Means-testing could leave us with "nothing"

gurramok

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?

You are having a giraffe if you think a child cannot live off child benefit now!

I had no luxuries at all, father working and mother at home minding the kids. The child benefit only gave us bare essentials, not foreign holidays or playstations.

Cookie_Monster

gurramok wrote: »

The child benefit only gave us bare essentials.

Bummer, we managed to stretch it to the bare necessities, they were much better, catchy too.

major bill

hey didnt read through all the pages just going to make a quick comment about the farrell case. it reminds me of sometime last year just before the sh1t hit the fan and i was working, listening to the radio and rte interviewing some IT fella out of work and was getting the sympathy vote until he turned around and says '' well you know how am i meant to pay the loan off for my second car im gona have to give it up'' or some **** like that.

fcuk off with your aldi nappys ye pr1ck.some people need a reality check in this country

geeky

major bill wrote: »

fcuk off with your aldi nappys ye pr1ck.some people need a reality check in this country

+1

If the Indo's site allowed comments to be made on stories, their traffic would go through the roof every time they published stuff like that!

haven't read the whole thread but this could have been said before.

I know I'll get roasted but I actually don't care.

I'm sick to death of these suggestions of means testing. I earn ok money but I've worked hard to get to that point. My husband earns alot more than me but he has to do exams twice a year to keep on top of his profession. We don't earn a fortune at all and could lose our jobs tomorrow just like most people. We are lucky enough to live in an apartment close to where we grew up because we earned equity on our first house - which was down the country - and saved our asses off to afford to move closer to home.

The people who they are talking about means testing are people like us, they have talked about taking things like child benefit, free education etc from us, and yet we are the ones who are paying higher taxes and for what? we get less and pay more tax for it - it really really p*sses me off that you get screwed just because you've worked hard to get where you are.

I know people here will say ooh but you don't need child benefit etc but I'm paying high taxes and get very little (in my opinion) back for it.

I'm not being very good with words here but maybe some of you will understand the point I'm trying to make!!

oldyouth

I understand what you're saying Whoops etc and my circumstances are not too far removed. The problem is that people have still to get the message that the money ain't there, even if you are a hard working, tax paying citizen

oldyouth

oldyouth wrote: »

I understand what you're saying Whoops etc and my circumstances are not too far removed. The problem is that people have still to get the message that the money ain't there, even if you are a hard working, tax paying citizen

oh yeh I totally get that - and I have no problem paying my taxes at all - I just hate that there are scroungers on the dole getting free doctor visits, free housing, free lots of things - and have been for years and years and they get away with it and haven't paid a penny in PAYE in their lives. And then there are the poor unfortunates who have worked all of their lives and paid their taxes and now find themselves on the dole through no fault of their own, getting painted with the same brush as the scroungers.

ronbyrne2005

The simple fact is many couples in this income backet and higher werent actually paying much net tax over past several years. With the first 20 something k exempt from income tax and all the credits for PAYE worker,mortgage interest and child payments many many families were paying low effective rates of income tax, some were even net recipeients in that they got more in child allowances etc than they paid in income taxes.

We all just have to get used to higher income taxes and lower benefits as we were living in fantasy land during property bubble where taxes could be lowered and welfare and public services increased due to the one off temporary and unsustaible boom in tax revenues from property and property related sectors.
If you add up the cost ofeverything the average income earner get from state( schooling,health,welfare etc) the average income tax take(at current rates) over their lifetime probably wouldnt cover the costs.

gurramok

Deleted User wrote: »

oh yeh I totally get that - and I have no problem paying my taxes at all - I just hate that there are scroungers on the dole getting free doctor visits, free housing, free lots of things - and have been for years and years and they get away with it and haven't paid a penny in PAYE in their lives. And then there are the poor unfortunates who have worked all of their lives and paid their taxes and now find themselves on the dole through no fault of their own, getting painted with the same brush as the scroungers.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You can afford to live without the child benefit with 2 houses under your belt, therefore no need for it.

jesus_thats_gre

They can **** right off.. My ould lass in from Finland and in order to bring myself and sister over to see my our grand parents, my parents had to shell out £2,000 when they were earning about £8,000 a year in the early/mid 80's.

Guy:Incognito

prendy wrote: »

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. .

