So I think Child Benefit should be means tested...

jprender

I think 40k is living comfortably.

halkar

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???...

With the same logic why someone on 100k should subsidise for other people's kids and many other things that they will never use such as as the nice prison example earlier? Lists goes on and on around the same circle.
People were too busy changing cars every second year, going two, three, four holidays a year, buying like crazy for the last decade. And now we started hating public service, hating high earners with the attitude of sack them all, tax them all. Where will it end? Like every country, Ireland is also getting their fair share of downturn. Imao all taxing and sacking doing is taking the money off the circulation and killing the small businesses with more job cuts that never makes to 6 o'clock news.
We need to keep the high earners not to scare them out of here by penalyzing them.

amacachi

My problem with interfering with it (I don't think it should've gotten to where it is now, but that's irrelevant at this point) is that if they means test it then where the hell do they set the thresholds? 100k+? How much is that going to save? Particularly with the cost of a means test. 40k+? It just narrows the gap even more between how well off someone is for working or for not working. Family with 3/4 kids taking in 40k get cut the children's allowance. Suddenly theyre 4k or so a year worse off straightaway. If those kids are at college age they also would get a higher grant if the parents aren't working, and the parents' dole will be increased for as long as the kids are in education. In a family with younger kids there's childcare costs etc. involved in working.

Blergh, such a mess.

is_that_so

I am amused at how regularly this question shows up and how much of the usual rant comes with it.
All of you will be part of that 1 in 4 come 2050 assuming you're still around. By 2050 one in four Irish people will be pensioners or older, so slagging off the unborn who will have to pay for your retirement and health problems seems a bit disingenuous.

There seem to be three ways to deal with CB at present.

1. Standardisation

As suggested by An Bord Snip. The cost involved has been detailed and in theory will not cost the exchequer any more money.

2. Means Testing

There is an implied cost here in that you'd need a lot of staff processing to figure out who was entitled to it.

3. Taxation

A simpler option than Means Testing but still needs some figuring out and the Commission on Taxation may have some ideas on it.

Personally favour 1 & 3 together although there are problems with all options.

As for the ranters well there are many things we pay for that we have no responsibility for.

The cost of smokers and their health problems to the health system.
The cost of regular alcohol abuse to the health system as well as the wider effect on society of behaviour associated with it.
"Patients" who won't go to GPs and go straight to A&E instead.
Social welfare abuse(Over €500 million last year alone).

And of course the "really bad ones"

Unmarried mothers
Deserted Wives
The Unemployed
Old People's pensions
Old people and their illnesses
Sick people(Social Welfare sick days)


Children in due course become adults who will pay taxes, maintain the economy and support us all when we become infirm. Seeing that they are the economy of the future I see absolutely nothing wrong with the government providing some encouragement. Kids come at a price and as the French have recognised for some time, maintaining the rate of replacement is essential. I don't begrudge a bit of support or incentivisation but it needs to be controlled.

is_that_so

jprender wrote: »

I think 40k is living comfortably.

Using blank numbers doesn't tell you anything unless you are an accountant. It tells you nothing about circumstances. €40K to support one person is probably comfortable to a degree but not to support a family.

In this respect means testing can make more sense than a blanket tax on a set amount of money. It's also why a lot of those in that €60K-€100K bracket with commitments have felt the pain more than others. €60K may be seen as a lot of money but the commitments on it may be higher as well.

jprender

This is my point.

People are suggesting a figure of 100K because "they have to be living comfortably on that figure". It is easy to suggest a figure as a cut off point when you are earning less than this.

If asked what salary should be the means test mark, most people will suggest a salary higher than the one they are on.


Regardless, I think it should be taxed at the individuals rate, rather than means tested. Not just taken away from people who earn above a certain amount because they should be in a comfortable bracket according to some peeps.

Ashlinggnilsia

bladespin wrote: »

I think you should read the constitution, that's part of what our country is about.

