migrant EU workers entitled to child payment

The_Minister

pete wrote:

In fairness, €50million was the figure they were using from the word go:

The one that the Fine Gael representative used on the RTE Six One News (eg where they were talking to the public) was €150million. I would take the one that they were throwing about in a public forum over one they stuck on the website

ambro25

bonkey wrote:

I would point out that this is distinct from saying "we were never entitled to receive anything".
jc

True enough - but when the goalposts keep conveniently shifting at every visit to, or contact with, the relevant public sector department (irrespective of the country in question, btw), one wonders whether definitional niceties have any relevance at all - no such definitional niceties or 'shifting goalposts' when it comes to calculating and taking their pound of tax flesh from me, as we're then dealing in absolutes only, aren't we - :mad:

The_Minister

Hobbes wrote:

Do we have an exact figure rather then 1 in 3 migrant worker which may or may not be correct.

.

No-one has the figure. The 1 in 3 is probably far to high when one thinks about it. If you had kids would you leave them in another country? Even those cold-hearted enough to do so would rarely leave kids under 6. It was created to get a nice round figure.


A rational look at the figures makes me wonder if we will hit €10 million. (maybe not even €1 million)

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The State's income from taxes should not be used to support families abroad.

You know if you leave the country after a set time you can actually claim your TAX back. It is a lot more money taken from the country to supporting a child. That would be worse no? No complaints about how Irish companies are doing to this no? For example IIRC the tax my company got back for me being in the US for three years came to around 50k.

So there are similar things going on in regards to migrant workers.

No outrage there though no?

Hobbes

Firespinner wrote:

No-one has the figure. The 1 in 3 is probably far to high when one thinks about it. If you had kids would you leave them in another country? Even those cold-hearted enough to do so would rarely leave kids under 6. It was created to get a nice round figure.

Would depend if the migrant worker left thier family in another country. I can understand why they would do this. For example if I was to get a job in the UK I certainly wouldn't move all my family straight away. It could be some time as you have a large amount of work to do to migrate. Find a home, find a school, etc. Its not just a simple matter of hop on the boat.

bonkey

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It's not for the State to extend its largesse to foreign nationals who do not even reside in the country.

What about nationals who reside in the country but who are dependant on someone living abroad?

As I said...lets imagine that you're a kid living with a non-working parent, whilst your other parent is supporting you by sending earnings home from another country.

Should your government pay anything towards your welfare, despite the fact that you have a parent in employment but who is contributing to another nation's welfare system???

jc

bonkey

Firespinner wrote:

you had kids would you leave them in another country? Even those cold-hearted enough to do so would rarely leave kids under 6.

Anecdotally....I know one persno who's family migrates around Europe with him as he goes from job to job. Of the other few dozen with families, they all have a partner living in one permanent location which they return to as their work and earnings permits.

You call these people cold-hearted because they choose to allow their children to grow up in a single, fixed location and to have stability in their environment, rather than moving them from country to country as the parent goes job to job just to keep the family unit together?

jc

MrPudding

ambro25 wrote:

Well, that's an interesting development.

We never obtained anything for our baby daughter
(i) either from France (my nationality and one of my daughter's), wherein I've paid full-rate income tax for years,
(ii) or the UK, where she was born a couple of months before we moved to Dublin (and where she's supposedly entitled to the "baby starter pack" fund-thing), and wherein I've also paid full-rate income tax for years,
(iii) or Ireland, where I also pay full-rate income tax (and all the others - VAT, duties, road taxes, etc.).

In each case, we've been sent packing - in Ireland not so long back.

Yet in my job I save some Irish investors millions in (fully legit') tax-free royalties every year. That's for colouration, of course - yet it shows that it is pretty much still a one-sided affair. About time for a welcome change.

Have you decided not to claim? We get CB for our two kids. We also get a bourse form the French gov to help with the fees for the French School the kids go to. I would imagine you would be entitled to the same.

There was an economist on the Dumphy show this morning. He said that, according to CSO figures, there are currently 300 migrant workers claiming for children under six that are not living here.

He also pointed out that given the publicity it has just received that number will probably rise considerably over the next few weeks.

MrP

GypsumFantastic

bonkey wrote:

What about nationals who reside in the country but who are dependant on someone living abroad?

As I said...lets imagine that you're a kid living with a non-working parent, whilst your other parent is supporting you by sending earnings home from another country.