How exactly would it have a serious impact on the childs quality of life? The parents state that the CB is going towards the holiday to Peru. So if it was completely stopped tomorrow all the child would lose out on is his holiday to Peru.

So again, where is the serious negative impact on his quality of life?

Long Onion wrote: »

Why the fcuk should it be means tested at all. .

Because where is the sense in giveing people earning hundreds of thousands to multiple millions €160 odd a month ? Or giving it to anyone who doesnt need it?

Kipperhell wrote: »

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.

If She can afford to be on unpaid maternity leave then I'm losing even more sympathy. The child is 7 months old. If life is such a struggle she should be well back in work by now.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You can afford to live without the child benefit with 2 houses under your belt, therefore no need for it.

2 houses? you mean 1 apartment yeh....

gurramok

Deleted User wrote: »

2 houses? you mean 1 apartment yeh....

One or two? Indeed it may be one, re-reading it now

You say you are on ok money and your husband earns more, why should ye be entitled to excessive child benefit, ye ain't poor by any stretch!!

Kipperhell

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

They can **** right off.. My ould lass in from Finland and in order to bring myself and sister over to see my our grand parents, my parents had to shell out £2,000 when they were earning about £8,000 a year in the early/mid 80's.

Well then they funded that trip using income derived from CB. If they didn't get CB they wouldn't have had the disposable income to afford the tickets.

Your parents income was 8,000 plus tax breaks for having a child and CB

So your parents only paid 2,000-(tax breaks + CB) for the tickets. So why should your parents be given a discount on this luxury? Plus CB was paid to a higher age then. If you got any luxury prior to 18 it was at least partially paid for by CB.

Stekelly wrote: »

Because where is the sense in giving people earning hundreds of thousands to multiple millions €160 odd a month ? Or giving it to anyone who doesnt need it?

To maintain a minimum standard for child welfare to insure that children grow into healthy and good income earners for the state. They are the country's future. With means tests you end up with people earning less than somebody else being in a better financial situation.

Stekelly wrote: »

If She can afford to be on unpaid maternity leave then I'm losing even more sympathy. The child is 7 months old. If life is such a struggle she should be well back in work by now.

This is an entitlement the government have put in place in line with the EU as sensible approach to the early life of a child and parents. Considering the cost of childcare of such a young child it is doubtful they would gain much financially so it makes most sense for one parent to stay at home with the child. Most people make sacrifices for their children financially and career wise to begrudge anybody this seems pretty mean.

Long Onion

Sorry there folks but I look at a number of broadcasters being paid astonomical salaries, University lecturers and hospital consultants being paid way above average, senior civil servants on six figure sums with benchmarked pensions, a regulator who did his job so poorly he was forced to resign getting a 650k pay-off, ministers on double pensions, FAS executives jet-setting around the world, paddy's day junkets, quango's tribunal wage bills, bonus teachers allowances - the list is endless

and yet people tell me that the money isn't there?

Quite simply, you are wrong, it is there, it's just being squandered.

Look at it this way, most people here don't seem to have a problem with the payment in principle, what they have a problem with is the fact that it is not going to be spent on what they belive it should be spent on i.e. the fundamental necessities of the child.

I propose setting up a trust account for the child with the benefit money to be paid into the account and for it not to be touched until the child reaches 18, it will be then used to pay third level expenses, trade qualifications etc. This is an incentive for children to upskill themselves.

In cases of hardship appeals could be made to the welfare officer to access some of the funds for clothing etc if this is needed earlier in life.

This way the money would be for the child, not spent on cigarettes, booze, holdays to Peru or large T.V.'s.

My child's CB will all be spent on my child's education and I am fundementally opposed to anyone taking it from him - he has had no hand, act or part in running this country to the ground, so sort out the adults before mugging the children.

P.S. If Degsy's around, he may be able to explain an alternative - Let Bono pay everybody's CB!

gurramok

Good proposal Long Onion, means test it. Some children who are funded by their wealthy parents won't need that extra payment, underprivileged children do.

Kipperhell

I think people need to understanding of fundamental accounts. CB in most cases is spent on the child the only exceptions are the lowest of the low where the parents spend the money on themselves. That would be the likes of alcoholics and drug addicts who don't provide for their children. If you got anything above minimum standard of living growing up you can consider it paid by CB.

