March for Child Benefit

cashew

Join a march on 19th September in Dublin to protest against any changes to child benefit!

Meet at 1pm at Parnell Square North, Dublin 1 on Saturday 19th September to save child benefit.

This march is being organised by Protest Against Child Unfriendly Budget (PACUB) in association with Alliance Against Cuts.

Bring partners, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles - all are welcome!

Visit www.childbenefit.info for further information

silverharp

great idea, once someone else takes has to pay the price thats grand:rolleyes:

cashew

Families would be hit harder if they have to pay all the other cuts and taxes that are applied and their child benefit is affected too! We all realise we have to pay our share, but this would mean families were paying more to get us out of this hole - why should they?

Please join the march and fight for our kids!!!

silverharp

cashew wrote: »

Families would be hit harder if they have to pay all the other cuts and taxes that are applied and their child benefit is affected too! We all realise we have to pay our share, but this would mean families were paying more to get us out of this hole - why should they?

Please join the march and fight for our kids!!!

As a parent these are strictly side shows , NAMA is the make or break imo.

Boskowski

Like a lot of other things, child benefits need looking at.

There's people with 100k+ plus who get child benefits. Gotta do something about that, it's ridiculous.

So, since means testing would take away a lot of the gain as it's too expensive to administer you gotta tax child benefits and at the same time give tax breaks based on overall income. Does the same thing as means testing, people who don't really depend on the benefits get less. Only no administration needed.

What's wrong with that?

dvpower

cashew wrote: »

Join a march on 19th September in Dublin to protest against any changes to child benefit!

As a recipient of child benefit, I hope this march fails miserably.
I could understand trying to protect low and middle income people against cuts, but opposing any changes to CHB is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Lets get at least a little bit real.

techdiver

cashew wrote: »

Join a march on 19th September in Dublin to protest against any changes to child benefit!

No changes to child benefit? Rubbish.

Where do we suggest we get the money to run the country. Believe me, if no changes are made to the public sector wage bill and social welfare, this country will go under, plain and simple. Then it will be over to the IMF, and you can forget about child benefit at all then.

Iago

cashew wrote: »

but this would mean families were paying more to get us out of this hole - why should they?

No it would mean that less government expenditure would be required for that section of the population that chose to have kids. It would mean that the affected parents, and lets remember it'll be means-tested so should only impact those who have no real need for it,would no longer be able to take a cut of the taxes paid by everybody in the country in order to fund their desire to have a family.

Past time imo, and I say that as a parent.

dvpower

realcam wrote: »

So, since means testing would take away a lot of the gain as it's too expensive to administer you gotta tax child benefits and at the same time give tax breaks based on overall income. Does the same thing as means testing, people who don't really depend on the benefits get less. Only no administration needed.

What's wrong with that?

Scrap the whole system. Introduce a standard rated child tax credit (I think we used to have a child TFA in the past) for workers and increase social welfare rates for child dependants to compensate. Introduce a third rate of tax for very high earners to claw back. Redeploy the civil servants currently working on the CHB system.

Max Power1

realcam wrote: »

Like a lot of other things, child benefits need looking at.

There's people with 100k+ plus who get child benefits. Gotta do something about that, it's ridiculous.

So, since means testing would take away a lot of the gain as it's too expensive to administer you gotta tax child benefits and at the same time give tax breaks based on overall income. Does the same thing as means testing, people who don't really depend on the benefits get less. Only no administration needed.

What's wrong with that?

Exactly. I hope this march and others like it fail miserably. We need to cut social welfare spending. There is no need for those in the leafy suburbs of the southside to be in reciept of child benifet to subsidise their childrens private schooling. In an ideal world it would be means tested, but the best cost versus cost reduction idea would be to tax it. Anything other than admitting cuts across the board are needed is sheer stupidity or naeivity. Have you been living under a rock for the last 12 months?

bladespin

dvpower wrote: »

Scrap the whole system. Introduce a standard rated child tax credit (I think we used to have a child TFA in the past) for workers and increase social welfare rates for child dependants to compensate. Introduce a third rate of tax for very high earners to claw back. redeploy the civil servants working currently working on the CHB system.

