the budget

Ludo

Dades wrote: »

The family with no kids isn't "losing" as much because they never got the ECS in the first place.

Well as a percentage of income into a family based on the dept of finances own report, a family with two kids and one earner is losing twice as much as two married people with no kids.

Thats like if they cut the dole by 50% then saying it doesnt affect working people as they didnt have it to begin with...while true it is a highly unfair cut back to foist twice as much cuts on a certain section of society.

Are families with kids valued in Ireland...obviously not by our government!

This will discourage people having kids bigtime. I know we were thinking seriously about having a third...that is now officially on the back burner after this.

Quality

Ludo wrote: »

This will discourage people having kids bigtime. I know we were thinking seriously about having a third...that is now officially on the back burner after this.

I agree... We were considering having a fourth (eventually), but come January depending on the means test, we will be down €700 a month on child benefit & allowance alone.

I will be very interested to see what the income limits are going to be for the means test..

embee

It's completely impossible to budget or save any cash when you are on welfare and living below the poverty line, so the Christmas bonus was vital to try and provide some sort of decent Christmas. Now, Christmas is essentially cancelled. I don't imagine the über rich would have to cancel Christmas just because their Child Benefit was reduced through a means testing process.

Dades

embee wrote: »

I honestly don't think it's equitable or fair for extremely wealthy people to be getting child benefit regardless of their means. And I don't mean people in situations like beth-lou's...

While you may not be talking about them - they will likely be hit. Those middle incomes who hear about "equality" while being means-tested out of funds they need and paid for. They're the ones we're concerned about!

Ludo wrote: »

This will discourage people having kids bigtime. I know we were thinking seriously about having a third...that is now officially on the back burner after this.

This is going to sound all wrong - but why should the government be subsidising you so you can have another child?

embee

Dades,

I don't know why you've felt the need to put the words "paid for" in bold.... What's your point?

Is it that I haven't "paid for" child benefit or social welfare because I'm a single unemployed parent? That's a nonsense, quite frankly. For the 8 years that I worked before I had my daughter, I paid taxes like everyone else. Taxes that paid other peoples social welfare or child benefit. Yes, middle income families will suffer from this budget, I never disputed that. My gripe is with the small minority of the über rich still getting child benefit without a real need for it.

Ludo

Dades wrote: »

This is going to sound all wrong - but why should the government be subsidising you so you can have another child?

Nah..I get what you mean. And indeed they shouldnt be subsidising me to have another child. Our decision is not solely based on the budget but that was the final straw after recent changes to our income brought on by other factors to do with the downturn.

But IMHO they also should not be discouraging people from having kids by hitting families with children harder than every other section of society which is what they did. And indeed they have already said they are going to hit us again in the next round of cuts.

Who is going to make up the workforce/contributing to the pension fund in 20/30/40 years time when we are all retired if people are being actively discouraged from having children now?

Lets look at another thing this government did a few years ago. They brought in tax individualisation (or whatever it is called) which meant a married couple who both work pay LESS tax than a couple where one stays at home to raise the children. Fair enough...it was brought in to encourage people into the workforce as there were loads of jobs available.

There is not even a mention now of undoing this change...why not? It's not like there are jobs out there at the moment so why should a family with only one income pay more than a family with two incomes earning the same amount? Anyway, verging on going off topic there a bit so will drop it.

Rev Hellfire

embee wrote: »

My gripe is with the small minority of the über rich still getting child benefit without a real need for it.

The simple fact is the uber rich will not be affected one way or the other with means testing, its a non issue. Its the middle class who will.
When Dades refers to 'paid for' I'm assuming he's talking about those who pay the taxes for services which everyone gets to avail of except them.

Ickle Magoo

Dades wrote: »

This is going to sound all wrong - but why should the government be subsidising you so you can have another child?

I thought there was an issue with a large ageing population from generations of enormous families soon to be struggling to be supported by a much smaller tax base - I thought the Government were actually trying to encourage people to have kids/more kids?

littlebug

embee wrote: »

Dades,

I don't know why you've felt the need to put the words "paid for" in bold.... What's your point?

Is it that I haven't "paid for" child benefit or social welfare because I'm a single unemployed parent? QUOTE]

Embee I think you're being a tad sensitive about this. Dades is talking about the losses that will be incurred by anyone who has paid taxes, including you. I'm minding a little girl today whose mother is in the exact same position as you and I have nothing but respect for you both. IMO you are the people who are deserving of all the benefits you can get because you are working your arshes off to get yourselves to a point where you don't need them anymore.

Dades

embee wrote: »

Dades,

I don't know why you've felt the need to put the words "paid for" in bold.... What's your point?

A couple of others have alluded to it, but I really wasn't targeting you in anything I'm talking about. I understand your situation and I empathise. But I just can't accept this idea that families could bust their asses to earn some extra income - hand half it over in tax - and then be precluded from receiving the benefits of it.

But since you only have issues with "rich" folk receiving it, let's not labour the point!

Regarding having kids, I suspect the government would rather not encourage more hungry mouths at the moment. Right now I'd imagine the plan is short term rather than long term! Personally I'm doubt that any country encouraging population growth is doing the right thing.

Ludo

Dades wrote: »

Regarding having kids, I suspect the government would rather not encourage more hungry mouths at the moment. Right now I'd imagine the plan is short term rather than long term! Personally I'm doubt that any country encouraging population growth is doing the right thing.

So you see no problem with having hundreds of thousands of retired people who are not paying taxes any longer who will need health care, pensions, etc, etc and no working population around to pay taxes to support all that? Not to mind paying all those public sector salaries and pay for infrastructure etc, etc.

VERY short-sighted view to discourage people having children.

Dades

Ludo wrote: »

VERY short-sighted view to discourage people having children.

This new crop of taxpayers will grow old too and undoubtedly live longer than the previous generation, resulting in a perpetuating problem.

And there's a difference between discouraging children and not encouraging them.