March for Child Benefit

ztoical

CB needs to means tested somehow, some way. All the people freaking out on here about losing it...if you do really need it in order to give your child the basics - shelter, clothes, food, education, then a means test should show that you keep it. Quite frankly all this whinging on about kids and family, blah, wrecks my head to be honest. And yes I don't have kids and on will come the never ending comments of well if you had kids blah blah....you don't need to have passed on your genetic material to see the amount of spoiled, whinny little brats we have running around this country. There are kids out there in need who should be looked after but we shouldn't be giving money out so parents can fatten and spoil their kids anymore.

People mentioned needing money for x-mas and that Santa is a need not a luxury, Santa maybe a need in some peoples eyes but keeping up the family next door isn't which is what most parents are doing. I see all these parents paying expensive toys and bringing their kids away on expensive holidays or days out. When did going to a shopping center become a family day out? My mum dragged us to the beach in the middle of winter with a picnic in the back of the car and these were the best memories I have from childhood. Went to a friends 5 year olds birthday at the start of the month and sat and laughed while all the aunts and other mothers, some of whom I know don't have that kind of money to throwing away on something like a 5 year olds birthday, tried to out do each other with bigger and better gifts and then gave me this funny look when I gave the girl a book....."only one?" one had the cheek to say to me. And don't let me get started on the whole communion sham, people feeling more and more pressure to give 7/8 year olds wads of cash just in case the other parents hear they didn't give as much as them. All this leaves us with whinny kids who throw fits cus mummy didn't buy the name brand runners/toy/computer system and I don't think my taxes should be paying to have to listen to them every time I go into town.

end of rant, off to bed, good night.:D

Lockstep

I'm a filthy socialist and even I can't see the logic behind protesting against any changes.


The country is in a recession, everyone knows this.

Taxing child benefit is the only equitable solution I can see.

Although NTLbell has already outlined much of my views on the matter.

professore

ntlbell wrote: »

assuming they're not in the public sector and married that's a take home pay of 5.5 - 6k per month.

Not too shabby?

So they pay no tax / prsi / levies ? Where can I sign up? In reality it's closer to 1/2 of that. 3.5 - 4K. = 800 -1000 per week. If they have 3 kids then they would have 500 - 600 pw on welfare and all the attendant benefits.

ntlbell

professore wrote: »

So they pay no tax / prsi / levies ? Where can I sign up? In reality it's closer to 1/2 of that. 3.5 - 4K. = 800 -1000 per week. If they have 3 kids then they would have 500 - 600 pw on welfare and all the attendant benefits.

two people married who both earn 40k take home 3.5k between them?

you might want to have a look at your calculations.

1750a month for earning 40k?

Something not right there.

even people who are not married take home more and they pay more tax.

TAKAWAKA

STOP SENDING THE CHILD ALLOWANCE OUT TO PEOPLE IN POLAND WHO WERE NEVER IN THIS COUNTRY .BUT JUST BECAUSE THEIR HUSBAND WAS HERE WITH A PPS NUMBER THEY ARE DUE THE IRISH RATES OF CHILD BENEFIT .GIVE THEM THE POLISH RATES,WHICH IS 10 EURO PER CHILD PER MONTH.AFTER ALL THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE LIVING

ntlbell

professore wrote: »

If they have 3 kids then they would have 500 - 600 pw on welfare and all the attendant benefits.

i love the way people use 3 kids now since the newspaper article.

can you show me on social.ie where it comes to 600e?

204 + 126 + 3 x 26 =

I work it out as something like 408

who what when

cashew wrote: »

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

Ah laive it so for feck sake! Are you in touch with reality at all?

Try looking at it this way for a second;
Consider this country of ours as a business;
Our annual income is 30 odd billion and our annual expenditure is 50 billion!
Businesses like this DO NOT SURVIVE! Its called being unsustainable!
Now you as an investor still want a profit but are totally unwilling to cut costs?

Perhaps its time for the public to take some of the blame in all of this.
Theres 3 equally responsible parties in all of this and they are;
1 The banks who were totally wreckless with their lending
2 The goverment for allowing it to happen
3 The public for taking the money when they realistically couldnt afford it.

The sooner people wake up to this, take their share of the blame and accept that tough measures have to be taken for the next few years the better.

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

middle income middle class whatever makes you feel better about it.

I think a househould that can pull in 70-80k per couple either combined or a single earner would be around where CSO stats would start to put middle income "families"

assuming they're not in the public sector and married that's a take home pay of 5.5 - 6k per month.

Not too shabby?

Wow not sure where your getting 5.5-6k take home from a salary of 70k, that would mean paying no tax at all, can i have some of that please.