Most sense I've heard in a very long time, of course it'll never happen here. :rolleyes:

zootroid

I really hope this march isn't supported. The country is going under, and money has to be saved somewhere. I don't think it's fair at all that people who earn a good living (say 100k) are receiving state benefits.

Of course people who are unemployed, or earning low wages should be given state benefits, but thats a different story.

Please join the march and fight for our kids!!!

I think thats a little ironic, seeing as it will be future generations who will have to pay for the mistakes being made today (such as the huge deficit the government is running)

imokyrok

You don't have unemployed or low income to be hard hit by changes in child benefit. Middle income families fork out thousands each month to pay bills - and I'm not talking about golf club fees either. Car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, house buildings and content insurance, mortgage protection, mortgage, gas, electricity, telephone, TV.

For me that child benefit goes €200 to an christmas account and the remainder goes on childrens clothes, shoes, schoolbooks and recently the Gardasil vacine. We don't get any tax allowance for children in this country. To my mind the child benefit is the tax free allowance. Only a tiny percentage of those receiving cb are very wealthy. Once they start taxing this benefit it will be no time at all before middle income families are taking the brunt of it.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

You don't have unemployed or low income to be hard hit by changes in child benefit. Middle income families fork out thousands each month to pay bills - and I'm not talking about golf club fees either. Car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, house buildings and content insurance, mortgage protection, mortgage, gas, electricity, telephone, TV.

For me that child benefit goes €200 to an christmas account and the remainder goes on childrens clothes, shoes, schoolbooks and recently the Gardasil vacine. We don't get any tax allowance for children in this country. To my mind the child benefit is the tax free allowance. Only a tiny percentage of those receiving cb are very wealthy. Once they start taxing this benefit it will be no time at all before middle income families are taking the brunt of it.

i would prefer to give it to people who CAN't afford to pay the above bills are not lucky enough to be able to pay for private health insurance and be able to buy a home.

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

i would prefer to give it to people who CAN't afford to pay the above bills are not lucky enough to be able to pay for private health insurance and be able to buy a home.

Then those middle income families will be joining those who need public health care, public housing and the various other public services that those without insurance and mortgages depend on - more public service demand means more more public service spend. You can't keep squeezing blood and expect the organism to live.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

Then those middle income families will be joining those who need public health care, public housing and the various other public services that those without insurance and mortgages depend on - more public service demand means more more public service spend. You can't keep squeezing blood and expect the organism to live.

no, those middle class people in the MAJORITY of cases will have a choice to alter the lifestyle, the people i'm talking about don't have a choice.

they have to make choices like having meat for dinner or putting shoe's on thier kids feet for school.

not will we go to the beacon hospital or slum it out in the maher.

people complain the goverment are not in touch with reality.

i think the middle classes and their wannabe's are so out of touch it's unsettling.

techdiver

ntlbell wrote: »

no, those middle class people in the MAJORITY of cases will have a choice to alter the lifestyle, the people i'm talking about don't have a choice.

they have to make choices like having meat for dinner or putting shoe's on thier kids feet for school.

not will we go to the beacon hospital or slum it out in the maher.

people complain the goverment are not in touch with reality.

i think the middle classes and their wannabe's are so out of touch it's unsettling.

Hold on a second.

I agree with the taxation of child benefit etc, but to suggest that these "middle class" families are living it up is a bit of an exaggeration. We need balance in our strategy to get out of this mess. I agree with points on both side of the argument. We cannot expect to squeeze all the spending power from the middle classes as they are the bulk of the consumer spending base that keeps the economy ticking over. Neither can we at the same time continue to provide universal child benefit also.

I'm not looking to give anyone an easy ride, for example I believe those who were foolish enough to fall into the property market crap must take responsibility for their own mistakes also. I think as a nation, we have this attitude of wanting the government to do something about the current mess, with the caveat of "as long as it doesn't effect me". This cannot fly.

I also believe that if we over do it and squeeze too much from the middle classes we run the risk of worsening the economic situation and discouraging people to work, due to the fact that living on benefits may be more attractive than working 40 hours a week for very little extra. This is another reason why we need to cut across the board in a proportionate way and this includes cuts to all social welfare and the minimum wage.

imokyrok

Listen - I've already cut everything there is to cut. No holidays for three years, no socialising. No after school activities. I haven't bought a pair of shoes for myself in three years. We drive a ten year old car. I don't really care about any of that change in life standards as long as I can still pay my bills. These bills are not luxuries!