I fully agree with means testing child benefit though (or some form of means testing) as I agree, it's silly to think a couple on €100k plus can have a substantial second income from their children alone.

Only problem with means testing is they simply take into account income thats it.... not outgoings and yes obviously some things arent needed i dont mean to like include their weekly shopping but things like Mortgage etc that they have no choice and have to pay that they may have purchased before they even decided to have children.

obviouly i agree a person that can afford a 100k hummer wouldnt need it but saying a couple over 100k can afford is very untrue!! My parents had three children...none of us anylonger receiving child benefit obviously wer all over 18 but technically my parents would be in that bracket over the 100k not by much though... they are broke...None of us could get a grant for college because my parents are *making too much money* none of us could go on the dole because *my parents are making too much money* and like the majority of the country they obviously didnt see this comming they have debts like most people in ireland the pay the loans for the cars they have 1 each my mothers is 12 years old and my fathers is 5 years old....they wont be buying cars for the forseeable future... they have only bought one house no holiday homes and its a fairly standard house not out on its own in the country on acres of land is a semidetached 3 bed house. In september there is 3 of us in college my brother has to get a loan to pay for his fees, and i will be living with grandparents because my parents cant afford to pay for accomodation. As a students we cannot claim the dole, or anything for that matter so my parents must pay out for us...

Before i went to college i was workin away payin for myself...got a car...didnt see the recession coming had money saved to cover my loan up till june ... didnt realise it would be so hard to get a job like everyone else.. Have been trying since january. So now i have a car which i have to pay 600 euro in insurance tomorrow ...going on the credit card... and my loan is 30 but guess what ive only got 29.97 in the bank so i will then have to pay the extra 13 euro to the bank for a failed standing order transaction. So i will have to ask my mam and dad for at least 30 euro for the forseeable future as i dont have a job to pay my loan, no way to pay back my credit card and then next month i will have to top that up by another 300 for tax. September comes fees for college for myself and my other brother and money to live off each week while payin all of their own stuff... and their salaries are cut! I know we dont get child benefit anymore but i think you cannot necessarily say a family on an income of 100k should not be allowed get it. Its not 100k disposable income and its not like you get it in one lump sum either!!

bwm43

Of course its should be means tested, the income of 100k is not reflective of the current climate and wouldn't catch enough people. It should be in my opinion 64 k(twice the last recorded average industrial wage) and reduced in increments to no allowance at 85k.

Medical cards fro oaps should be treated similarly.

A salary of 85K in the current climate is too high to be supplementing by the state. Other factors should be considered as well as income though including land, assests both fixed and current for example tractors, farmmachinery, range rovers etc. Lets get some of our cash back!

irish_bob

bwm43 wrote: »

Of course its should be means tested, the income of 100k is not reflective of the current climate and wouldn't catch enough people. It should be in my opinion 64 k(twice the last recorded average industrial wage) and reduced in increments to no allowance at 85k.

Medical cards fro oaps should be treated similarly.

A salary of 85K in the current climate is too high to be supplementing by the state. Other factors should be considered as well as income though including land, assests both fixed and current for example tractors, farmmachinery, range rovers etc. Lets get some of our cash back!

rich oap,s holding medical cards is a disgrace when we have young couples in thier thirties struggling to pay mortgages , what kind of a country allows a retired garda inspector with a 700 euro a week pension visit his doctor for free when his neighbours who are indebted up to thier eyes have to fork out 50 quid when they bring thier three kids to the doc

last years circus over the medical cards for oap,s was as much to do with the kids of theese seniors worrying whether thier inherritence would be spent on pills and doctor bills than any over riding concern for the elderly , the elderly in this country are the least indebted demographic and among the wealthiest demographic aswell

darkman2

It should not only be means tested for the rich - but for the poor aswell. The number of tramps out there making a career out of having children is something people who work hard should not have to pay for. If you genuinely can't cope and need it fair enough - but something must be done about the serial birth giving, unemployed, slags that think the world owes them a living and are quite happy to be seen walking around with the next generation of jobless spongers in their prams. Sure are'nt they getting well paid for it? They don't have to worry, like the rest of us, whether they can afford their next child - they are getting a wage for it.