Should your government pay anything towards your welfare, despite the fact that you have a parent in employment but who is contributing to another nation's welfare system???

jc

I read your analogy earlier and it's still not relevant. What you're referring to is a child who is a national of the State and is therefore entitled to a certain degree of financial protection of some kind as opposed to the scheme being proposed here where the State becomes financially responsible for nationals in another, completely different, State.

ambro25

MrPudding wrote:

Have you decided not to claim?

No - given the cost of living around these parts, my wife was under strict instructions to lodge a claim (:D ), however modest the amount.

I've always considered the question in equitable terms, instead of nationalistic (which are so very misplaced, once a country becomes part of the EU): since I was and am contributing to the national wealth, I don't see why I should be excluded from its redistribution.

Not to mention the pot/kettle/black affair, as already amply alluded to in the thread, of EU funds that have flowed in since accession and, to a smaller or larger extent, catalyzed the Tiger in its heydeys. That fits in with my consideration of equity as well (considering the 1992 date, for instance, part and parcel of my FR and LUX tax money back in the days have therefore probably funded some infinitesimal portion of the M50 ).

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

You know if you leave the country after a set time you can actually claim your TAX back.

The main point here is the responsibilities of the State. I happen to believe they should be as little as possible but will accept that it does have them with respect to residents in that country. What I do not, and cannot, accept is that the State's fiscal responsibilities extend beyond its own borders to the extended family, and families, in other nations.

Personal income should be used to support your own family. If the State is genuinely so concerned about the welfare of foreign nationals then it could seek to relieve some of the tax burden on those workers under the principle that you know best how to spend the money in your own pocket rather than some civil servant. But then this goes against everything meddling States believe in. The State should not presume to know best or presume that it is better placed to financially support your foreign offspring than you.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

What I do not, and cannot, accept is that the State's fiscal responsibilities extend beyond its own borders to the extended family, and families, in other nations.

So if an Irish person who has moved to the UK to a job they should stop all Child benifits?

Bare in mind that this law is being extended to EU people only.

Personal income should be used to support your own family.

You strike me as someone who has no children.

bonkey

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I read your analogy earlier and it's still not relevant.

Yes, it is relevant. Indeed, I can't see how you can fully understand the issue and suggest otherwise.

If a Polish worker here shouldn't be entitled to child benefit, then presumably the child should be entitled to whatever benefits the Polish State offer. The only remaining alternative is to suggest that once a family lives in multiple nations, its entitled to the benefits of none of them, which would be discriminatory.

I'm at a loss as to how you can suggest that one option is undesireable and yet the only non-discriminatory alternative is irrelevant. It suggests that your aim is to maximise the benefits the Irish gain today rather than to seek a fair and durable solution.

Change our status as a nation from immigrant back to emigrant, and all of a sudden your solution will mean we are the ones losing out, as we will be the ones supporting kids while their parents work and pay taxes abroad. And this is irrelevant to you? You don't see this as having anything to do with the problem or the correctness of the solution?

Why do I get the suspicion that (on the assumption you're old enough) had we had this discussion back in the 80s, you'd have been telling us how crazy it was that the Irish government pays child welfare to families where Daddy is off doing an Auf Wiedersehen Pet, and paying the German govt. his taxes, and that the children of emigrants should not be the responsibility of the state.

as opposed to the scheme being proposed here where the State becomes financially responsible for nationals in another, completely different, State.

The solution proposed here is where State becomes financially responsible for those who are legally and financially dependant on someone resident in Ireland, where that resident is paying taxes and/or receiving state-support in Ireland.

Its a logical dependancy chain. Keyword: logical.

jc

pete

Firespinner wrote:

pete wrote:

In fairness, €50million was the figure they were using from the word go:

The one that the Fine Gael representative used on the RTE Six One News (eg where they were talking to the public) was €150million. I would take the one that they were throwing about in a public forum over one they stuck on the website

If it's all the same i'll stick to the "facts" as stated in the actual press release, not figures you think you may or may not have (mis)heard someone (mis)quoting.

bonkey

ambro25 wrote:

I've always considered the question in equitable terms, instead of nationalistic (which are so very misplaced, once a country becomes part of the EU):

This is obviously where people like you and I go wrong - looking for whats fair as opposed to whats most advantageous to me, at this point in time.

jc

MrPudding

bonkey wrote:

This is obviously where people like you and I go wrong - looking for whats fair as opposed to whats most advantageous to me, at this point in time.

jc

Fair does not seem to cut it in Ireland at the moment. It the old "I'm alright Jack."