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

Listen - I've already cut everything there is to cut. No holidays for three years, no socialising. No after school activities. I haven't bought a pair of shoes for myself in three years. We drive a ten year old car. I don't really care about any of that change in life standards as long as I can still pay my bills. These bills are not luxuries!

what you regard as not luxiries and what people are on the bread line are two different things.

owning a tv.
a mobile phone
internet access.
ntl
sky
a car
laptops/pc's
being able to do a food shop

people take these things for granted and are all luxries.

i think you proved my point perfectly, totally out of touch

ntlbell

techdiver wrote: »

Hold on a second.

I agree with the taxation of child benefit etc, but to suggest that these "middle class" families are living it up is a bit of an exaggeration. We need balance in our strategy to get out of this mess. I agree with points on both side of the argument. We cannot expect to squeeze all the spending power from the middle classes as they are the bulk of the consumer spending base that keeps the economy ticking over. Neither can we at the same time continue to provide universal child benefit also.

I'm not looking to give anyone an easy ride, for example I believe those who were foolish enough to fall into the property market crap must take responsibility for their own mistakes also. I think as a nation, we have this attitude of wanting the government to do something about the current mess, with the caveat of "as long as it doesn't effect me". This cannot fly.

I also believe that if we over do it and squeeze too much from the middle classes we run the risk of worsening the economic situation and discouraging people to work, due to the fact that living on benefits may be more attractive than working 40 hours a week for very little extra. This is another reason why we need to cut across the board in a proportionate way and this includes cuts to all social welfare and the minimum wage.

not sure what your point was, you seem to be agreeing with me.

i understand the middle class cant foot the whole bill.

I'm not asking them to.

I'm asking for child benifit to go to those who need it.

nothing more nothing less.

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

what you regard as not luxiries and what people are on the bread line are two different things.

owning a tv.
a mobile phone
internet access.
ntl
sky
a car
laptops/pc's
being able to do a food shop

people take these things for granted and are all luxries.

i think you proved my point perfectly, totally out of touch

Is that what you wish on the Irish society? Because that is the way most of us will end up if the state keeps taking from those on middle incomes who have already paid a massive price for the greed of FF and their friends. Bear in mind that the less disposable income there is out there the less VAT goes to the government. Try building a economic recovery when people can't afford to buy anything.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

Is that what you wish on the Irish society? Because that is the way most of us will end up if the state keeps taking from those on middle incomes who have already paid a massive price for the greed of FF and their friends. Bear in mind that the less disposable income there is out there the less VAT goes to the government. Try building a economic recovery when people can't afford to buy anything.

It has nothing to do with what i wish i'm merley pointing out the difference between the have's and the have not's.

i mean your putting your child benifit into a christmas fund to buy kids toys?

when families are using it to put food on the table for their kids and clothes on their back and books in their bag

do you see the difference?

if not you don't deserve to get the benifit

and yes i'm a parent!

techdiver

ntlbell wrote: »

not sure what your point was, you seem to be agreeing with me.

i understand the middle class cant foot the whole bill.

I'm not asking them to.

I'm asking for child benifit to go to those who need it.

nothing more nothing less.

In fairness, your approach seems a bit more hard-lined. From your last 2 posts you seem content to point out that the desirable outcome for these families is to just exist. An economy is built upon spending and that includes spending on frivolous items also. We need to cut, in that there is no doubt, but to rob an old phrase, there is no point administering medication that will kill the patient.

I hope I'm not casting aspersions on your opinion, but it seems that what you are looking for is a single class society where everyone is completely equal. In a Utopian society maybe that would be nice, but in reality such a system is doomed to failure. There is the train of thought that puts forward the notion that, it is indeed the welfare state that causes more issues than it solves.

ntlbell

techdiver wrote: »

In fairness, your approach seems a bit more hard-lined. From your last 2 posts you seem content to point out that the desirable outcome for these families is to just exist. An economy is built upon spending and that includes spending on frivolous items also. We need to cut, in that there is no doubt, but to rob an old phrase, there is no point administering medication that will kill the patient.

