute minefield, which is a major part of the reason we've seen no action on it so far from successive governments. They quite simply haven't had the bottle.

antoobrien · 14-08-2012 3:33pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This isn't a technological issue it's a political issue between the two Departments. Yes it would be lovely to have some sort of automatic ,real time system between the two but it's not needed.

Here you go
select PPS from revenue_db where annual income < x (Get a list of people who earn less than a set amount)
File save as CSV. (Export the data, built in functionality of most Database from the last 30 years)
Email said CSV to Welfare .
select PPS from welfare_db where PPS in file Pay these people (only pay a person if their PPS appears on the list)

I work in enterprise systems, that's an extremely naive approach. The technical issue is a significant one, performing operations across different databases, possibly using different technologies and almost certainly using different data schemas and structures, is not a trivial exercise. The company I work for makes millions selling analytics software.

There's also the complication of calculating the household income, indeed do we just stop at parents or do we include adult children in the calculations. How doe the various schemas deal with these relationships?

But more importantly than mere technical issues there is also a legal issue, which is a much larger problem. Unless they've changed the law lately Data Protection prevents information given to Revenue can't be passed to DSP & vice versa.

murphaph · 14-08-2012 3:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not a black and white issue. You can't magically apply a figure of €10k, €20k or €50k or whatever, and say "right, that's all you need, full stop, no ifs, no buts". It requires a much more sophisticated system that's capable of looking at individual situations within society, considering many factors, and coming up with an approach that best shares limited resources out to those who need them the most.

Government can't function like that. Unfortunately arbitrary limits are a part of everyday life all over the world and will remain so. There are certainly people out there in the same tax band as me who "need" their pay more than I do, but govt cant't realistically cater to individual needs like this.

LeinsterDub · 14-08-2012 3:44pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I work in enterprise systems, that's an extremely naive approach. The technical issue is a significant one, performing operations across different databases, possibly using different technologies and almost certainly using different data schemas and structures, is not a trivial exercise. The company I work for makes millions selling analytics software.

There's also the complication of calculating the household income, indeed do we just stop at parents or do we include adult children in the calculations. How doe the various schemas deal with these relationships?

But more importantly than mere technical issues there is also a legal issue, which is a much larger problem. Unless they've changed the law lately Data Protection prevents information given to Revenue can't be passed to DSP & vice versa.

The technical issue to do correctly are for sure more significant than I outlined. However my approach would have the desired results. List of PPS who are eligible for the payment, said list given to DSP. My point was that if the political will was there a down and dirty approach would work.

Weren't all the government Databases checked for the household charge?

Dannyboy83 · 14-08-2012 3:53pm

I couldn't control my finances in this manner; it's wide open to fluctuation.
How is a country supposed to do it?

10,000 people hand it back this month. x amount saved.
6 months later, Property tax of €1000 p.a. introduced.
10,000 people demand it back again. x amount lost.

We elect a government to make decisions. This is anarchic.

Godge · 14-08-2012 4:02pm

murphaph wrote: »

It should be abolished as a cash payment altogether if the intention is that this money really finds its way to children.

The money should be spent directly on children at school for those of school going age (books, meals, uniforms etc.) and should be spent on providing subsidised childcare for those of preschool years.

People on the dole presumably need childcare as well so they can search for employment, right?

Logical, coherent and sensible post, therefore not likely to gain much support. However, I would favour such an approach.

It would mean that those that could afford to save it would not benefit, that those who have decamped to the UK or Poland would not benefit and that those who drink and smoke it rather than spending on their kids would not benefit. All three of those categories have been the subject of criticism on these boards and elsewhere in relation to the payment of child benefit.

If the provision of uniforms etc. was restricted to public schools only, this would be a further was of ensuring that wealthy people who send their kids to private schools would not be benefitting.

14-08-2012 4:09pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I work in enterprise systems, that's an extremely naive approach. The technical issue is a significant one....there is also a legal issue, which is a much larger problem...

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My point was that if the political will was there a down and dirty approach would work.

