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

irish_bob

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?

thats your opinion , nothing more , just because you refuse to believe some girls choose to get pregnant for financial gain doesnt mean it dont happen

mickoneill30

Riskymove wrote: »

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

When was the child benefit allowance introduced?
I've no idea but was it back in the more Catholic Ireland when people had slightly different views about contraception.

Whenever I see the families on TV with several (more than 5) kids they seem to be all from a specific or similar demographic. I know that's generalising and it's obviously not 100% but the demograpic I'm talking about are either having lots of kids because they're good Catholics or seem to want the cba.

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

thats your opinion , nothing more , just because you refuse to believe some girls choose to get pregnant for financial gain doesnt mean it dont happen

I did not say that so please keep your comments to what i said

I said "child benefit" is not the key factor in deciding to have kids or encouraging to have kids as suggested above..it is €136 a month or around that if I recall

are we suggesting that if you take into account the cost of child that €136 a month would result in you making lots of money?

Riskymove

mickoneill30 wrote: »

are either having lots of kids because they're good Catholics or seem to want the cba.

given the cost of a child can CBA really be such a profit generator that you are talking about

is it really the reason for teen pregnancies or large families in a "certain demographic"????

mickoneill30

Riskymove wrote: »

given the cost of a child can CBA really be such a profit generator that you are talking about

to quote you again

Riskymove wrote: »

I did not say that so please keep your comments to what i said

and to answer you question

Riskymove wrote: »

is it really the reason for teen pregnancies or large families in a "certain demographic"????

I've no idea. Maybe they just like lots and lots of kids.

Stark

Riskymove wrote: »

I said "child benefit" is not the key factor in deciding to have kids or encouraging to have kids as suggested above..it is €136 a month or around that if I recall

are we suggesting that if you take into account the cost of child that €136 a month would result in you making lots of money?

Child Benefit Monthly rate
One child €166
Two children €332
Three children €535
Four children €738
Five children €941
Six children €1,144
Seven children €1,347
Eight children €1,550

As you can see, the system favours having a litter of kids.

Riskymove

Stark wrote: »

Child Benefit Monthly rate
One child €166
Two children €332
Three children €535
Four children €738
Five children €941
Six children €1,144
Seven children €1,347
Eight children €1,550

As you can see, the system heavily favours having a litter of kids.

yes but surely the cost of a child doubles with each child

If it was that simple why aren't we all just having loads of kids and racking it in


while there may well be a wider problem with welfare, housing et and many anecdotes about that this discussion is supposed to be about CBA

I cannot see how CBA on its own is the key factor people seem to think it is

Gurgle

Riskymove wrote: »

given the cost of a child can CBA really be such a profit generator that you are talking about

Yes, it can.
But only for those who don't look after their kids properly.

Riskymove

mickoneill30 wrote: »

to quote you again

you asked whether families with lots of kids do it as they want to get CBA


my answer is that point...I dont think i went off what you said there

Stark

Riskymove wrote: »

yes but surely the cost of a child doubles with each child

How do you figure that?

Riskymove wrote: »

If it was that simple why aren't we all just having loads of kids and racking it in

Many people don't have the time with career commitments.

Riskymove

Stark wrote: »

How do you figure that?

???

food, clothes, education etc for 1 child costs a certain amount would it not be more for 2?

Stark

Okay, you mean that two children cost twice as much as one child as opposed to the second child costing twice as much.

If you break down the benefits, then it's €166 each for child no. 1 and 2 but €203 for each child after that.

A Primal Nut

harsea8 wrote: »

As I alluded to in my earlier post, why €100K? Why not €90K?
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sh*te (what with multi-millionaires being eligible) but we can't go changing to a system where we pick an arbitrary amount and say everyone earning above this gets sweet FA "cos they can afford it" and anyone below it gets the full amount cos they can't afford it (if we do, people earning €90-95K will be laughing!). Also, as I said before, you cannot ignore the fact that more children = more costs, so, if you are going to means test, it has to be based on number of children as well as salary

He is just giving an example. In practice it could be done in bands very easily. I believe the money saved would be much greater than administrative costs.

ceret

harsea8 wrote: »

we can't go changing to a system where we pick an arbitrary amount and say everyone earning above this gets sweet FA "cos they can afford it" and anyone below it gets the full amount cos they can't afford it

Why not? We do it with everything else.

You get a full medical card in certain conditions and nothing above. You pay no tax below a number, and 20% above. You pay 20% below a certain amount, and 40% above. You get a grant for college if you/your family earn below something, and less above. Why should CB be any different?