I hope I'm not casting aspersions on your opinion, but it seems that what you are looking for is a single class society where everyone is completely equal. In a Utopian society maybe that would be nice, but in reality such a system is doomed to failure. There is the train of thought that puts forward the notion that, it is indeed the welfare state that causes more issues than it solves.

i'm not looking for a single class society, again i just want the money to go to the right people.

we both know there's familie's recieving it that have no need for it at all.

now we have to decide where to draw the line.

is my line harder than yours? probably

but we both want the same thing.

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

It has nothing to do with what i wish i'm merley pointing out the difference between the have's and the have not's.

i mean your putting your child benifit into a christmas fund to buy kids toys?

when families are using it to put food on the table for their kids and clothes on their back and books in their bag

do you see the difference?

if not you don't deserve to get the benifit

and yes i'm a parent!

No - you are saying that those who are not on the poverty line but merely hovering above it should be penalised even more than they have already for a lifetime of trying to do the right thing by their families. That cb income already counts against you when it comes to qualifying for a GP card or a medical card and no doubt for any other benefits out there.

And lets be clear - most lower income families do in fact have more disposable income than middle income families - I see it in my own extended family. They are the ones with the home cinema wide screen TVs dotted around the council house and the new mobile upgrade annually and the skyplus TV and the long weekends in Budappest and Barcelona. And I don't begrudge them any of it. But to try to pretend that the death by a thousand cuts being endured by the middle income families is equitable - well I think you are the one who is out of touch.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

No - you are saying that those who are not on the poverty line but merely hovering above it should be penalised even more than they have already for a lifetime of trying to do the right thing by their families. That cb income already counts against you when it comes to qualifying for a GP card or a medical card and no doubt for any other benefits out there.

And lets be clear - most lower income families do in fact have more disposable income than middle income families - I see it in my own extended family. They are the ones with the home cinema wide screen TVs dotted around the council house and the new mobile upgrade annually and the skyplus TV and the long weekends in Budappest and Barcelona. And I don't begrudge them any of it. But to try to pretend that the death by a thousand cuts being endured by the middle income families is equitable - well I think you are the one who is out of touch.

complete nonsense. You're assuming what I'm saying instead of actually reading what I'm saying.

If you think lower income familie's have more disposable income, then be my guest and try it out and enjoy the high life!

try it out for 12 months

enjoy your trip's in budapest and large screen tv, who knows you might not return to the middle class lifstyle :rolleyes:

so because you extended familiy are living it up you think all lowe income familie's are the same?

nice resarch

why don't you come back and tell me about how all their friends are driving bmw's and have an extended property portfolio's

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

complete nonsense. You're assuming what I'm saying instead of actually reading what I'm saying.

If you think lower income familie's have more disposable income, then be my guest and try it out and enjoy the high life!

try it out for 12 months

enjoy your trip's in budapest and large screen tv, who knows you might not return to the middle class lifstyle :rolleyes:

so because you extended familiy are living it up you think all lowe income familie's are the same?

nice resarch

why don't you come back and tell me about how all their friends are driving bmw's and have an extended property portfolio's

I said they were lower income not politicians.

polyfusion

Are they drug dealers / prostitutes / pimps? I can't understand how lower income families would have much disposable income.

imokyrok

polyfusion wrote: »

Are they drug dealers / prostitutes / pimps? I can't understand how lower income families would have much disposable income.

Oh come on - a decent TV, mobile phone and a holiday is not dealer terriority! I'm just making the point that when you are middle income you have middle income bills to go with it. Keeping an elderly car on the road, paying healthcare costs and house insurance are not luxuries. If we can't pay them then the state has to instead. That's in no ones interest.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

Oh come on - a decent TV, mobile phone and a holiday is not dealer terriority! I'm just making the point that when you are middle income you have middle income bills to go with it. Keeping an elderly car on the road, paying healthcare costs and house insurance are not luxuries. If we can't pay them then the state has to instead. That's in no ones interest.

Look, there is some middle income familie's that will have a case for getting the payment.

a lot won't.

now how do we work out who does and who doesn't without costing the state a fortune.

tax it?

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

Look, there is some middle income familie's that will have a case for getting the payment.

a lot won't.

now how do we work out who does and who doesn't without costing the state a fortune.

tax it?

I don't think it should be touched. It's is the equivalent of a tax allowance for children. That's all it is. There used to be a tax allowance per child - there isn't anymore.