What amount are we actually talking about here. Lets take what was wasted on E-voting and add to that the amount that has been spent so far on moving Temple Street Hospital to the ground of the Mater hospital which after 6 years of planning now may not go ahead on the basis of a report that consultants have been working on for 4 weeks. Throw in the amount wasted the the HSE's HR system and you have enough to pay for this for a couple of years.

I would rather see the money being spent on a few kids, even if they are not here and even if the parents are taking the piss a bit than consultants billing themselve out a a couple of grand a day simply to justify thier own exsistence or wasted projects that weren't properly thought out.

But then I'm funny like that.

MrP

DublinWriter

valerie wrote:

migrant workers here are to get the childs allowance whether
their children are here or not.
it will cost taxpayers €150 million just to pay a third of them.:mad:

Migrant = EU Citizen
Worker = Taxpayer

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I happen to believe they should be as little as possible but will accept that it does have them with respect to residents in that country. What I do not, and cannot, accept is that the State's fiscal responsibilities extend beyond its own borders to the extended family, and families, in other nations.

That doesn't make sense.

You think that an EU country should not pay for the children of people working in that country, but if they must get child support that another EU country should pay for the children of people not even working in that country?

Or put it another way, why the hell should I pay for my neighbours kids if my neighour is off working in France, spending his money in France, supporting the French economy and paying taxes in France? It would be ridiculous, every econonic contribution he makes is to the French econony yet you think we should be paying his child support?

Zombrex

Far Corfe wrote:

Ireland never received trillions? Do you know how much a trillion is?

It is trillions (€1,000,000,000,000) ... hell the structural fund alone has recieved €17 billion.

DublinWriter

Wicknight wrote:

Or put it another way, why the hell should I pay for my neighbours kids if my neighour is off working in France

Why are my taxes being spent on childrens welfare for people in Meath who work in Dublin!

Why are my taxes being spent on people from the neighbouring town who come to work in mine!

Why are my taxes being spent on people from the next street who come to work in mine!

etc etc etc

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote:

Why are my taxes being spent on childrens welfare for people in Meath who work in Dublin!

Why are my taxes being spent on people from the neighbouring town who come to work in mine!

Why are my taxes being spent on people from the next street who come to work in mine!

etc etc etc

Because we live in a Social Democracy. If you don't like it vote in the PDs.

But it makes very little sense for the funding for social welfare to come from somewhere else other than the economy that the person is contributing to.

People here are up in arms because our econony is paying for children's benefits for children that might live in other EU countries. What they are forgetting is that their parents were working in our economy.

Blackjack

gandalf wrote:

The Scheme itself is. If this government were serious about childcare they should allow people write off the costs against their taxes instead of coming up with short term headline grabber schemes that they haven't even thought out. Or maybe put some thought into State Creches and extended facilities in schools to keep pupils after hours until their parents can pick them up. For most people €1000 is nothing compared to the costs they actually have.

As usual its nothing but a short term fix for the Proles to vote back in the same tired old muppets.

Have to agree, although I recall that McCreevy tried to bring in a tax allowance for Childcare in a budget a few years ago, but had to back down because the Noonan led Fine Gael and their Labour side kicks complained that it was "socially divisive" and had the stay at home mothers up in arms because they were getting no such allowance.

t76

Hi all,
I am from Poland and I work here one year.
150 mln - that's a joke :-)
My calculations:
Let's say 166 000 workers and third of them has a child - 55 000
Let's say 55000 migrant children - 750 x 55000 = 41,25mln Don't forget that this year it will be paid from June! I didn't include CB because number of people receiving and applying is known to your goverment so I can suppose that it is included in your 2006 budget.
Now: You have to know it is really dificult to get CB when your child is in Poland and to be honest I don't know any person whose child is in Poland who receive this. To get CB I had to send ticket from Airlingus to prove that my son is already in Ireland. Second thing: over 50 % of migrants will not be able to claim because: 1 they don't know 2 Their English is too poor to say anything 3 Too many things to do (you have to prove that you don't receive any benefit from Polish goverment).

So don't worry about 150 mln euro ....

T.

MrPudding

t76 wrote:

Hi all,
I am from Poland and I work here one year.
150 mln - that's a joke :-)
My calculations:
Let's say 166 000 workers and third of them has a child - 55 000
Let's say 55000 migrant children - 750 x 55000 = 41,25mln Don't forget that this year it will be paid from June! I didn't include CB because number of people receiving and applying is known to your goverment so I can suppose that it is included in your 2006 budget.
Now: You have to know it is really dificult to get CB when your child is in Poland and to be honest I don't know any person whose child is in Poland who receive this. To get CB I had to send ticket from Airlingus to prove that my son is already in Ireland. Second thing: over 50 % of migrants will not be able to claim because: 1 they don't know 2 Their English is too poor to say anything 3 Too many things to do (you have to prove that you don't receive any benefit from Polish goverment).

