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

Child Allowance - What's it there for ?

keithclancy

Or as they call it in Germany "Kindergeld"

Ireland has the highest birthrate in the EU.

Germany has the lowest birthrate in the EU.

In Germany they give child benefit to encourage people to have children, this is to combat issues with pensions in later years when you don't have enough young people contributing into the system to pay for the pensioners.

In Ireland they give Child benefit to .......

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ghandee

starbelgrade wrote: »

I put it in my kid's Post Office account. At the current rate, by the time she's 16, there'll be around €26k in savings.

Kerching......

Nice first wheels!

keithclancy

kceire wrote: »

seriously, are you trolling?
Maybe you should also read up on childcare and school costs before you have that child too

im sure their kids are well looked after using their monthly wages though?

Well I'd guess your paying max 700 per year in materials and other costs per child going to school.

Childcare in the Netherlands can go from anywhere between 1200 and 1700 euros / month.

Whats so bad about that .. its just a choice for one in the family to keep working on not .. or go on sabbatical if possible.

Madam_X

samina wrote: »

I actually know a couple of people who pay their car finance with it. Both would still get it if it were means tested but that's for another thread!

Well that's not what it's for, but all parents are entitled to it - as said, the kids would be provided for via their parents' wages so that balances things out. If the children's allowance were used for the children and the car loan paid via their wages, wouldn't it be the same thing? All going into the same pockets.

phasers

Pottler wrote: »

Try having more kids.:D 280.00 - now you're getting there:D I was actually surprised at this myself, but apparently it's what a lot of people do, change the car using the kiddie-dough. Like I said, new one on me, but very common apparently.. lad was a salesman in a Toyota garage btw and not a spoofer either.

That story is up there with the free bugggies tbh, don't believe a word of what your friend says.

starbelgrade

phasers wrote: »

Are post office accounts still a thing?

Yup. They still exist... as do Prize Bonds!

Gumbo

keithclancy wrote: »

Well I'd guess your paying max 700 per year in materials and other costs per child going to school.

costs more here

keithclancy wrote: »

Childcare in the Netherlands can go from anywhere between 1200 and 1700 euros / month.

same price as here too.

keithclancy wrote: »

Whats so bad about that .. its just a choice for one in the family to keep working on not .. or go on sabbatical if possible.

one wage wont pay most boom time mortgages.

Not all need it though, i agree with means testing. Scrap it, and watch this country crumble.

Gumbo

Pottler wrote: »

Try having more kids.:D €280.00 - now you're getting there:D I was actually surprised at this myself, but apparently it's what a lot of people do, change the car using the kiddie-dough. Like I said, new one on me, but very common apparently.. lad was a salesman in a Toyota garage btw and not a spoofer either.

yeah, and €280 still gets you a **** car. Would it even get you into a new Yaris or auris?

keithclancy

Ghandee wrote: »

In the UK and the north, its generally free education you know?
This includes school transport, (for all pupils)

and free school dinners for some pupils, heavily subsidised for the others. (depending if the parents are on sw or low earners)

They also don't pay each time they bring the new baby to see the doctor.

I went to school in the UK ... its not free .. its paid for by the tax payer.

The dinners ... I still wouldn't pay for it if it was free. :pac:

Bustler

goat2 wrote: »

buster thinks it is the babies wages,

that is why they have parents, who are supposed to work to feed clothe and educate them

Not exactly. I do believe it should be means tested. Not every parent has the means to feed, clothe or educate their child without CA. Life is unpredictable and people can find themselves relying on it. It costs a lot more than 140 a month to provide for a 3 year old in my experience.

starbelgrade

Bustler wrote: »

Not exactly. I do believe it should be means tested.

According to Joan Burton, it would take "an army of civil servants" to set up a system in order to means test people for child benefit.

It would if they were to set up a system dedicated to doing just that.

However, it doesn't take a genius to work out that Revenue basically already knows what everyone earns and could simply adjust tax credits accordingly.

Bustler

starbelgrade wrote: »

I put it in my kid's Post Office account. At the current rate, by the time she's 16, there'll be around €26k in savings.

Which is why it should be means tested. I know you are entitled to it at the moment, but the State shoud not be providing for a savings fund.

Ghandee

keithclancy wrote: »

I went to school in the UK ... its not free .. its paid for by the tax payer.

The dinners ... I still wouldn't pay for it if it was free. :pac:

But that contradicts what you've said here, no?

Originally Posted by keithclancy Well .. yeh .. but tbh I wouldn't have kids until I was in a position to support them financially without relying on some sort of state aid.

I mean its not like we live in the US or the UK where they have crazy fees for education

I went to school in county Derry, I was a country lad, rural area, bus pass handed to me first day of school, my parents never paid for books etc.

I get that technically its not free, but I don't accept that education in the north has 'fees'.
I don't accept it, cos it ain't true.

Gumbo

Bustler wrote: »

Which is why it should be means tested. I know you are entitled to it at the moment, but the State shoud not be providing for a savings fund.

I'd take that post you quoted with a pinch of salt tbh

gozunda

Dont know tbh...Me Ma got it but I dont think we ever saw hide nor hair of it :rolleyes:

I reckon it should be given Only in the form of vouchers that can be exchanged for recognised child expenses And nothing else

Bustler wrote: »

Not exactly. I do believe it should be means tested. Not every parent has the means to feed, clothe or educate their child without CA. Life is unpredictable and people can find themselves relying on it. It costs a lot more than 140 a month to provide for a 3 year old in my experience.