Limit it it to two children per couple max for a start!

MoominPapa

Scrap it. Tax relief on child care ftw

Carawaystick

said it elsewhere, cut it by some amount, add that amount to the children's part of the social welfare; and tax it. add some correcting factor for low income families to avoid a poverty trap.


But as was pointed out, leadership has to come from the top. unvouched expenses, pensions and TD salaries, salaries that are higher than most other larger countries, multi thousand office refurbishment for a former office holder, 7 grand of airport pick ups in 2 days, or loosing money for people deemed not wanted by the electorate in local elections ( do they not pay prsi? go and queue to apply for your 204.30 per week like the rest of us.), getting a defined benefit pension after 30 years and winging about paying a fraction of the cost of it.
Until that happens, there'll be no acceptance of harsh cuts.

Bduffman

I agree that something has to be done but not means testing.

E.G.
Two people on identical salaries. One looked after their money & saved a nest egg with their family in mind.
The other pissed it away over the years, lived from paypacket to paypacket & has nothing saved.
If savings are taken in to account the second person could get more if means tested.
I think some form of taxation & reductions are the way to go.

Fratton Fred

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

Why should I, as an employed married father, subsidise someone who decides to have four children with four different fathers, none of whom have ever bothered to hang around and pat maintenance, or even get a job for that matter.

Means testing for ireland's already very generous CBA will do exactly the same as the generous job seekers allowance does, it will encourage more people to quit work and have loads of kids.

Fighting Irish

ceret wrote: »

Perhaps I'm a bit on my own here, but in the wake of talk of cuts, I think child benefit (and most other b enefits) *should* be means tested. I, for one, think it's unfair that a family of €100k+ should get child benefit. They don't need it.

It probably should be means tested because of the mess the country is in, but saying its unfair that a family that have worked hard and sensibly all their lives should be penalised when the 25 yo down the street is getting child benefit for 4 kids she has had with 4 different fathers is fairly stupid


Sorry about the rant, but i'm sick of this world helping the stupid and lazy and penalising the people who put in the effort

I wouldn't mind but child benefit is fu(king stupid, if someone is broke and has a kid and is getting CB it makes it easier on her, if she gets no CB then she'll think twice about getting preggers again

Riskymove

Fighting Irish wrote: »

if she gets no CB then she'll think twice about getting preggers again

i doubt it, i think its very simplistic to suggest someone would have a kid just to get €166 a month

Fighting Irish

Riskymove wrote: »

i doubt it, i think its very simplistic to suggest someone would have a kid just to get €166 a month

i'm not saying she's doing it to get the 166 a month, i'm saying that 166 a month takes some pressure off the person. if they didn't get that 166 it might impact them more and show them that they cannot afford to have a kid

cathysworld

I agree a lot of people dont need child allowance-- and dont get me started on Unmarried Mothers Allowance!!

Riskymove

Fighting Irish wrote: »

i'm not saying she's doing it to get the 166 a month, i'm saying that 166 a month takes some pressure off the person. if they didn't get that 166 it might impact them more and show them that they cannot afford to have a kid

but surely that would apply to the "sensible" family as well as some one with "four different partners"

Riskymove

cathysworld wrote: »

dont get me started on Unmarried Mothers Allowance!!

no longer exists

Fighting Irish

Riskymove wrote: »

but surely that would apply to the "sensible" family as well as some one with "four different partners"

yes it would and your point

Riskymove

Fighting Irish wrote: »

yes it would and your point

you say it would "penalise" the sensible family... but if they are having children they cannot afford without CB then what's the difference?

would they not think twice about having more kids?