I think these two points are a good example of the kinds of opposing thinking that is going on from different standpoints on this issue. The politicians are seeing the possible risks, downsides, and areas for a PR disaster to flair up in any such project, with an over eager opposition watching their every move, while the supporters of change and reform are just clamouring for something to be done and don't understand why someone doesn't just take a spoonful of cop on and get on with something with such clear, measurable benefits.

The technology for such a solution is indeed complex, but it's doable, and it happens in the private sector routinely when there's a solid cost/benefit assessment backing it up. That's not the point here. This is an issue of lack of political will, not one of technology or capability, which is what the minister would have you believe the reason for the delay is.

The political will is not there to tackle this issue because of the various political problems in the areas of social inequality, data protection, civil service work practices and inflexibility, and general PR fallouts which all have the potential to arise, and give the opposition a field day.

Why stir up a hornets nest if you can just ignore it for someone else to have to handle a few years from now?

Democracy is a wonderful system until politics enters into it :mad:

jimmycrackcorm · 14-08-2012 6:22pm

Solair wrote: »

You can already 'hand it back', by just not claiming it in the first place.

Nobody forces you to go down to the post office and apply for child allowance if you're on a good income and don't need it.

All well and grand if you have crystal ball and can forsee not needing child benefit for 18 years

n97 mini · 14-08-2012 10:12pm

It would make a lot more sense if it wasn't given out by default when the birth is registered, and people had to go to some effort to apply for it. Same with the old age pension and any other automatic social welfare payments.

Lawrence1895 · 14-08-2012 10:34pm

As if someone of the rich ones would give money back without any fight. Suddenly they will claim, they lost their money to a developer, or transfer their money abroad, or something like that.

Seriously, every benefit should be means tested, it's no big deal to deal with that work wise. No benefit for the rich ones, the highest rate for low earners.

_Kaiser_ · 14-08-2012 10:48pm

I think dharma200 had it pretty much spot on above.

Another thread where every keyboard economist in this place comes out with better ways to spend "their taxes" :rolleyes: As dharma200 accurately points out:

What might seem like 'worthy' ways to spend it for one family could be the breaking of another.

Yes it needs to be looked at so that those who CAN well afford to do without it don't get it, but a "voluntary opt-out" isn't the answer to this, nor are all these bright ideas from people above who clearly have never found themselves in the situations suggested in dharma200's post. Means testing seems therefore the logical way to go - as long as those tests are in fact realistic and fair - not something we do well in this country (what with the attitude that those on the dole/less well off are second-class citizens not entitled to the same rights or even basic civility of those who "pay to keep them")

It's painfully clear from many of the posts on threads like this (and the recently locked "we don't know what austerity is" thread is another example), that a lot of the posters here seem to forget that real people are affected by these changes (in some cases significantly from even "small" reductions) - it's not in fact an academic paper exercise that doesn't matter (although given some of the opinions on this forum I'm glad for a change that ultimately nothing that is written here will actually matter!).

I hope that some of you never find yourselves on the dole struggling to pay your debts or even put food on the table because I fear that you wouldn't last a week (for transparency, I'm currently working and could be considered "well paid" but I've also been on the dole in the last few years too. Not for a second would I presume that because I'm lucky to be working again , I'm now qualified to "pass judgement" on what those who aren't can or can't do with the pittance they get - for which in the vast majority of cases they've actually paid for through years of taxation)

So for the mods - and if this is better directed to PM/feedback so be it - but given some of the trivial reasons that other threads are closed, why is it that this sort of "holier than thou" keyboard economist trolling is repeatedly permitted on what is supposedly a "serious" forum? Is a little decency and respect really that much to ask?

Laminations · 14-08-2012 11:54pm

I don't consider it trolling for posters to point out the lunacy in child benefit being seen as a top up payment to be used on (insert any expense here). It is supposed to have a dedicated use and whether someone is spending it on heating or cigarettes it's misusing it, though I'd obviously have sympathy for the former. There are other benefits and state help people can get for essentials. And it is not trolling to point out that the dole should not be used (or maintained at a level where people need it to use)to pay debts. Me saying this doesn't mean I don't think it's sad people find themselves in such a position. But seriously if you bought a house during the boom and then lost your job, for how many years should the dole be paying your interest repayments, keeping you in a house you can no longer afford?