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

???

food, clothes, education etc for 1 child costs a certain amount would it not be more for 2?

clothes, books and toys can be reused especially if theres an age difference between kids

ever hear of economies of scale?

it applies to sprogs too

GMcNamee

ei.sdraob wrote: »

clothes, books and toys can be reused especially if theres an age difference between kids

ever hear of economies of scale?

it applies to sprogs too

Food too I guess - never did me any harm.

By the way virtually none of the people on jobseekers payments have large families. 80% have no children at all. Sort of suggests that this 'welfare makes people have big families' is, um, ill-informed.

ei.sdraob

GMcNamee wrote: »

Food too I guess - never did me any harm.

By the way virtually none of the people on jobseekers payments have large families. 80% have no children at all. Sort of suggests that this 'welfare makes people have big families' is, um, ill-informed.

what about this family of 8 that got onto national newspapers? clear spongers


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546769&postcount=263

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

clothes, books and toys can be reused especially if theres an age difference between kids

ever hear of economies of scale?

it applies to sprogs too

ah sure your right, obviously a second or more child does not in fact cost anything, free...their whole life, great stuff

anyway all this talk of job-seekers, welfare etc is going off-topic, this is supposed to be about the CBA

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

ah sure your right, obviously a second or more child does not in fact cost anything, free...their whole life, great stuff

anyway all this talk of job-seekers, welfare etc is going off-topic, this is supposed to be about the CBA

I didnt say free

I said it gets progressively easier to raise child + n since the family can reuse things and pass them from child to child,

not only that but you get more in children's allowance for every extra N child

crazy system


as for food it is not 2x times as expensive to feed 2x people unless you bring them to restaurants all the time

try it for yourself once and cook a meal for a pile of people

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I didnt say free

I said it gets progressively easier to raise child + n since the family can reuse things and pass them from child to child,

not only that but you get more in children's allowance for every extra N child

crazy system


as for food it is not 2x times as expensive to feed 2x people unless you bring them to restaurants all the time

try it for yourself once and cook a meal for a pile of people

i thought my post was tongue-in-cheek but perhaps it didn't read that way

its still undoubtedly more expensive to raise more kids, and I wouldn't say "easier" to raise the more you have,

anyway we seem to have lost the original discussion along the way; dont know if people are interested in getting back to that?

Zoodlebop

In my opinion, raising children and educating them is the most important thing that happens in our society. I am for any program/benefit which allows/helps people to do this to the best of their ability.

However, the system is abused by some for sure, like any system. Instead of means testing people, their parenting standards should be tested (although this sounds very Big Brotherish) to a basic level. Are all their children in school, being given opportunities, etc? If the child benefit needed to be raised in order to help every child to be well brought up (it probably does), I would be for this.

Education + childrearing = most important things in society

=> teacher and parents should be paid more as they provide us with our most important long term commodity, people - hopefully and ideally - solid, responsible people.

Riskymove

Zoodlebop wrote: »

However, the system is abused by some for sure, like any system. Instead of means testing people, their parenting standards should be tested (although this sounds very Big Brotherish) to a basic level. Are all their children in school, being given opportunities, etc? If the child benefit needed to be raised in order to help every child to be well brought up (it probably does), I would be for this.

who would police this? who would be the judge?

how much would such a new bureacratic system cost the state?

Zoodlebop

Riskymove wrote: »

who would police this? who would be the judge?

I don't know. The money would have to be accounted for. Like filing taxes, all child benefit money would have to be shown to have been spent on, shock horror, expenses which benefit the child(ren) (not holiday homes, new cars, etc).

Riskymove wrote: »

how much would such a new bureacratic system cost the state?

How an earth am I supposed to know this. Probably lots. Is their anything more important to spend money on? Do we care so little about the society we live in that we are unwilling to have our taxes paying for the future of our species?