The take home salary of a person on 70k is 3850, a far cry from your 5.5-6k. The take home of a couple both on 35k is 4,700. Your dilusional with your figures. (On a side note it is ridiculous that the 2 people working should take home more (850 more at that) than 1 working and earning a nice wage, very injust i think myself

Just out of interest from what angle are you approaching this arguement, are you a middle income earner or a social welfare recipient??

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

i love the way people use 3 kids now since the newspaper article.

can you show me on social.ie where it comes to 600e?

204 + 126 + 3 x 26 =

I work it out as something like 408

Plus rent allowance, medical card, etc etc etc, With children can you even put a price on the value of a medical card??

Fact is that a lot of familes on social welfare should be in the tax net at this stage.

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

Wow not sure where your getting 5.5-6k take home from a salary of 70k, that would mean paying no tax at all, can i have some of that please.

The take home salary of a person on 70k is 3850, a far cry from your 5.5-6k. The take home of a couple both on 35k is 4,700. Your dilusional with your figures. (On a side note it is ridiculous that the 2 people working should take home more (850 more at that) than 1 working and earning a nice wage, very injust i think myself

Just out of interest from what angle are you approaching this arguement, are you a middle income earner or a social welfare recipient??

the sample was for TWO people earning 35 - 40k

the take home pay for a single person earning 40k is is just under 2600 for a single person

x 2 = 5200 then the added tax if there married as they pay less.

please read posts more carefully

and to answer your question, not that it's any of your business really i would be a middle income earner

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

Plus rent allowance, medical card, etc etc etc, With children can you even put a price on the value of a medical card??

Fact is that a lot of familes on social welfare should be in the tax net at this stage.

not everyone on social welfare is claiming the maximum for rent allowance a lot are in council houses that were the houses were bought at 1000 irish pounds where the rent suppliment can be as low as 120e a month which goes back into the system.

a medical card is great but not everyone is going the doctor 2/3 times a week

as i said before if you think the lifystle for these people is so good, why dont you try it out and see what it's like?

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

middle income middle class whatever makes you feel better about it.

I think a househould that can pull in 70-80k per couple either combined or a single earner would be around where CSO stats would start to put middle income "families"

assuming they're not in the public sector and married that's a take home pay of 5.5 - 6k per month.

Not too shabby?

Tipp Man wrote: »

Wow not sure where your getting 5.5-6k take home from a salary of 70k, that would mean paying no tax at all, can i have some of that please.

The take home salary of a person on 70k is 3850, a far cry from your 5.5-6k. The take home of a couple both on 35k is 4,700. Your dilusional with your figures. (On a side note it is ridiculous that the 2 people working should take home more (850 more at that) than 1 working and earning a nice wage, very injust i think myself

Just out of interest from what angle are you approaching this arguement, are you a middle income earner or a social welfare recipient??

ntlbell wrote: »

the sample was for TWO people earning 35 - 40k

the take home pay for a single person earning 40k is is just under 2600 for a single person

x 2 = 5200 then the added tax if there married as they pay less.

please read posts more carefully

and to answer your question, not that it's any of your business really i would be a middle income earner

I think you need to read posts more carefully, above you say that 70k can take home 5.5-6k, my post clearly shows how much a single person and couple can take home on 70k and its nowhere near what you say

Just for comparisons sake a single person on 80k takes home 4,200 while a couple both on 40k take home 5,190. thats a difference of between 310 and 810 A MONTH for the couple and a whopping 1,300 for a single earner to the figures you quoted using the maximum wage that you stated, therefore your figures are clearly rubbish

The couple would have to earn nearly 90k to get to your numbers, a big difference from 70k

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

not everyone on social welfare is claiming the maximum for rent allowance a lot are in council houses that were the houses were bought at 1000 irish pounds where the rent suppliment can be as low as 120e a month which goes back into the system.

a medical card is great but not everyone is going the doctor 2/3 times a week

as i said before if you think the lifystle for these people is so good, why dont you try it out and see what it's like?

I think you'll find that medical card holders use the doctors alot more because their not paying for it. If they were paying for it they wouldn't be there half as often

If you knew as much about the tax system as you did about social welfare then i might believe that you are actually in employment (not that it matters a damn i just find your angle on this debate amusing)

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

I think you need to read posts more carefully, above you say that 70k can take home 5.5-6k, my post clearly shows how much a single person and couple can take home on 70k and its nowhere near what you say

Just for comparisons sake a single person on 80k takes home 4,200 while a couple both on 40k take home 5,190. thats a difference of between 310 and 810 A MONTH for the couple and a whopping 1,300 for a single earner to the figures you quoted using the maximum wage that you stated, therefore your figures are clearly rubbish

The couple would have to earn nearly 90k to get to your numbers, a big difference from 70k

if you look back i was asked where middle income was i said 70 - 80 two income familiy

two people earning 35-40k

40k = nearly 2600 MULTIPLY BY TWO = 5200

this is not some advanced math's it's pretty basic stuff.