Child benefit being funnelled into schools and child care programmes is a good idea. It would help pay for meals, books, clothes etc and make sure the money was directed at children.

woodoo · 15-08-2012 12:06am

Pure farce. If that is all she can come up with then God help us.

_Kaiser_ · 15-08-2012 12:54am

Laminations wrote: »

I don't consider it trolling for posters to point out the lunacy in child benefit being seen as a top up payment to be used on (insert any expense here). It is supposed to have a dedicated use and whether someone is spending it on heating or cigarettes it's misusing it, though I'd obviously have sympathy for the former. There are other benefits and state help people can get for essentials. And it is not trolling to point out that the dole should not be used (or maintained at a level where people need it to use)to pay debts. Me saying this doesn't mean I don't think it's sad people find themselves in such a position. But seriously if you bought a house during the boom and then lost your job, for how many years should the dole be paying your interest repayments, keeping you in a house you can no longer afford?

Child benefit being funnelled into schools and child care programmes is a good idea. It would help pay for meals, books, clothes etc and make sure the money was directed at children.

Unfortunately though, while I can see the point you're trying to make, it's not that simple..

Heating for example benefits the child. I agree that the cash shouldn't be going on cigarettes, booze etc but how are you going to police that? Issue everyone with identity cards that they have to swipe at the bar/cash desk to see if they're authorised? (shades of Orwell there)

I disagree with funneling it into schools given how much waste already goes on there (having worked in the education sector myself). Plus why should this money be used to prop up the child care system - I presume most of it would go to private companies right,in which case we shortly end up with a similar situation to private rented accommodation and rent allowance driving prices up. Or did you mean the government would provide lots of "free" childcare?

My point is that these suggestions aren't practical when you work them through even a little and therefore throwing them out ad nauseum in threads like this does nothing except further enforcing this "we know better, just because" attitude - I don't mean specifically you incidentally

By your logic why don't we just take children of people on the dole into care? That way we can be sure any money spent goes on the children right?

Welease · 15-08-2012 7:34am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The technical issue to do correctly are for sure more significant than I outlined. However my approach would have the desired results. List of PPS who are eligible for the payment, said list given to DSP. My point was that if the political will was there a down and dirty approach would work.

Weren't all the government Databases checked for the household charge?

Your proposed solution is a good example of why this is more complicated than people believe (and it also worth nothing that no posters have any idea of the data structures or data held within the systems on which to base a solution)

CB is registered and paid to the mother not the father. Your solution would create a list which would still include the non working wives of high paid fathers i.e you would only remove a fraction of the people you aimed to remove.

monkeypants · 15-08-2012 7:55am

Doesn't means testing require a lot of admin? In which case, there'll be a huge cost. But still, it'll be more jobs in the public sector.

Laminations · 15-08-2012 10:23am

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Unfortunately though, while I can see the point you're trying to make, it's not that simple..

Heating for example benefits the child. I agree that the cash shouldn't be going on cigarettes, booze etc but how are you going to police that? Issue everyone with identity cards that they have to swipe at the bar/cash desk to see if they're authorised? (shades of Orwell there)

I disagree with funneling it into schools given how much waste already goes on there (having worked in the education sector myself). Plus why should this money be used to prop up the child care system - I presume most of it would go to private companies right,in which case we shortly end up with a similar situation to private rented accommodation and rent allowance driving prices up. Or did you mean the government would provide lots of "free" childcare?

My point is that these suggestions aren't practical when you work them through even a little and therefore throwing them out ad nauseum in threads like this does nothing except further enforcing this "we know better, just because" attitude - I don't mean specifically you incidentally

By your logic why don't we just take children of people on the dole into care? That way we can be sure any money spent goes on the children right?