So don't worry about 150 mln euro ....

T.

The 166000 number comes from the number of non-nationals that have applied for and received PPS numbers. A great many of them are very possibly no longer in the country.

Also, where does the "lets say a third have kids" come from? I think the number of people going to claim is going to increase. At the moment there are 300 non-nationals claiming CB. Of these 300 I am not aware how many kids they have and of those kids how many are under 6. There are also aprox 2000 further claims being processed.

Since the story broke Dublin's Polish newspaper will be running stories on how to claim the benefits people are due. Prior to this even the journos did not know this was an option.

The fact of the matter is no one actually seems to know how many kids it will actually cover.

MrP

dochasach

MrPudding wrote:

The 166000 number comes from the number of non-nationals that have applied for and received PPS numbers. A great many of them are very possibly no longer in the country.

And quite a few PPS numbered non-nationals are from outside of the E.U. but work and have children in Ireland. The numbers were completely wrong, but they had the desired populist effect. Like the crime, driving and "citizenship tourist" statistics (i.e. dam lies), the numbers seemed crafted to encourage anti-immigrant panic in the voting population. 350 million? 150 million? 50 million? The latest I heard was 1 million Euro.

Non-E.U. workers are required to pay taxes but cannot avail of the child benefit. Since Marxism doesn't work, the likely effect of injecting a subsidy into child-care will be to increase demand and therefore raise child care costs. For Irish and E.U. nationals, the benefit cash will partially compensate for this, but non E.U. workers will have to pay more out of pocket for child care and more taxes to subsidise the childcare for everyone except themselves.

Non-nationals (E.U. and other) are required to pay PRSI, but most will not be allowed to stay in Ireland long enough to collect benefits.

Non-nationals are required to pay taxes but cannot vote for or against those who (un)wisely spend it.

Nationals from everywhere in the E.U. pay taxes to fund poorly planned Irish boondoggels such as the port tunnel, east-link toll bridge, M50, Dart, Luas. They also pay for infrastructure which has allowed wealthy Irish property owners to become more wealthy.

Bertie, the wrong people are whining!

This fiasco is yet another example of a horrible tendency to blame immigrants for every social ill while ignoring domestically created (and heavily E.U. funded) disasters such as the transportation system, health care and environmental pollution. There is nothing new about the popularity of nationalism and isolationism, I just thought Ireland's history would help keep it from falling into this trap.

I don't envy Bertie for having to answer to domestic calls for isolationism whilst grovelling to the U.S. and trying to convince them that the tens of thousands of Irish nationals who couldn't be bothered to take the relatively simple steps towards a legal U.S. visa should have priority over the millions of poor undocumented immigrants from central and south America.

The_Minister

Hobbes wrote:

Would depend if the migrant worker left thier family in another country. I can understand why they would do this. For example if I was to get a job in the UK I certainly wouldn't move all my family straight away. It could be some time as you have a large amount of work to do to migrate. Find a home, find a school, etc. Its not just a simple matter of hop on the boat.

Godd point but I was talking in a long-term situation

The_Minister

pete wrote:

Firespinner wrote:

pete wrote:

In fairness, €50million was the figure they were using from the word go:
If it's all the same i'll stick to the "facts" as stated in the actual press release, not figures you think you may or may not have (mis)heard someone (mis)quoting.

They did say that figure :mad:


It was also mentioned on Q&A so I didn't mishear it.
Also it was a Fine Gael spokesman who said it so they weren't misquoted.:mad:

(little upstart.....)

Hippo

DublinWriter wrote:

Why are my taxes being spent on childrens welfare for people in Meath who work in Dublin!

Why are my taxes being spent on people from the neighbouring town who come to work in mine!

Why are my taxes being spent on people from the next street who come to work in mine!

etc etc etc

Love it!!

Hobbes

Firespinner wrote:

Godd point but I was talking in a long-term situation

So am I. When I worked in the US one of the Japanese guys didn't bring his family over until 1.5 years. Moving your whole family here would be an added burden on your wages.

The_Minister

Hobbes wrote:

So am I. When I worked in the US one of the Japanese guys didn't bring his family over until 1.5 years. Moving your whole family here would be an added burden on your wages.

Did you mean 1.5 or 15? 1.5 is not too long for the country. Don't forget its harder to more from Japan to America than from Estonia to Ireland