TWO PEOPLE EARNING not a single earner on 70k?

got it?

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

I think you'll find that medical card holders use the doctors alot more because their not paying for it. If they were paying for it they wouldn't be there half as often

If you knew as much about the tax system as you did about social welfare then i might believe that you are actually in employment (not that it matters a damn i just find your angle on this debate amusing)

Ok you got me I'm an unemployed bum reaping the rewards of state benifits.

busted.

Can you show some stats to show how often a medical card holder uses it?

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

If you knew as much about the tax system as you did about social welfare then i might believe that you are actually in employment (not that it matters a damn i just find your angle on this debate amusing)

this is for a single person on 40k

Monthly View - January Year To Date Gross 3333.33 3333.33 Tax 424.67 424.67 Health Insurance 133.33 133.33 Income Levy 66.67 66.67 PRSI 111.33 111.33 Health & Levies 311.33 311.33 Net 2597.33 2597.33
now 2597 X 2

this is not taken into account the extra tax credits for a married couple.

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

this is for a single person on 40k

Monthly View - January Year To Date Gross 3333.33 3333.33 Tax 424.67 424.67 Health Insurance 133.33 133.33 Income Levy 66.67 66.67 PRSI 111.33 111.33 Health & Levies 311.33 311.33 Net 2597.33 2597.33
now 2597 X 2

this is not taken into account the extra tax credits for a married couple.

You do realise that simply by multiplying your numbers by 2 does NOT give you te couple take home??

Anyway you said in your initial post that 70-80k should take home 5,500 to 6,000, you are out by between 310 and 810 a month for a couple, now get off you bloody high horse admit your wrong and get your figures right

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

You do realise that simply by multiplying your numbers by 2 does NOT give you te couple take home??

Anyway you said in your initial post that 70-80k should take home 5,500 to 6,000, you are out by between 310 and 810 a month for a couple, now get off you bloody high horse admit your wrong and get your figures right

I think you're just pretending to be slow now.

the take home for a single person is nearly 2600

if the couple are not married the take home is 5200 or there abouts

if the couple is married THE TAKE HOME IS MORE AS THEY GET MORE TAX CREDITS

let it sink in for a bit before replying.

TWO EARNERS NOT ONE ON 80

TWO EARNERS

TWO SETS OF CREDITS

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

Can you show some stats to show how often a medical card holder uses it?

be nice to see this backed up

Tipp Man

Tipp Man wrote: »

I think you need to read posts more carefully, above you say that 70k can take home 5.5-6k, my post clearly shows how much a single person and couple can take home on 70k and its nowhere near what you say

Just for comparisons sake a single person on 80k takes home 4,200 while a couple both on 40k take home 5,190. thats a difference of between 310 and 810 A MONTH for the couple and a whopping 1,300 for a single earner to the figures you quoted using the maximum wage that you stated, therefore your figures are clearly rubbish

The couple would have to earn nearly 90k to get to your numbers, a big difference from 70k

ntlbell wrote: »

I think you're just pretending to be slow now.

the take home for a single person is nearly 2600

if the couple are not married the take home is 5200 or there abouts

if the couple is married THE TAKE HOME IS MORE AS THEY GET MORE TAX CREDITS

let it sink in for a bit before replying.

TWO EARNERS NOT ONE ON 80

TWO EARNERS

TWO SETS OF CREDITS

Listen smartass if you had actually taken the time to read my post properly you will see that i have CLEARLY already shown the calculations for a couple on 40k each, please see above, it comes to 5,190. Those figures are correct or are you a bit thick. Can you show me how a couple on 40k each can take home 5,500 which is the smaller of the 2 numbers that YOU quoted. Please do i'm dying to see how you do it.
Your numbers are out by between 310 and 800. How many times to i have to say it IS ANYBODY HOME??

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

be nice to see this backed up

go to your nearest doctors office, there's your bloody stats for ya

ntlbell

also if you go back to what i stated

"I think a househould that can pull in 70-80k per couple either combined or a single earner would be around where CSO stats would start to put middle income "families" "

START so the very bottom of the middle income bracket

this the bottom line, not the top of it.

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

go to your nearest doctors office, there's your bloody stats for ya

you ask every one in the doctors office are they paying cash or on medical card?

so now without pulling things out of your backside have you any hard facts to back it up? or are you making blind assumptions?

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

middle income middle class whatever makes you feel better about it.