I can see your point and agree there's an oversupply of threads focused on the unemployed, public service etc but at the moment given the budget situation I can see why people are debating government spending and these are the two biggest areas. And I agree that many suggestions are pretty poorly thought out but this idea has some merit IMO and I don't think that your one post counters its practicality as those few lines can't be considered a work through.

First, on your last point, the dole is not a child specific payment, it has it's purpose though and is intended to maintain people between jobs with supplements for reskilling, vacs to education etc. it is not intended to pay mortgage or car debts.

Second, kids should be taken off sole recipients if they are being neglected abused, just like they should be taken off employed people if social services find they are being neglected or abused. But with this CB suggestion, children would benefit whether their parents are employed or not.

Second, waste in schools is easier to identify, shine a spotlight on and control than waste in individual families, which you point out is difficult to control without going Orwellian.

Third, the child care situation needs regulation and intervention from government. Whether that means the setting of prices, whether it means a discussion on insurance costs, whether it means subsiding families with child care providers that charge a certain lower rate (incentivising price drops rather than enforcing them) or whether it means direct provision is all up for discussion. It wouldn't involve giving private crèches any more money anyway as it'd just mean the parents would be getting subsidised so it'd be less of a burden to them. That'd allow more people to work or look for work.

Dave! · 15-08-2012 10:27am

Scofflaw wrote: »

That bit tends to pass by in something of a blur...I suppose you could theoretically pass up the opportunity at that point, but faced with a new baby and a tired mother (or as the tired mother) one probably won't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But is there no mechanism already in place for cancelling it? What if a recipient changes their bank account details or something, or if they want to change from it going to their bank a/c to collecting it at the post office? If hypothetically they change it to collection, and then don't collect it, what happens?
I've heard before, but haven't researched it, that uncollected social welfare money is left untouched by the department, i.e. it can't go elsewhere.

Regardless, this is a major cop-out... It certainly doesn't look like there'll be any changes to child benefit in the budget.

Laminations · 15-08-2012 10:32am

I'm kind of hoping it's some form of reverse kite flying. Gauging the attitude and anger out there of them doing essentially nothing on this issue so they can work out the appetite for reforming CB (especially for those whose children dont need it)

antoobrien · 15-08-2012 10:33am

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Yes it needs to be looked at so that those who CAN well afford to do without it don't get it, but a "voluntary opt-out" isn't the answer to this

Without being privy to the DSP's medium to long term plans for various payments I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss it like that. It could be the first step to introducing a means test - a measure which takes time to set up and settle in procedures. What better sample set to test it on that anybody that opts out and tries to get back in later. Looking at that suggestion practically, it's probably useless for savings, but a good training exercise none the less.

Looking for a silver bullet to ensure that SW is fair and equitable is a bit like looking for a fair tax. A great many people I've talked to seem to think that the only fair tax is one that they don't pay - income tax, usc, prsi, excise, vat, cgt, cat, motor tax, household charges, bin charges, water charges........

But the thing is there's always somebody who's going to be impacted negatively. I had an interesting conversation with somebody at work recently when trying to find a good cap level for stopping payment. We suggested a yearly family income of €100,000. The amount of excuses and possible loopholes that were brought up (not able to afford a, b, c, d etc) was frightening. Let me re-iterate this is for families earning €100,000 per year. At those kinds of incomes an extra €140 per month is pocket change, but still the person arguing the point was adamant that it should not be introduced for anyone.

On the other hand I know several families that pay the CB payments directly into a savings account and every year convert a lot of the savings into savings bonds in order to prepare for the future education of the children. While it looks like there's no difference, the money doesn't leave the exchequer until the savings/savings bonds are cashed.

For the record I'm single with no children, but I think that it should be means tested based on the family income. Where couples are married/in a civil partnership, the revenue is supposed to be notified (for single/joint assessment), there is a link between PPS no's, so it's easy to get the income of the family. It will naturally be more complicated for unmarried couples.

I think it should be phased, with full payments ending at average wage & 50% (currently about €55k). After that it should be stepped back in increments of 1% per extra €1,000 income until 100,000 where it should just stop.