Riskymove

Zoodlebop wrote: »

I don't know. The money would have to be accounted for. Like filing taxes, all child benefit money would have to be shown to have been spent on, shock horror, expenses which benefit the child(ren) (not holiday homes, new cars, etc).

bureaucratic nightmare that

is a mortgage/rent acceptable? (the child needs a home)

as far as i know most people dont need to file a tax return

How an earth am I supposed to know this. Probably lots. Is their anything more important to spend money on? Do we care so little about the society we live in that we are unwilling to have our taxes paying for the future of our species?

sigh, just because i ask you to think a bit more about your proposal does not mean I am a child-hating monster

I would rather that the cost of CBA be used prioductively rather than a huge amount wasted on a system to oversee such a relatively small individual payment

at the moment the government is looking at making major cuts and a reduction in public services, you typr of proposal would go entirely against that

Zoodlebop

Riskymove wrote: »

sigh, just because i ask you to think a bit more about your proposal does not mean I am a child-hating monster

I would rather that the cost of CBA be used prioductively rather than a huge amount wasted on a system to oversee such a relatively small individual payment

at the moment the government is looking at making major cuts and a reduction in public services, you typr of proposal would go entirely against that

Sorry. Last post wasn't meant to sound like an accusation (I realise that it did!). To be perfectly honest, I know very little about economics, I just know what I think matters.

Now is clearly not the time to start an idea like the above. You would need to wait until the economy was on it's feet again and had cash (I'm sure my saying "had cash" proves severe economics newbism).

Perhaps investing in children and the next generation (essentially what I'm suggesting) is to long term an investment for a country to pour lots of money into. If so, why?

What do you say to the proposition that teachers should be paid more? That parents should be aided? Surely there are no problems in society that don't stem from poor raising/educating of children.

97i9y3941

it wont work,like everything else it will be set in the way that the well off with some fecking loophole/fiddleing the books undeclaring their income that the working class will get taxed the most...

Gurgle

Fred83 wrote: »

some fecking loophole

It's to be considered as regular income, so it can be chucked straight into the section 23 heap.

Galwaybuzz

To an extent i agree with having child benifit means tested!!

People who are earning over 100 thosand p/y should be means tested, then again thinking back to education grants, people who were just ticking over the 50k per annum where not eligable for a grant, these were the people who were caught, so i think it should only be means tested if one is earning over 100 k per annum. Every child is entitled to some benifit, but there are so many families struggling on it, so id definatly agree that it should be means tested when earnings are over a certain rate, especially with the way things are at the moment !!!!

Angel_Eyes

I can ask how people fel about young girls (between 16 and 23 lets say) getting pregnant for the state benefits they recieve.

User21027

Darragh, you have come out with so many flying statements that i'm crouching behind my sofe here.

Like Ddad said, you are not in prison, but your taxes pay towards them, your not disabled, (physically anyway) but your taxes contribute towards home carers and rehab units. You are not the CEO of a company but your taxes allow for incentives for companies to stay here tax free for a year if they bring jobs etc etc etc
Why are you picking out Child benefit to be cut fully? I might ad if you can get hold of a 08 Range Rover for €600 per month i'll take one! This just prooves that you have no idea of figures!

Child benefit, should be means tested, but at a rate somewhere around 40K upwards. But for people on min wage or no wage, they should keep it.

But if you take the time to look at www.Welfare.ie and see what else they can have i believe that their entire income should be assessed.

For example: If you work part-time and have even one child. You can have your OPF payment. (One Parent Family) You can also apply for FIS (Family Income Supplement) to give you 60% of the difference of what you earn and a pre-determined income threshold set by the Gov currently at approx €407 per week. So you get handed €136 per week if you do 20 hrs at €9 per hour. (20 hrs @ €9= €180, diff from €407= €227. 60% of €227= 136) You keep your medical card, you keep your rent allowance. So your income per week is now €316 (€180 + €136) without maintenance which can be given in cash by the father/other parent. Thats not a bad income. It could easily be taxed at 10%. €3.60 per week.

Enough households giving that tax up, could bring in plenty. And people like Darragh wouldnt feel so conned. I think thats fairer.

Things like coloured people getting free cars, insurance paid, just cause they got racialy abused on a bus is wrong too. Money for sociallising so they fit into our society better, and special allowances for their affro hair. This is all wrong and doesnt help the bitterness felt towards these people in our society.

But there are plenty of OPF's out there who are ignored by the fathers, cant get social housing, and are squashed into their parents house, who cant get the child minded to allow them to work etc and would love nothing better than working again to feel useful. You cannot call them all social scabs and baby-popping machines. If you only vented your anger towards Leinster house about the expenses row instead if attacking single parents, you'd be better off.

What about single father's fighting to be allowed the payment for years? What about the sluts that run out on their families and leave the men to raise the kids single handedly? You would deny them their €166 per month would you? I would sooner see Prisoner's Spouse allowance or whatever its called be scrapped. They broke the law, why would we support the spouses of criminals?

Know your subject matter Darragh!!!!