Well imo thats what contraception is for and if you cant afford to raise a child - then choose something a bit cheaper like a hamster for instance

I have a problem with the means testing of this benefit tbh -

Firstly those that work the hardest to earn an income to raise their children are doubly screwed. They pay crippling taxes and recieve bugger all state aid towards the cost of raising a child and yes they receive child benefit but are not "rich" in any sense just available to be taxed to the hilt

If they end up paying taxes only to provide for other peoples children then not only are those parents deprived of money they have worked for to provide for their own children - they are obliged to forgo these monies knowing that their own children may have to do without any return "child benefit"

Not exactly "fair" is it....

goat2

Bustler wrote: »

Not exactly. I do believe it should be means tested. Not every parent has the means to feed, clothe or educate their child without CA. Life is unpredictable and people can find themselves relying on it. It costs a lot more than 140 a month to provide for a 3 year old in my experience.

it should never have been put there in the first place,
what is the history and when did it start and why,

keithclancy

kceire wrote: »

costs more here

Oh no .. thats not how much it costs here, thats how much relatives pay in Ireland. (580 books, 200 other bits)

same price as here too.

Really ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/childcare-costing-more-than-mortgage-bills-survey-finds-3190912.html

Our nationwide survey found that families are paying up to €1,100 a month to have just one child minded.

one wage wont pay most boom time mortgages.

Not all need it though, i agree with means testing. Scrap it, and watch this country crumble.

Well .. yeh .. , we bought a house but the price was based on one wage.

Boom time mortgage ... and Child Allowance .. I think you hit the nail on the head there.

Gumbo

gozunda wrote: »

Dont know tbh...Me Ma got it but I dont think we ever saw hide nor hair of it :rolleyes:

I reckon it should be given Only in the form of vouchers that can be exchanged for recognised child expenses And nothing else

Who will bear the costs on the private sector systems to allow this?

ejmaztec

I think it was originally introduced when there were no such things as working mothers, so that they could be at least guaranteed to get their hands on some money for the kids after the old man had pissed everything away up the pub on payday.

phasers

gozunda wrote: »

Dont know tbh...Me Ma got it but I dont think we ever saw hide nor hair of it :rolleyes:

I reckon it should be given Only in the form of vouchers that can be exchanged for recognised child expenses And nothing else

What would those be exactly? and more importantly what wouldn't be included?

keithclancy

phasers wrote: »

What would those be exactly? and more importantly what wouldn't be included?

Included:
Nappies

Not Included:
Dutch Gold

Gumbo

keithclancy wrote: »

Oh no .. thats not how much it costs here, thats how much relatives pay in Ireland. (580 books, 200 other bits)

yes, costs more here :

350 voluntary cntribution
275 uniform
300 books
approx 200 throughout the year for various after school sports or days out.

keithclancy wrote: »

Well .. yeh .. , we bought a house but the price was based on one wage.

What about people that bought based on 2 wages? And kids came along afterwards?

djk1000

I thought it was because back in the day, the man of the house earned the money and got cash in his hand each week. Since some men drank the wages or didn't care about the kids, the childrens allowance came about as a payment the mother would get in her own right to make sure the kids were looked after.

Ghandee

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think it was originally introduced when there were no such things as working mothers, so that they could be at least guaranteed to get their hands on some money for the kids after the old man had pissed everything away up the pub on payday.

Bingo!

Hence why it gets paid directly to the mammy of the house!

starbelgrade

Bustler wrote: »

Which is why it should be means tested. I know you are entitled to it at the moment, but the State shoud not be providing for a savings fund.

While I agree that it should be means tested, if I decide to save the money for my child's future benefit, you can hardly call that a misuse of a child benefit payment.

goat2

which means it should be scrapped, due to mammies now being allowed to work, if they want to work,

keithclancy

kceire wrote: »

yes, costs more here :
350 voluntary cntribution

275 uniform

300 books

approx 200 throughout the year for various after school sports or days out.

Well the uniform is pretty cheap .. your kids only have to wear one set of clothes for the whole year. Over here they wear normal clothes so its a lot more expensive.

Why are you paying a voluntary contribution if you can't afford it ?

What about people that bought based on 2 wages? And kids came along afterwards?

Well, sorry but what about the people that didn't buy a house based on 2 wages and didn't have kids .. should they pay for your kids ?

Ghandee

goat2 wrote: »

which means it should be scrapped, due to mammies now being allowed to work, if they want to work,

A well looked after, well fed child, highly increases its chances of going on to be a well educated, well qualified, high earning adult in later life, contributing greatly to the tax coffers.

Think of it as an investment by the state. (in most cases)

Boombastic

and if the old man p1sses it up against the wall, tough you should have picked a better partner

if 2 people bought and the kids can along afterwards, did they not discuss or even think about what would happen if children were part of their future plans

as for saving it - shows it's not needed

LETHAL LADY

keithclancy wrote: »

Well the uniform is pretty cheap .. your kids only have to wear one set of clothes for the whole here. Over here they wear normal clothes so its a lot more expensive.

Why are you paying a voluntary contribution if you can't afford it ?

Well, sorry but what about the people that didn't buy a house based on 2 wages and didn't have kids .. should they pay for your kids ?

So you have never recieved any benefit from the state past or present?

Gumbo

keithclancy wrote: »

Well the uniform is pretty cheap .. your kids only have to wear one set of clothes for the whole year. Over here they wear normal clothes so its a lot more expensive.

Nah, not really, they would need to have normal clothes anyway, so they can just wear them.

keithclancy wrote: »

Why are you paying a voluntary contribution if you can't afford it ?

its called Voluntary, but its mandatory in reality

keithclancy wrote: »

Well, sorry but what about the people that didn't buy a house based on 2 wages and didn't have kids .. should they pay for your kids ?

Ask your father or grandfather do they rely on the state pension. And tell them its scrapped because theirs simply not enough tax payers in the system to support the OAP.

We all use public service that we havent paid for personally so your argument their is a fail im afraid.