Child payments -cuts

Ludo

Idbatterim wrote: »

i believe you should get back out what you put it! i am well aware that the scammers are in the minority! what infuriates me is all the privilidges these minority enjoy! free health care, free education, child support, free housing, dole, and god knows whatever else they are entitled too! every one should pull their own weight! i just have one question. is anyone here denying that the system here is very cushy and open for abuse?

Nope...not denying it at all. I actually agree with the gist of what you are getting at. But don't agree with your sweeping solution of just getting rid of something completely which is open to abuse. Fixing it so it works better and fairly would seem more suitable than just cutting everyone off simply because a few abuse it. EVERYTHING is open to abuse. Boards.ie is open to abuse...should it be shut down because a few people come on to deliberately cause trouble or shil their business?

KittyeeTrix

Ludo wrote: »

Nope...not denying it at all. I actually agree with the gist of what you are getting at. But don't agree with your sweeping solution of just getting rid of something completely which is open to abuse. Fixing it so it works better and fairly would seem more suitable than just cutting everyone off simply because a few abuse it. EVERYTHING is open to abuse. Boards.ie is open to abuse...should it be shut down because a few people come on to deliberately cause trouble or shil their business?

Point made nicely:)

Idbatterim

look i fully appreciate that alot of people at the moment are very unfortunate with jobs etc. It can happen to anyone. Anyway my arguament brought things off topic, I am only directing my anger at a small but yet considerable percentage of those in receipt of child benefit.

Ludo

Idbatterim wrote: »

I am only directing my anger at a small but yet considerable percentage of those in receipt of child benefit.

Again I ask...show me the numbers...what exactly is a "small but considerable percentage"? Or are you just making up numbers in your head. Back up your argument with information or you are just soapboxing.

Heineken Helen

Idbatterim wrote: »

i believe you should get back out what you put it! i am well aware that the scammers are in the minority! what infuriates me is all the privilidges these minority enjoy! free health care, free education, child support, free housing, dole, and god knows whatever else they are entitled too! every one should pull their own weight! i just have one question. is anyone here denying that the system here is very cushy and open for abuse?

Ahhh so it's a simple case of jealousy? Grass is always greener mentality?

I'd love to see how much YOU'D enjoy being on the dole :rolleyes: with all these WONDERFUL freebies :rolleyes:

Quartet

Ludo wrote: »

Again I ask...show me the numbers...what exactly is a "small but considerable percentage"? Or are you just making up numbers in your head. Back up your argument with information or you are just soapboxing.

These figures are from the DSW website www.welfare.ie and relate to all forms of social welfare fraud...

The total spend on Social Welfare Payments in 2009 will be €21.3 billion approx 20% higher than in 2008

Almost €476 million in Social Welfare payments was saved through fraud control measures in 2008, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin T.D., today outlined.
...
In 2007 Social welfare fraud is estimated to cost €400m with a further €200m detected and prevented, according to the head of the Irish Fraud Bureau.

Minister Hanafin said there was a noticeable increase in the number of reports of possible fraud reported to the Central Control Section of the Department by members of the public. 'Last year (2008) 1,044 reports were received from members of the public, an increase of 70% on the previous year. Each and every case reported to the Department is investigated. And all reports made by the public are dealt with in a confidential manner, reports given anonymously are also fully investigated.' (Contact details for the Central Control Section are attached below).

Goobie

they said it was so that we could pay for childcare with it--so that they wouldn't have to build nice state-run creches like they have in Germany and everywhere else in Europe.

Building childcare facilities for everyone, paid for by a fair tax system--another thing that could have been done during the 'boom' that won't happen now.

gcgirl

Goobie wrote: »

they said it was so that we could pay for childcare with it--so that they wouldn't have to build nice state-run creches like they have in Germany and everywhere else in Europe.

Building childcare facilities for everyone, paid for by a fair tax system--another thing that could have been done during the 'boom' that won't happen now.

That would have been a bridge too far You see it in every other european country Like France and Spain, My brother lives in Lyon and he avails of it and he thinks its a brill thing!

paulocon

So has anyone any idea on how the means testing of Childrens Allowance might work as I'd imagine it would be fairly difficult.

Looking around at friends, I know of one couple with two children, a relatively large mortgage and 2 well paid jobs. I know of another couple with 5 children, a small mortgage and 1 income. Due to mortgages etc, both might well have the same disposable income (it any)..

Suppose what I'm asking is are people tested effectively on the amount of money they have left at the end of the month or is it more a case of 'you have a big house and a decent job.. even though you pay a huge mortgage, you'll get nothing'.

ntlbell

paulocon wrote: »

So has anyone any idea on how the means testing of Childrens Allowance might work as I'd imagine it would be fairly difficult.

Looking around at friends, I know of one couple with two children, a relatively large mortgage and 2 well paid jobs. I know of another couple with 5 children, a small mortgage and 1 income. Due to mortgages etc, both might well have the same disposable income (it any)..

Suppose what I'm asking is are people tested effectively on the amount of money they have left at the end of the month or is it more a case of 'you have a big house and a decent job.. even though you pay a huge mortgage, you'll get nothing'.

AFAIK any other means testing that's done in the SW etc is done on your income not your disposable income.

