Child Allowance up next...

Serenity Now!

Child Allowance now proposed to be means-tested in a bid to save the millions of Euros per annum that are wasted on double-earning couple claimants getting €166 per child regardless of their income.

At last a proposal for a move that actually makes sense. Longtime overdue.

Snookered

Well as long as they do not turn around and say that any household with two-incomes (both couple earning) will not receive the Childrens allowance

Because both me and the misses are working/earning and with the childrens allowance we still seriousily struggle every month!!
And the fact that our little lad turned 5 we dont qualify for the Early Childcare suppliment anymore either!

sparklepants

I agree that this reform is long overdue. In fact I find the concept of a children's allowance quite archaic. I think it should be abolished and replaced with a tax-free allowance on lower incomes and a supplement to social welfare payments. In that way you could also remove the cost of administering the existing scheme.

esharknz

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Child Allowance now proposed to be means-tested in a bid to save the millions of Euros per annum that are wasted on double-earning couple claimants getting €166 per child regardless of their income.

At last a proposal for a move that actually makes sense. Longtime overdue.

I know plenty of "double-earning" couples with children who are really struggling each month. I don't believe giving these people the childrens' allowance is a "waste of money".

Serenity Now!

Snookered wrote: »

Well as long as they do not turn around and say that any household with two-incomes (both couple earning) will not receive the Childrens allowance

Thats exactly what they're proposing. If a couple fail means-testing (ie. earn too much for this welfare benefit payment) then they'd obviously lose out.
For example, I'd stop payments to double earning couples with incomes of second tax (41%) bracket upwards. If they are earning enough to get taxed that much, they can afford to have children and therefore not eligible for this handout.

esharknz

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Thats exactly what they're proposing. If a couple fail means-testing (ie. earn too much for this welfare benefit payment) then they'd obviously lose out.
For example, I'd stop payments to double earning couples with incomes of second tax (41%) bracket upwards. If they are earning enough to get taxed that much, they can afford to have children and therefore not eligible for this handout.

What if they have several children?
Shouldn't an allowance be made for this as well? i.e. the cut off increases as you have more.

It should be based on the total income of the family, not if they've one or two incomes coming in.

Snookered

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Thats exactly what they're proposing. If a couple fail means-testing (ie. earn too much for this welfare benefit payment) then they'd obviously lose out.
For example, I'd stop payments to double earning couples with incomes of second tax (41%) bracket upwards. If they are earning enough to get taxed that much, they can afford to have children and therefore not eligible for this handout.

I'd agree with you there - if your earning enough to be paying the higher Tax Rate then you more than likely don't need the Kids Allowance
In my case - both of us are not earning enough to be on the higher tax rate (I'd be just below the cut-off and the misses would be no where near the tax break for 41%)

esharknz wrote: »

What if they have several children?
Shouldn't an allowance be made for this as well? i.e. the cut off increases as you have more.
It should be based on the total income of the family, not if they've one or two incomes coming in.

I'd agree with this to a certain extent aswell.
So this is where the means testing comes in - and it would have to be a fair testing !!!

Serenity Now!

esharknz wrote: »

It should be based on the total income of the family, not if they've one or two incomes coming in.

Means testing would cover all possibilities.

K-9

Maybe make it taxable? Should be easy and cheap enough to administer.

gurramok

esharknz wrote: »

I know plenty of "double-earning" couples with children who are really struggling each month. I don't believe giving these people the childrens' allowance is a "waste of money".

Why are they struggling?

turgon

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe make it taxable? Should be easy and cheap enough to administer.

But that would still be giving allowance to millionaires, right?

nesf

turgon wrote: »

But that would still be giving allowance to millionaires, right?

Yeah but it works out an awful lot cheaper to administer.

Vyse

gurramok wrote: »

Why are they struggling?

I think this is a key question. When I was growing up there was me and my 2 brothers. My dad was unemployed for nearly 5 years and the dole back then was £80/ week and we managed to survive.