Fighting Irish

Riskymove wrote: »

you say it would "penalise" the sensible family... but if they are having children they cannot afford without CB then what's the difference?

would they not think twice about having more kids?

yes it would, but who is the problem in this whole situation?

muboop1

Darragh29 wrote: »

Why 100K??? Because what's needed here is a decision. A quick decision... I work for myself and I have to make decisions on the financial end of my business every day of the week. I have to decide what I need to do, and THEN I I HAVE TO IMPLEMENT MY DECISION! I can't fob off my responsibilities to committees, "Bord Snip Nua's", and then dilly dally when the facts are staring me in the face!

Someone needs to make a decision with regard to a new income threshold for CB eligibility and execute that decision immediately. Unfortunately here, we don't have a decision and we don't have the execution of a decision, what we have is endless dithering that is costing us HALF A BILLION EURO a month!

Right, so i earn exactly 100k a year(lies im a student and therefore poor... this is an example)

oh no, im going to lose my benefits.

Me Calls boss "hey boss guy, can you drop my salary to 99,999 thousand a year? would save me a load on child benefits!"

Boss:"sure why not"

Me singing happy... la di da...

To easy to get around!

Other problems could be do that if child benefit is cut across the board, then dole ppl are screwed. Unless they get an exemption?

If they get an exemption, then less incentive for them to get a job!

If it was means tested then people earning up to like 40k a year would realistically be to cushy on dole and benefits to risk losing out by getting a job...

If they get a job they lose dole, housing benefit, many other things, to add child benefit onto that or even a subsidized child benefit... it might not be worth it for them!

The bracket to have benefit cut would have to be high enough that working is still financially a better idea to work.

And families with large numbers of kids?

Very messy...

Riskymove

Fighting Irish wrote: »

yes it would, but who is the problem in this whole situation?

the two examples cost the same to the public purse at present; frankly I beleive the problem is the value, not the numbers of children

I think you are allowing arguments about welfare generally enter this debate about CBA

a means test means bringing in a measure for wheter or not you get it, an unemployed mother of 4 would get it (most probably), your sensible family MAY not, it would depend on the income

personally I would favour either a striaght cut, which affects everyone or a taxable allowance whereby depending on what you earn you get less but everyone still gets something

meas testing is not only a buraucratic nightmare but also means someone €1 over a limt gets nothing but some one only €1.01 away gets it

Stark

Riskymove wrote: »

you say it would "penalise" the sensible family... but if they are having children they cannot afford without CB then what's the difference?

would they not think twice about having more kids?

If they kids grow up and join the workforce of tomorrow, then the State has made a gain. If the kids grow up and follow in their parents' footsteps and go straight from school to the dole queue, then the State has made a loss. I think it's a risky move to only provide encouragement to some sections of society to have children.

BOHSBOHS

I favour a straight cut +flat rating as recommended in the snip report


re means testing and taxation .... administrative nightmare ...whos going to admin these? ... dsfa and revenue are already stretched

i much prefer my tax dollars going to pay CB for kids of parent(s) who make an effort to work ......ie not dole lifers

stable family structures are already disadvantaged under tax and welfare provisions....bringing in means testing or taxation for CB....will see more mammies and daddies encouraged to live apart ...;)

Idbatterim

Why not get rid of it all together, those who couldnt afford kids, without the state benefit should have thought about it before popping out their sprogs!

Riskymove

Stark wrote: »

If they kids grow up and join the workforce of tomorrow, then the State has made a gain. If the kids grow up and follow in their parents' footsteps and go straight from school to the dole queue, then the State has made a loss. I think it's a risky move to only provide encouragement to some sections of society to have children.

but this is still clinging to the idea that child benefit is the key factor in having children.....it isn't

what about when there was no child benfit...did they stop having kids?

what about when it was much lower than the present rate?

Stark

Riskymove wrote: »

but this is still clinging to the idea that child benefit is the key factor in having children.....it isn't

what about when there was no child benfit...did they stop having kids?

what about when it was much lower than the present rate?

Adoption used to be quite common for mothers who couldn't afford to raise their kids back in the day. These days it's practically unheard of (most adoptions these days are people adopting extended family members rather than strangers' children).