I think a househould that can pull in 70-80k per couple either combined or a single earner would be around where CSO stats would start to put middle income "families"

assuming they're not in the public sector and married that's a take home pay of 5.5 - 6k per month.

Not too shabby?

ntlbell wrote: »

the sample was for TWO people earning 35 - 40k

the take home pay for a single person earning 40k is is just under 2600 for a single person

x 2 = 5200 then the added tax if there married as they pay less.

please read posts more carefully

and to answer your question, not that it's any of your business really i would be a middle income earner

ntlbell wrote: »

also if you go back to what i stated

"I think a househould that can pull in 70-80k per couple either combined or a single earner would be around where CSO stats would start to put middle income "families" "

START so the very bottom of the middle income bracket

this the bottom line, not the top of it.

What are you on about, i don't give a damn whether 70-80k is poor, middle income or loaded. The point is you quoted gross income of 70-80k per annum and net monthly income of 5.5-6k. The 2 simply don't match as i have proven several times now

Also just to pull you up on something, initially you quoted household which can mean a single income as well a 2 working so next time you try to be a smart ass and say "I said Couple" actually remember what you initally wrote, it helps

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

What are you on about, i don't give a damn whether 70-80k is poor, middle income or loaded. The point is you quoted gross income of 70-80k per annum and net monthly income of 5.5-6k. The 2 simply don't match as i have proven several times now

Also just to pull you up on something, initially you quoted household which can mean a single income as well a 2 working so next time you try to be a smart ass and say "I said Couple" actually remember what you initally wrote, it helps

Yes ok.

I'll make sure the next time i write each situation possible.

now are you going to back up your claims?

Stark

imokyrok wrote: »

I take it you live in an area where your every need is on your doorstep. Many of us have to travel considerable distances to get to a supermarket or to the schools (in two different directions) because planners and councillors reneged on their agreements to include such facilities when they built their developments. And these days we can't even get a train into the city because the bridge fell down!

Fair enough in your case, but ntlbell did say the majority of people, not all people. Stats show that a majority of children are driven less than 2km to school.

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

Yes ok.

I'll make sure the next time i write each situation possible.

now are you going to back up your claims?

A little quote below from "the European Journal of health Economics", now what is it you were saying again??

this link provides an abstract of the findings

http://www.springerlink.com/content/566u3j43w3157711/

"the results show that health status and medical card eligibility are consistently most important in explaining differences in GP visiting patterns. The medical card result is particularly noteworthy; even when differences in age and other observable characteristics between medical card and private patients are taken into account, medical card patients are both more likely than private patients to visit their GP, and they visit more frequently when they do. In addition, we investigated whether individuals just above the income threshold for a medical card are disadvantaged in terms of accessing GP services in comparison with other private patients on higher incomes. We found that there is little significant difference among private patients in GP visiting rates as we move up the income distribution"

ntlbell

Tipp Man wrote: »

A little quote below from "the European Journal of health Economics", now what is it you were saying again??

this link provides an abstract of the findings

http://www.springerlink.com/content/566u3j43w3157711/

"the results show that health status and medical card eligibility are consistently most important in explaining differences in GP visiting patterns. The medical card result is particularly noteworthy; even when differences in age and other observable characteristics between medical card and private patients are taken into account, medical card patients are both more likely than private patients to visit their GP, and they visit more frequently when they do. In addition, we investigated whether individuals just above the income threshold for a medical card are disadvantaged in terms of accessing GP services in comparison with other private patients on higher incomes. We found that there is little significant difference among private patients in GP visiting rates as we move up the income distribution"

i was saying people are not going to the doctor 2-3 times a week.

i'm sure people do use the card that's what it's for.

you will have medical card holders who very rarley go to the doctor you will have some use it a lot.

but people throw it at medical card holders like they're been given hundreds of euro a month.

Stark

People in general probably don't go to their doctors enough. In my opinion, GP visits should be subsidized somewhat for everyone, allowing diseases to be caught early before they progress and end up costing the health care system far more to treat. Although knowing Ireland, the extra demand will just give GP's excuse to jack up their prices further until we're back to paying pre-subsidy price.

Tipp Man

ntlbell wrote: »

i was saying people are not going to the doctor 2-3 times a week.

i'm sure people do use the card that's what it's for.

you will have medical card holders who very rarley go to the doctor you will have some use it a lot.

but people throw it at medical card holders like they're been given hundreds of euro a month.

God you really are a tiresome individual, I never said they were being given hundred of euros a month in rent allowance or medical card benefit, you stated how much cash they received from the dole and i politely reminded you that you forgot rent allowance and medical card as 2 very nice perks for the unemployed. I also stated that medical card holders visit the doctors more often as they are not paying, you asked for proof, i gave it to you, what more do you want??