I think the term "Struggling" is a little bit too subjective for my liking. If both parents are earning I'm sure that they could live quite comfortably if the household budget was kept under control. Just needs a bit of self discipline.

gurramok

Vyse wrote: »

I think this is a key question. When I was growing up there was me and my 2 brothers. My dad was unemployed for nearly 5 years and the dole back then was £80/ week and we managed to survive.

I think the term "Struggling" is a little bit too subjective for my liking. If both parents are earning I'm sure that they could live quite comfortably if the household budget was kept under control. Just needs a bit of self discipline.

Yes, its the household debts that are the key and many people took bad decisions to purchase whatever they did and then find they are struggling despite having great paying jobs and child allwoance thrown in.

We didn't have a credit fuelled debt spree in the olden days.

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe make it taxable? Should be easy and cheap enough to administer.

Social Welfare can't handle an increase in the unemployed. How are they going to do over half a million means tests every year or two?

And yes, the rich, self-employed and farmers who can get an accountant to show they're "low income" will get away with it, while PAYE workers once again take it up the ass but, then again, nothing new here.

And the same will happen when third level fees are re-introduced, and we know this because it happened before.

Bend over and stock up on the lube.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Social Welfare can't handle an increase in the unemployed. How are they going to do over half a million means tests every year or two?

And yes, the rich, self-employed and farmers who can get an accountant to show they're "low income" will get away with it, while PAYE workers once again take it up the ass but, then again, nothing new here.

And the same will happen when third level fees are re-introduced, and we know this because it happened before.

Bend over and stock up on the lube.

Eh, it would be revenue in my post.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

But that would still be giving allowance to millionaires, right?

You could still have an automatic cut off, over €100,000 say.

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but it works out an awful lot cheaper to administer.

Indeed. Revenue already cater for age related credits and there even is an increase in tax exemption limits based on children, but it's rarely used these days. Probably would cause hassle to set up but after that, it should run pretty smoothly.

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Eh, it would be revenue in my post.

I was agreeing with you, Revenue will have to do it because Social Welfare can't.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

I was agreeing with you, Revenue will have to do it because Social Welfare can't.

My fear with SW is that the costs of administering it would be huge with, as you say, means testing every CB claim.

happy09

If you are unhappy with Child Benefit changes go to Facebook group - Protest against Unfriendly Child Benefit which is started by Cork mum.

More info at Dublin Mama Blog

Serenity Now!

K-9 wrote: »

My fear with SW is that the costs of administering it would be huge with, as you say, means testing every CB claim.

Compared to the amount of Child Allowance going to couples earning decent income while amazingly receiving this benefit, it would be a walk in the park.

K-9

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Compared to the amount of Child Allowance going to couples earning decent income while amazingly receiving this benefit, it would be a walk in the park.

Depends on what you mean by decent income?

Serenity Now!

K-9 wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by decent income?

I've already said what I consider in my opinion 'decent' income. If a couple both are in the 41% bracket income tax, they are earning above the need for a social welfare handout. The second holiday abroad, planned extension or second 08/09 family sized car might have to be sacrificed though.

K-9

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I've already said what I consider in my opinion 'decent' income. If a couple both are in the 41% bracket income tax, they are earning above the need for a social welfare handout. The second holiday abroad, planned extension or second 08/09 family sized car might have to be sacrificed though.

Indeed, double income families can earn up to about €72,000 before they hit the high rate.

Serenity Now!

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, double income families can earn up to about €72,000 before they hit the high rate.

...and still receive Child Allowance.
Crazy.

K-9

Serenity Now! wrote: »

...and still receive Child Allowance.
Crazy.

It would be unfair on one income families. Individualisation shouldn't affect things like CB.

Really, is there a fair way? Means testing will favour people with big mortgages eg.

Serenity Now!

K-9 wrote: »

It would be unfair on one income families. Individualisation shouldn't affect things like CB.