I guess people will have to start making some choices

what's more important to us a fancy house in the leafy suburbs our kids future.

people can always sell their big house to pay for their kids big future.

i don't see why the social should be helping people who chose to buy big houses..

KittyeeTrix

ntlbell wrote: »

AFAIK any other means testing that's done in the SW etc is done on your income not your disposable income.

I guess people will have to start making some choices

what's more important to us a fancy house in the leafy suburbs our kids future.

people can always sell their big house to pay for their kids big future.

i don't see why the social should be helping people who chose to buy big houses..

One of the saddest point about this whole thing is that so many people have locked themselves into huge mortgages for average houses.

As a result many people are now financially unable to burden the cost of kids.......
Hopefully people will have learned a lesson following this economic downturn....
I have always said that you can't gather a pile of bricks around your deathbed but your kids will be there when you need them and that is the only thing that is important in this life

ntlbell

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

One of the saddest point about this whole thing is that so many people have locked themselves into huge mortgages for average houses.

As a result many people are now financially unable to burden the cost of kids.......
Hopefully people will have learned a lesson following this economic downturn....
I have always said that you can't gather a pile of bricks around your deathbed but your kids will be there when you need them and that is the only thing that is important in this life

Hopefully lessons will be learned.

I'm not very hopeful tho

sunnyside

Hobbes wrote: »

I think I can safely say that you don't have any children. If you think that government subsidy somehow "pays for the children".

No but they pay for a lot of things for them, school book and uniform grant, school bus.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

So tell me sunnyside, how many years have you been contributing to the countries coffers???? :mad:

8 with a short break while I was unemployed.

dvpower wrote: »

So, would you do away with free primary and secondary education too?

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Yes, and Sunnyside won't need anyone else's children as doctors and nurses to look after him in his old age either......:rolleyes:

What I would do is be more generous about paying for 3rd level because the people with 3rd level education are the ones who will pay the most tax in the future. They are almost guaranteed to give a lot back to society. Lot of children will never contribute much to the economy, they will be claiming benefits themselves as soon as they are old enough to.

Darkbloom wrote: »

You think every child out there was planned? You're having a laugh.

Abortion's illegal, and contraception can fail. These things happen to normal people all the time.

I think children should be planned. Some people put more consideration into what sort of car to buy than whether they will have children or not while other people spend €1000's on IVF treatments in the hope of having children.

gcgirl wrote: »

She lived there for the best part of her life in London and over here your talking 300/400 before they even set foot in the classroom in September then there is Art/craft materals money has to be in the first week of september then you have to hand up a small amount of money each week!!

Yes children are expensive but you sign up for that when you choose to have them.

Idbatterim wrote: »

if you cant afford a child withouth the assistance of child benefit dont have one! what kind of life can they expect to have anyway if child benefit is the difference between you being able to feed them or not?

I agree with you but I will also add that children can benefit more from lots of time spent with their parents than having money thrown at them. But seriously if you can't afford to feed children don't have them. I understand that circumstances can change but if your present circumstances aren't good don't do it.

paulocon wrote: »

So has anyone any idea on how the means testing of Childrens Allowance might work as I'd imagine it would be fairly difficult.

Looking around at friends, I know of one couple with two children, a relatively large mortgage and 2 well paid jobs. I know of another couple with 5 children, a small mortgage and 1 income. Due to mortgages etc, both might well have the same disposable income (it any)..

Suppose what I'm asking is are people tested effectively on the amount of money they have left at the end of the month or is it more a case of 'you have a big house and a decent job.. even though you pay a huge mortgage, you'll get nothing'.

I've never really understood means testing. The system itself needs a revamp. For instance an unemployed person with €20,000 in savings and a house they own having inherited it gets the same €204 as someone who doesn't know where the next meal is coming from. It needs to look at more than income on paper. I know the unemployed guy who owns his house, no mortgage or rent. While cashflow is a problem due to being unemployed he's still in a very strong position financially.

paulocon

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

One of the saddest point about this whole thing is that so many people have locked themselves into huge mortgages for average houses.

As a result many people are now financially unable to burden the cost of kids.......
Hopefully people will have learned a lesson following this economic downturn....
I have always said that you can't gather a pile of bricks around your deathbed but your kids will be there when you need them and that is the only thing that is important in this life

Fully agreed and that's the heart of the problem I suppose. For some people I know, they have built their family budget around the fact that they were taxed at 41% and they had the childrens allowance coming in. I really can't understand why the government dropped the tax rates when they did (i.e. when people already had money) and upped the childrens allowance and introduced what I saw as the unnecesary Early Childcare supplement. Like I said, some people who have bought a house in the last few years and have young children have budgeted all this in and now the government is reversing these decisions... I'm lucky in that I had a relatively small mortgage but I really do feel for couples with young children who got caught with overinflated mortgages..

AlekSmart

Goobie wrote: »

they said it was so that we could pay for childcare with it--so that they wouldn't have to build nice state-run creches like they have in Germany and everywhere else in Europe.

Building childcare facilities for everyone, paid for by a fair tax system--another thing that could have been done during the 'boom' that won't happen now.

Oh dear....we right back at the start...the native Irish inability to spell or even contemplate that rare and precious item......"The Common Good"...... (Please disregard the foregoing if you are a Property Speculator or Developer) :rolleyes: