Means-testing could leave us with "nothing"

Kipperhell

It has been said already but some people really need to hear this. This couple are earning below what they could get on state benefits. A single parent would need to earn over €35k for it to be worth while to get a job. The extra benits add up very quickly.

Personally I was paying over €2.5k a month on income tax and now I am not working I get no dole or anything. While my wife is working with the unemployed, she had a person in who has 5 kids gets medical cards,rent, appliance money and dole. His payments amount to over €2k a month and he has never worked a day in this country.

The system is incredibly inequitable. I think child allowance should be only taken off people who earn over 90K each. It seem strange that you would have people pocketing less than state payment and yet paying tax for others to get it.

irelandrover

Kipperhell wrote: »

It has been said already but some people really need to hear this. This couple are earning below what they could get on state benefits. A single parent would need to earn over €35k for it to be worth while to get a job. The extra benits add up very quickly.

These people obviously do not need the money to survive if they are saving it for a holiday to Peru, and them pretending that they are going to Peru for the sake of the child is laughable. He's 7 months old. I don't know about anyone else but I don't remember anything I did when i was that age.

Also the amount they seem to earn is very low. If they are both working full time them they would earn more than 35K on minimum wage and I really doubt that the senior marketing manager of any company is on minimum wage.

Joey the lips

why is it one bad example in the paper causes us to condem the whole system when i grew up it was very common to here from my friend who was well off that his mum will be giving him his childrens allowence on tuesday.... Clearly she did not need it. There will be always different situations.

You either have one rule for all or nothing as individual rules dont work.

super_furry

I think the big issue is what on earth are Kieran and Betty (good solid Irish names) doing naming their kid Diego?!?!?

Lousy immigrants strike again!

Kipperhell

irelandrover wrote: »

These people obviously do not need the money to survive if they are saving it for a holiday to Peru, and them pretending that they are going to Peru for the sake of the child is laughable. He's 7 months old. I don't know about anyone else but I don't remember anything I did when i was that age.

Also the amount they seem to earn is very low. If they are both working full time them they would earn more than 35K on minimum wage and I really doubt that the senior marketing manager of any company is on minimum wage.

She is probably on unpaid maternity leave hence the salary variation. What they decide to spend their money on is really up to them. They will be making sacrifices in order not to use that money. Do you think child benefits should be taken off parents who smoke as it is a luxury expense? To see family after a birth is not excessively unreasonable as a family event.

These people have less disposable income to somebody of state benefits seems unfair to me and I'll stick with that.

Joey the lips

super_furry wrote: »

I think the big issue is what on earth are Kieran and Betty (good solid Irish names) doing naming their kid Diego?!?!?

Lousy immigrants strike again!

They might have named him brooklyn I suppose!

geeky

Please tell me that's satire.

Hussard

Given the already inefficient nature of public service it would almost certainly cost more to administer the means testing of child benefit than it would save. It is a universal benefit, intended for the child. Is it any different to the old age pension? Yet why is there no suggestion that this, or the free tv license or the fuel subsidy should be means tested or reduced.

Dragan

Did it occur to either of these ****ing geniuses that maybe they should wait until they were more financially secure to have a baby?

Kipperhell

Hussard wrote: »

Given the already inefficient nature of public service it would almost certainly cost more to administer the means testing of child benefit than it would save. It is a universal benefit, intended for the child. Is it any different to the old age pension? Yet why is there no suggestion that this, or the free tv license or the fuel subsidy should be means tested or reduced.

I worked on the DSFA system and it is easy to implement with little cost as it would be based on taxable income. I was there when they implemented the extra yearly child payment and it has very little in the way of running costs.

Benefits should always be careful not to make it better to not work or punish those who have paid taxes. Many benefits for OAPs are tax neutral such as the TV licence as there is no actual cost to the state just a reduced revenue.

Long Onion

Kipperhell wrote: »

I worked on the DSFA system and it is easy to implement with little cost as it would be based on taxable income. I was there when they implemented the extra yearly child payment and it has very little in the way of running costs.

Benefits should always be careful not to make it better to not work or punish those who have paid taxes. Many benefits for OAPs are tax neutral such as the TV licence as there is no actual cost to the state just a reduced revenue.

Ah, but what happens in the case of separated parents?

Mother: "ye're not taxing me, I tell you - go after that drunken philanderer, this money is for little Shania's new pair of "i'm puttin' out" earrings.

Father: "ye're not taxing me yez bistards, that money goes to the slut who's shackin' up with the black fella from the canal"

I think that means testing will get all Joe Duffy ...

hobochris

FFS...

I hope that article was a joke.

Kipperhell

Long Onion wrote: »

Ah, but what happens in the case of separated parents?

Mother: "ye're not taxing me, I tell you - go after that drunken philanderer, this money is for little Shania's new pair of "i'm puttin' out" earrings.

Father: "ye're not taxing me yez bistards, that money goes to the slut who's shackin' up with the black fella from the canal"

I think that means testing will get all Joe Duffy ...

Well you obviously have little understanding of how the tax system works or how benefits are worked out. The above situation is not a problem.

geeky

hobochris wrote: »

FFS...

I hope that article was a joke.

I think so. Invoking the Aldi nappies as the height of barbarism - and the holiday to Peru - was surely intended to undercut their case. Is there a pic in the Indo? Are these people real?

xOxSinéadxOx

yeah it definitely seems like a joke!

how could any real person think they're entitled to money from us to go on holidays? and oh dear god, aldi nappies! :eek:

BobTheBeat

It'll be a bitter pill for everyone to swallow seeing as they've been getting the benefit in its entirety for years. They'll just have to weed out this overwhelming sense of 'entitlement' to the thing. Im entitled to have a child. Im entitled to be paid for it. Im entitled to do what I see fit with said payment. youre entitled to Fcuk all tbh.

Kipperhell

bobmeaney wrote: »

It'll be a bitter pill for everyone to swallow seeing as they've been getting the benefit in its entirety for years. They'll just have to weed out this overwhelming sense of 'entitlement' to the thing. Im entitled to have a child. Im entitled to be paid for it. Im entitled to do what I see fit with said payment. youre entitled to Fcuk all tbh.

You should read the constitution because in this country you are entitled to things and are meant to protect certain things.

Economically child payments makes sense for the future income earners to be taken care of. There are far more sensible payments that should be stopped. Private schools should not get state funding for example. It is currently financial drain from our public school system in order for the elite to have to pay less for their children's luxury education.

People are obsessing on what they want to do with the money yet what you are forgetting is the child cost a hell of a lot more than the payment. You know if the next generation don't pay taxes you won't have a pension.

Jaysoose

bleg wrote: »

Won't make much difference to a 7 month old.

Yeah but dont forget the memories that litlle Diageo will have from his trip to granma's ...oh wait he wont remember a thing....pair of self important douchebags.

Kipperhell

I just realised everybody here would have gotten child care payments for their parents. If any of you were not in poverty what did your parents spend the money on? Did any of them refuse it?

DigiGal

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Diego is a lovely name.

Hello Diego

latenia

DIEGO!! DIEGO!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-9I5DD6p4k

TequilaMockingBird

If you can afford to save your Children's Allowance, for future education included, you don't deserve it. Give it to the Children's wards that are closing down instead. Little Diego can save for his own trip when he gets a job.

For the last two months mine has been spent on getting everything she needs to go back to school in September.

Cost of back to school expenses: €350 (for an 8 year old)
Children's Allowance for 2 months: €332

Long Onion

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

If you can afford to save your Children's Allowance, for future education included, you don't deserve it. Give it to the Children's wards that are closing down instead. Little Diego can save for his own trip when he gets a job.

For the last two months mine has been spent on getting everything she needs to go back to school in September.

Cost of back to school expenses: €350 (for an 8 year old)
Children's Allowance for 2 months: €332

Sorry, it was 6 chicken nuggets ...

BobTheBeat

Kipperhell wrote: »

You should read the constitution because in this country you are entitled to things and are meant to protect certain things.

Economically child payments makes sense for the future income earners to be taken care of. There are far more sensible payments that should be stopped. Private schools should not get state funding for example. It is currently financial drain from our public school system in order for the elite to have to pay less for their children's luxury education.

People are obsessing on what they want to do with the money yet what you are forgetting is the child cost a hell of a lot more than the payment. You know if the next generation don't pay taxes you won't have a pension.