Really, is there a fair way? Means testing will favour people with big mortgages eg.

Look, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Single income or double income...it actually doesn't matter. If earning over a certain level then they should NOT be bleeding the system by receiving a social welfare benefit payment. I personally know one couple who have two kids. They both earn a combined €90K pa at least. They have two cars. House on 1 1/2 acres. Two vacations per year. They have a hefty set of loans (mortgage, cars, house extension)
Do they receive Child Allowance? Yes. Every month they receive €166 x 2.
Don't try to cod yourself by saying that they are in the extreme minority. They're most certainly not.

Billions of Euros are wasted on people like this claiming what is essentially 'free money'. Time to stop the bleeding.

Offy

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Look, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Single income or double income...it actually doesn't matter. If earning over a certain level then they should NOT be bleeding the system by receiving a social welfare benefit payment. I personally know one couple who have two kids. They both earn a combined €90K pa at least. They have two cars. House on 1 1/2 acres. Two vacations per year. They have a hefty set of loans (mortgage, cars, house extension)
Do they receive Child Allowance? Yes. Every month they receive €166 x 2.
Don't try to cod yourself by saying that they are in the extreme minority. They're most certainly not.

Billions of Euros are wasted on people like this claiming what is essentially 'free money'. Time to stop the bleeding.

Bleeding the system? Are they not the people that feed the system with income tax, PRSI and 2% tax levy? How much tax is deducted from an income of €90k? How is that bleeding the system? Thats exactly what the system needs. You would punish those that work and by doing so this would help the system?????
One of the principles of motivation used in management is:
Effort equals reward.
If theres no reward then why put in any effort? If you take away the benefits then those that just scrape into the 42% tax bracket will start to think 'why should I not sign on and play golf every day? I wouldnt have to pay childminders, rent/mortgage, doctors fees, etc. I could get the state to pay my way'.
Probably not the best direction to take.

esharknz

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but it works out an awful lot cheaper to administer.

One problem with taxation is that at present, unmarried, cohabiting couples are treated as single people. Hence you could get into the situation where if a mother is unmarried, but living with the father of the child, she may pay a smaller amount of tax on the child benefit than the married couple with the same household income.

dresden8

Offy wrote: »

Bleeding the system? Are they not the people that feed the system with income tax, PRSI and 2% tax levy? How much tax is deducted from an income of €90k? How is that bleeding the system? Thats exactly what the system needs. You would punish those that work and by doing so this would help the system?????
One of the principles of motivation used in management is:
Effort equals reward.
If theres no reward then why put in any effort? If you take away the benefits then those that just scrape into the 42% tax bracket will start to think 'why should I not sign on and play golf every day? I wouldnt have to pay childminders, rent/mortgage, doctors fees, etc. I could get the state to pay my way'.
Probably not the best direction to take.

There are a lot of people making that calculation now. Could very easily backfire if enough middle income people decide, fnck it, why bother?

As Bertie might say, the "structural deficit" is more structier than people imagine.

K-9

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Look, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Single income or double income...it actually doesn't matter. If earning over a certain level then they should NOT be bleeding the system by receiving a social welfare benefit payment. I personally know one couple who have two kids. They both earn a combined €90K pa at least. They have two cars. House on 1 1/2 acres. Two vacations per year. They have a hefty set of loans (mortgage, cars, house extension)
Do they receive Child Allowance? Yes. Every month they receive €166 x 2.
Don't try to cod yourself by saying that they are in the extreme minority. They're most certainly not.

Billions of Euros are wasted on people like this claiming what is essentially 'free money'. Time to stop the bleeding.

So tax them on it, @41%?

esharknz wrote: »

One problem with taxation is that at present, unmarried, cohabiting couples are treated as single people. Hence you could get into the situation where if a mother is unmarried, but living with the father of the child, she may pay a smaller amount of tax on the child benefit than the married couple with the same household income.

Can't think how that could happen?