A trust fund for children is completely contrary to what the payment is for. It is for the day to day well being of the child. If people can provide more than they should be commended. Funding for private schools from public money is much more of an issue draining funds out of the system for elite schooling. If you want to send your child to private school then you should pay for it in it's entirety IMHO.

Long Onion

Kipperhell wrote: »

I think people need to understanding of fundamental accounts. CB in most cases is spent on the child the only exceptions are the lowest of the low where the parents spend the money on themselves. That would be the likes of alcoholics and drug addicts who don't provide for their children. If you got anything above minimum standard of living growing up you can consider it paid by CB.

A trust fund for children is completely contrary to what the payment is for. It is for the day to day well being of the child. If people can provide more than they should be commended. Funding for private schools from public money is much more of an issue draining funds out of the system for elite schooling. If you want to send your child to private school then you should pay for it in it's entirety IMHO.

Not too sure if this is aimed at my post - if not, apologies. If it is though, I wasn't referring to private school, I was speaking of college and more specifically to that fcat that fees may be re-introduced and students may have to take out loans to cover the cost. If the CB could be kept for further education, poverty may not be such a bar in future - in the evnt of hardship in the maentime, as mentioned, an appeal could be made to access funds in the interim.

Kipperhell

Long Onion wrote: »

Not too sure if this is aimed at my post - if not, apologies. If it is though, I wasn't referring to private school, I was speaking of college and more specifically to that fcat that fees may be re-introduced and students may have to take out loans to cover the cost. If the CB could be kept for further education, poverty may not be such a bar in future - in the evnt of hardship in the maentime, as mentioned, an appeal could be made to access funds in the interim.

Yes aimed at your post. I wasn't suggesting you were referring to private school I was pointing out how that is a lot worse use of money and should be cut first. There are people using the CB for their children's private school also in fact every child in private school is if you understand basic accounting.

I think what you are suggesting is unreasonable and doesn't have real world application for most people with only benefiting children of wealth people.

Education should be free is the best situation but failing that the person benefiting from it paying for it is not the worst situation.

Your suggestion would actually compound the inaccessibility of education to the less well off. CB is for children's well being not a fund for grown children. What you are talking about is scraping the CB for an on going college fund provided for by the state! All the children who die before college age will benefit from this fund how? It would make more sense to make the colleges more efficient and cost effective

It also ignores the economics of keeping money flowing in the country. You would effectively be removing the money from circulation which would not be good at the moment.

I think it is a fundamentally flawed idea with no real world application is how I see it.

Long Onion

Kipperhell wrote: »

Yes aimed at your post. I wasn't suggesting you were referring to private school I was pointing out how that is a lot worse use of money and should be cut first. There are people using the CB for their children's private school also in fact every child in private school is if you understand basic accounting.

Sorry Kipperhell, I have no Idea what this means

Kipperhell wrote: »

I think what you are suggesting is unreasonable and doesn't have real world application for most people with only benefiting children of wealth people.

That's fair enough. I respect your opinion but don't agree with it.

Kipperhell wrote: »

Your suggestion would actually compound the inaccessibility of education to the less well off..

Not sure how, please explain

Kipperhell wrote: »

CB is for children's well being not a fund for grown children. What you are talking about is scraping the CB for an on going college fund provided for by the state! All the children who die before college age will benefit from this fund how? It would make more sense to make the colleges more efficient and cost effective .

By this logic, we should all spend the total amount of CB each month in case our children die! - I do not agree with this point at all for obvious reasons.

Kipperhell wrote: »

It also ignores the economics of keeping money flowing in the country. You would effectively be removing the money from circulation which would not be good at the moment.

Following this logic, should we also ban savings accounts and spend every penny we have every month?

Kipperhell wrote: »

I think it is a fundamentally flawed idea with no real world application is how I see it.

Again, I respect your opinion but don't agree with it.

Kipperhell

Long Onion wrote: »

Sorry Kipperhell, I have no Idea what this means

Currently private schools get the same amount of money per pupil from the state as public schools. Parents pay money on top of that giving these children generally a better level of education. If that money was cut from the private schools their would be more money in the public schools from the state.

I am not going to explain fundamental accounting but CB is part of the house hold income. Money doesn't retain a memory but people put a memory on it. If you consider parents spend up to the entire value of CB on schools you could say CB is paying for private school. It wouldn't matter if the parent puts the money in a savings account or not.