Also as an alternative to cash payments there are two things I can think of
- Offering tax credits to those in employment
- Creating an official savings scheme like the one mentioned above, that can be cashed to pay for education costs (open to top up payments if desired)

murphaph · 15-08-2012 11:26am

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Unfortunately though, while I can see the point you're trying to make, it's not that simple..

Heating for example benefits the child. I agree that the cash shouldn't be going on cigarettes, booze etc but how are you going to police that? Issue everyone with identity cards that they have to swipe at the bar/cash desk to see if they're authorised? (shades of Orwell there)

I disagree with funneling it into schools given how much waste already goes on there (having worked in the education sector myself). Plus why should this money be used to prop up the child care system - I presume most of it would go to private companies right,in which case we shortly end up with a similar situation to private rented accommodation and rent allowance driving prices up. Or did you mean the government would provide lots of "free" childcare?

My point is that these suggestions aren't practical when you work them through even a little and therefore throwing them out ad nauseum in threads like this does nothing except further enforcing this "we know better, just because" attitude - I don't mean specifically you incidentally

By your logic why don't we just take children of people on the dole into care? That way we can be sure any money spent goes on the children right?

Your post doesn't make any sense tbh. If I pay for the heating oil with CB or it is paid directly to some private creche instead of CB being a cash payment, it still finds its way to the private sector who ultimately provide everything consumed in the state

bamboozle · 15-08-2012 11:52am

antoobrien wrote: »

Without being privy to the DSP's medium to long term plans for various payments I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss it like that. It could be the first step to introducing a means test - a measure which takes time to set up and settle in procedures. What better sample set to test it on that anybody that opts out and tries to get back in later. Looking at that suggestion practically, it's probably useless for savings, but a good training exercise none the less.

Looking for a silver bullet to ensure that SW is fair and equitable is a bit like looking for a fair tax. A great many people I've talked to seem to think that the only fair tax is one that they don't pay - income tax, usc, prsi, excise, vat, cgt, cat, motor tax, household charges, bin charges, water charges........

But the thing is there's always somebody who's going to be impacted negatively. I had an interesting conversation with somebody at work recently when trying to find a good cap level for stopping payment. We suggested a yearly family income of €100,000. The amount of excuses and possible loopholes that were brought up (not able to afford a, b, c, d etc) was frightening. Let me re-iterate this is for families earning €100,000 per year. At those kinds of incomes an extra €140 per month is pocket change, but still the person arguing the point was adamant that it should not be introduced for anyone.

On the other hand I know several families that pay the CB payments directly into a savings account and every year convert a lot of the savings into savings bonds in order to prepare for the future education of the children. While it looks like there's no difference, the money doesn't leave the exchequer until the savings/savings bonds are cashed.

For the record I'm single with no children, but I think that it should be means tested based on the family income. Where couples are married/in a civil partnership, the revenue is supposed to be notified (for single/joint assessment), there is a link between PPS no's, so it's easy to get the income of the family. It will naturally be more complicated for unmarried couples.

I think it should be phased, with full payments ending at average wage & 50% (currently about €55k). After that it should be stepped back in increments of 1% per extra €1,000 income until 100,000 where it should just stop.

Also as an alternative to cash payments there are two things I can think of
- Offering tax credits to those in employment
- Creating an official savings scheme like the one mentioned above, that can be cashed to pay for education costs (open to top up payments if desired)

that's a really smart idea, we're currently paying 2b a year in children's allowances and for some bizarre reason the allowances increase for the 2nd & 3rd etc children even though the cost of raising kids no 2, 3 etc is less for the parents.

there's no reason why €0.5b cannot be cut from this annual cost, we're 4 years into the recession and no politicians have shown the guts to get means testing up and running.

my suggestions would be means testing
failing that:
tax credit for parents with kids
allowance for kid no. 2, 25% less than kid 1, allowance for kid 3, 25% less than kid 2 and allowance for kids thereafter cut by 60% of what they currently are. with no household getting more than €500PM in childrens allowances.
some form of tax rebate for parents who have to put their kids in creches

Measures in the works for wealthy to "hand back" their children's allowance.

Comments