I am well aware of the fact that the constitution makes a solemn declaration with regards the family unit and vowes to promote it and make provisions for it. But that was for a time when the country was family centric. People were having lots of kids. They needed a hand out when it came to providing for financially. Thats a situation that has long since passed, with most families Im sure averaging 2-3 kids and on comparatively higher incomes. Dont forget in most houses mothers also work.

Im not saying that people shouldnt get the benefit. Its the sense of entitlement that the majority have is what is wrong. Those who really need it (families on low incomes or welfare) should get it. The idea of a well to do household using CB to pay the mortgage on a holiday home or saving for a holiday is wrong. Is it not?

Kids are expensive, theres no doubt about that. But it should be as much about can we afford to have kids right now as it is about we love each other lets have kids. True, not every parent has the luxury of planning for the arrival of a child, but the onus is on every single once of us to make sure that we are prepared for it.

Kipperhell

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

If you can afford to save your Children's Allowance, for future education included, you don't deserve it.

Using your logic for two couples on the same income.

If one couple smokes and spends their CB (Child Benefit) money on the kids as they don't make enough that is fine!

If a couple don't smoke and save the CB for education that is not fine. :eek:

CB is not a social welfare payment like the dole it is to guarantee a minimal standard for all. You can't control how the parents spend it though but I'd rather give it to the couple in the story than the people I see in the pub when the payment comes in.

TequilaMockingBird

Using CB for either for your fags or saving for future education, are both wrong. Neither are essential to the child.

It needs to be means tested.

gurramok

Kipperhell wrote: »

I just realised everybody here would have gotten child care payments for their parents. If any of you were not in poverty what did your parents spend the money on? Did any of them refuse it?

You couldn't live off a child payment in the 80's, it was a pittance unlike the overpayment now.

Kipperhell

bobmeaney wrote: »

Its the sense of entitlement that the majority have is what is wrong. Those who really need it (families on low incomes or welfare) should get it. The idea of a well to do household using CB to pay the mortgage on a holiday home or saving for a holiday is wrong. Is it not?
.

It is called an entitlement as people are entitled to it! People have a sense of entitlement because it is an entitlement! The same way you are entitled to tax credits.

If you grew up with any luxury it could be said to have been paid for by CB. Your parents would not have had the disposable income without the payment. You are kidding yourself into a situation where you think you haven't benefited from the system. Any kid with a Playstation got it by CB if we look at it your way. Nobody with a kid is actually benefiting from CB as they cost more than CB so you are looking at the figures in the wrong way.

Kipperhell

gurramok wrote: »

You couldn't live off a child payment in the 80's, it was a pittance unlike the overpayment now.

You can't live off it now either. Did your parents refuse it? Did you have no luxuries? There are a lot of people under 20 here so the 90s payments too much too?

irelandrover

Kipperhell wrote: »

You can't live off it now either. Did your parents refuse it? Did you have no luxuries? There are a lot of people under 20 here so the 90s payments too much too?

In the article the father wants a cut in the CB for everyone so that he can continue to save it for a family holiday. A cut across the board for everyone would cause serious hardship for some families and not just having to change from pampers to Aldi nappies. I don't see how anyone can side with him after the stupid comments about nappies and the fact that the CB is going to paying for a family holiday to Peru, which I couldnt afford now as a single guy who works full time.

Kipperhell

irelandrover wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can side with him after the stupid comments about nappies and the fact that the CB is going to paying for a family holiday to Peru, which I couldnt afford now as a single guy who works full time.

I am not defending individuals as such but the concept of a non-means tested allowance. There are lots of positions I will defend regardless of the individuals that benefit. Not everybody who needs assistance is nice/clever or even likeable. I don't care what they spend it on but I am sure you weren't too concerned when you got presents as a child where the money came from.

These people are not making massive money so what is the limit you would put down as too high for CB?

prendy

this thread is laughable. 50k for a couple to earn is not alot of money. they both contribute to society and pay taxes. i think the means testing would have a serious negative impact on the childs quality of life.

I do think it should be means tested but the ceiling for couples should be set at 75k. you cannot further discourage people on relativly low incomes from working which is what a cut in child benefits would lead to. there is enough people already chosing that lifestyle.

Long Onion

Why the fcuk should it be means tested at all. Just because we all lost the run of ourselves and splashed the cash doesn't mean that the government have the right to take children's benefit. Why should they not just increase income tax again?