Long Onion wrote: »

That's fair enough. I respect your opinion but don't agree with it.

I respect your opinion but I feel you lack some basic knowledge of economics and accounting. I am trying not to be condescending so please take what I say as it meant. Tone is very difficult on the internet.

Long Onion wrote: »

Not sure how, please explain

How is somebody who grew up using the fund going to pay for college? If they needed the money to be raised there won't be any fund. You are just pushing it down to later in life. If so many people could have afforded this in the past then we would already have them naturally now.

Long Onion wrote: »

By this logic, we should all spend the total amount of CB each month in case our children die! - I do not agree with this point at all for obvious reasons.

The point is the money is for children to be reared. You are talking about a state run scheme so I am asking what would you do with the fund in the event of a death?

Long Onion wrote: »

Following this logic, should we also ban savings accounts and spend every penny we have every month?

Currently the money is in circulation you are suggesting the state take a mass amount of money out of circulation. If you don't understand this you need to look up some economics. You aren't following the logic because you don't know the basics. You are talking about increased saving which has to mean less in circulation.

I understand what you are saying and how you think it would work but there are lots of obstacles that you aren't aware of.

Long Onion

This will be my last post on the issue so we don't get dragged into a circular argument and bore the pants of others.

Kipperhell wrote: »

If that money was cut from the private schools their would be more money in the public schools from the state.

Do you know for a fact that the monies would be given to public schools and not diverted elsewhere?

Kipperhell wrote: »

I am not going to explain fundamental accounting

Well what about 'Kipperhell accounting - it seems much more creative

Kipperhell wrote: »

Money doesn't retain a memory but people put a memory on it

What in the name of the sweet baby jeebus has this got to do with anything?

Kipperhell wrote: »

If you consider parents spend up to the entire value of CB on schools you could say CB is paying for private school. It wouldn't matter if the parent puts the money in a savings account or not.

I will give you many many monies good sir if you could show me where i ever mentioned private schools, did you have a bad fagging experience perchance?

Kipperhell wrote: »

How is somebody who grew up using the fund going to pay for college? If they needed the money to be raised there won't be any fund. You are just pushing it down to later in life. If so many people could have afforded this in the past then we would already have them naturally now.

My whole point is that the issue is not with the benefit but what it is spent on. If the worse off genuinely need it to raise children, let them use it that way. If the better off are in danger of using it to fly their kids to Peru, and don't need it for day-to-day living, make them use it for benefitting the kids education.

Kipperhell wrote: »

The point is the money is for children to be reared. You are talking about a state run scheme so I am asking what would you do with the fund in the event of a death?

let it revert to the government if it hasn't been needed

Kipperhell wrote: »

Currently the money is in circulation

Some is, some isn't, many of the better off used CB to fund SSIA's and have continued to save it, many save a portion of it - broad generalisation methinks.

Kipperhell wrote: »

you are suggesting the state take a mass amount of money out of circulation. If you don't understand this you need to look up some economics. You aren't following the logic because you don't know the basics. You are talking about increased saving which has to mean less in circulation.

Much wrong here - the money is not taken out of circulation whatsoever, whichever institution holds the trust account will, I presume, be lending that money out to other customers, as they do with all deposit accounts. I would ask that you look past chapter one of your economics text - there is no seperate safe for each savings account into which your physical money is locked away until you need it.

You also assume that the whole purpose of CB is to keep the wheels of the economy greased - Benefit can accrue in more ways than the purchase of material goods.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I understand what you are saying and how you think it would work but there are lots of obstacles that you aren't aware of.

I agree but there are also a lot that I am aware of - perhaps we should agree to differ?

Kipperhell

Long Onion wrote: »

Well what about 'Kipperhell accounting - it seems much more creative

So much for you respecting my opinion. Income in, expenditure out the CB is income therefore CB either pays for something (which it doesn't) or it offsets child expenses (which it does). It is simply like people misunderstanding chance and probability.

You either don't understand or incapable if you think I have my own form of accounting. The ignorance of economics and accounting is not a point of opinion but a simple lack on knowledge.

A few of your statements suggest a very narrow view people's financial situation. If the state is going to decide what the money is for it is no longer CB and something else.

I repeat, I mentioned private schools and never said you did and I also made a proposed change and redirection. You may have failed to grasp this along with other things I said. :P