Leave the kids lollypop money alone and go pick on someone your own size.

Gummy Panda

Long Onion wrote: »

Why the fcuk should it be means tested at all. Just because we all lost the run of ourselves and splashed the cash doesn't mean that the government have the right to take children's benefit. Why should they not just increase income tax again?

Leave the kids lollypop money alone and go pick on someone your own size.

Why should i pay more tax so some couple can spend the money on luxuries like a trip to Peru?

Cookie_Monster

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

Using CB for either for your fags or saving for future education, are both wrong. Neither are essential to the child.

How is future education not essential, remember saving in January for going back to school expenses in Septmeber is future eductation not just college places.

Cookie_Monster

Normal benefit for one kid
50% for second

Pay tax for 3rd and subsiquent kids.

Problem solved, it might even stop people from having so many kids.

Kipperhell

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Why should i pay more tax so some couple can spend the money on luxuries like a trip to Peru?

You aren't the couples expenditure on their child is far higher than CB. They are paying for the trip and most of their child's care.

Long Onion

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Why should i pay more tax so some couple can spend the money on luxuries like a trip to Peru?

But what if they were going to spend it on food for little Diego and use their own money for Peru?

The real problem isn't the CB, it's the whole fact that the old notion of the social contarct is gone. We are no longer willing to pay to support others because we don't believe that the money will get to the right place.

What if the governement paid the money into a trust account for each child so that only the child had access and only when they reached 18 (and promised never to use text speak, say "like, OMG" or wear tracksuits other than for genuine sporting purposes)

I keep my CB in an account for my child, it will pay for him to go to University so he can get the education needed to secure a job that pays weel enough to put me in a home.

I just think it's low taking the cash off kids

0ubliette

Oh noe! If im means tested they might take away benefits and id have to get a job and pay taxes! It would be a disaster!

Why doesnt granny gonzales fly over from peru instead, then maybe you can keep buying pampers, you ****ing workshy layabout

gingerhousewife

0ubliette wrote: »

Oh noe! If im means tested they might take away benefits and id have to get a job and pay taxes! It would be a disaster!

Why doesnt granny gonzales fly over from peru instead, then maybe you can keep buying pampers, you ****ing workshy layabout

Infairness, maybe you should read before you post?

Euro_Kraut

Clever way to get free advert for taxback.com. I can see how Mr Farell got to Senior Marketing Manager.

Indo happily fell for it. Don't believe this article for a second.

hobochris

**** this breaking my balls for a little extra cash ****, I'll just knock up the gf a few times then sit back and enjoy all the free money.

Long Onion

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Clever way to get free advert for taxback.com. I can see how Mr Farell got to Senior Marketing Manager.

Indo happily fell for it. Don't believe this article for a second.

He could do with lessons in how to negotiate a better salary tho'

skywalker

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Clever way to get free advert for taxback.com. I can see how Mr Farell got to Senior Marketing Manager.

Indo happily fell for it. Don't believe this article for a second.

Definitely agree the article is a shill for the website. Whether the journalist was duped, or is a mate of someone involved is really the only question in my mind.

0ubliette

gingerhousewife wrote: »

Infairness, maybe you should read before you post?

In fairness, maybe you should shut up?

Long Onion

0ubliette wrote: »

In fairness, maybe you should shut up?

Ah, I see you've been reading Proust again

0ubliette

Long Onion wrote: »

Ah, I see you've been reading Proust again

Ah, i see youve been reading 'condescension for dummies' again

Euro_Kraut

Long Onion wrote: »

He could do with lessons in how to negotiate a better salary tho'

Or at least a more specific one.

Kipperhell

0ubliette wrote: »

Ah, i see youve been reading 'condescension for dummies' again

You do know he was right and it was obvious you never bothered reading the OP and are adding nothing to the discussion now?

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Or at least a more specific one.

The reason for the salary variation is because she is on unpaid maternity leave and it is a joint salary. So when things are good they earn on average less each than the combined allowance/income of a single parent on state aid.

geeky

0ubliette wrote: »

Ah, i see youve been reading 'condescension for dummies' again

by 'for' I take it you mean 'to'.... the poster that kicked off the flame obviously didn't read the piece, and posted as though the pair lived exclusively off the state.