Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    97i9y3941
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭97i9y3941


    wonder do sharon ni bheolain and miriam o'callaghan claim child allowance...


  • Options
    #33
    Absurdum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Just think about the insanity of this for a minute, Michael O' Leary is an extremely wealthy man, he runs an airline, he has shares in the airline, he is probably worth hundreds of millions of Euro... If his wife had a baby in the morning, she is automatically entitied to child benefit?!?!?!?

    You're overlooking the fact that he is personally paying a hell of a lot of tax, why should he (and his spouse/offspring), as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this state, be denied something just because he is successful?

    So what if "wealthy" people put their child benefit into savings. It's probably their child's college fund. That to me is called being a responsible parent and citizen. It's better than putting it on a horse or drinking it.


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What about getting rid of the thing entirely and people being responsible for their own children


  • Options
    #35
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    is child benefit for wealthy parents any less crazy than medical cards for wealthy pensioners


  • Options
    #36
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    irish_bob wrote: »
    is child benefit for wealthy parents any less crazy than medical cards for wealthy pensioners

    No, its completely crazy.

    What seems to be off kilter is the idea of €40k meaning wealthy.
    Cut children's allowance for families where the parent's combined income is €100k* plus. Its still an effective 8% pay cut for them, but at least they're left with enough income that its still worth their while going out to work.

    * €100k gross for 2 working parents with 3 kids isn't wealthy either btw, its just about comfortable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Trampas
    Registered Users Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭Trampas


    Should be got rid off.

    Instead of giving money to x or y to bring up kids.

    Money should be use for education and healthcare.

    If people can't afford a child then they shouldn't have them.


  • Options
    #38
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Trampas wrote: »
    Should be got rid off.

    Instead of giving money to x or y to bring up kids.

    Money should be use for education and healthcare.

    If people can't afford a child then they shouldn't have them.

    Those kids will end up working to pay your pension some day.

    If there no kids......


  • Options
    #39
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Trampas wrote: »
    Should be got rid off.

    Instead of giving money to x or y to bring up kids.

    Money should be use for education and healthcare.

    If people can't afford a child then they shouldn't have them.

    That's a good shout actually; if all the child care money went into education perhaps schools wouldn't have to ask parents to pay for books and schools could even set up canteens


  • Options
    #40
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    dodgyme wrote: »
    That is an extreme example which is why you used it. Most people are somewhere between the extremities I highlighted above.

    You see this is where we are going wrong with regard to the whole social welfare system. There should be no automatic entitlement to anything... The only test that should be used I think should be, "do you need this benefit???"

    If the answer is no, and in the example I've given above, the answer is clearly, "no, you do not need state support for your children!", then there is no way it should be given. I've a funny feeling Michael O' Leary would agree with me on this one, state support is a valuable resource and it should not be handed out to people who clearly don't need any state support.

    It's this notion of entitlement that has us handing out money to every Tom, Dick and Harry on a Thursday at Post Offices up and down the country, it's absolutely insane I think.
    Absurdum wrote: »
    You're overlooking the fact that he is personally paying a hell of a lot of tax, why should he (and his spouse/offspring), as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this state, be denied something just because he is successful?

    So what if "wealthy" people put their child benefit into savings. It's probably their child's college fund. That to me is called being a responsible parent and citizen. It's better than putting it on a horse or drinking it.

    Wealthy people do not need child benefit to rear their children, so they should not be allowed to claim "child benefit", for children that they have. Why would you give someone who practically owns one of the worlds largest airlines, a state support???? :confused::confused::confused:


  • Options
    #41
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    Gurgle wrote: »
    No, its completely crazy.

    What seems to be off kilter is the idea of €40k meaning wealthy.
    Cut children's allowance for families where the parent's combined income is €100k* plus. Its still an effective 8% pay cut for them, but at least they're left with enough income that its still worth their while going out to work.

    * €100k gross for 2 working parents with 3 kids isn't wealthy either btw, its just about comfortable.

    i consider it well off but thats not to say i think they should be paying 62% income tax like jack o connor wants


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭dodgyme


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What about getting rid of the thing entirely and people being responsible for their own children
    Possibly because the children born now will be paying for the health system you will use when you are old and decrepid
    or
    why not get rid of the whole welfare state then.


  • Options
    #43
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭dodgyme


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    You see this is where we are going wrong with regard to the whole social welfare system. There should be no automatic entitlement to anything... The only test that should be used I think should be, "do you need this benefit???":

    There is no automatic entitlement. To get CA you need first to produce a child. For many people it is the first tangable thing they ever get back from the state after years of working. For others its the first tangable thing they get from the state after not working atall.
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    it should not be handed out to people who clearly don't need any state support

    I think a 19yrs old with 2 kids probably needs support. ?? My problem is that she knows this because it is well known in the sub-culture of sponging.
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Wealthy people do not need child benefit to rear their children, so they should not be allowed to claim "child benefit", for children that they have. Why would you give someone who practically owns one of the worlds largest airlines, a state support???? :confused::confused::confused:

    As i said already my examples were more realisitic in what they represent then choosing MOL or Mother Theresa or whoever. You just want to find a rich extreme and say 'there I am right'. What about a poor extreme should they be entitled to it?


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dodgyme wrote: »
    Possibly because the children born now will be paying for the health system you will use when you are old and decrepid
    or
    why not get rid of the whole welfare state then.

    lets.......

    People had kids before child benefit was invented


  • Options
    #45
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Deleted User wrote: »
    lets.......

    People had kids before child benefit was invented

    And Child poverty and a million other things we've thankfully seen the back of. That's no argument at all really is it?


  • Options
    #46
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭dodgyme


    Deleted User wrote: »
    lets.......

    People had kids before child benefit was invented

    I suppose your mother gave it back?


  • Options
    #47
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Well, many would consider my household to be in the "well heeled" category, and I get child welfare. I use it to pay my mortgage.
    Why? Because I have nothing better to do with it.

    Completely wasted on someone like me and it is a sham that it is a universal payment.

    My opinion - give notice that it is being scrapped in 10 years and start the wind down process asap.

    I understand some people rely on it today to pay bills but thats no excuse - how did they get into a state where they needed this money to pay the bills?
    By not spending the money in this way we can really put it to work helping people who really need it - not people like me!


  • Options
    #48
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    MaceFace wrote: »
    Well, many would consider my household to be in the "well heeled" category, and I get child welfare. I use it to pay my mortgage.
    Why? Because I have nothing better to do with it.

    Completely wasted on someone like me and it is a sham that it is a universal payment.

    My opinion - give notice that it is being scrapped in 10 years and start the wind down process asap.

    I understand some people rely on it today to pay bills but thats no excuse - how did they get into a state where they needed this money to pay the bills?
    By not spending the money in this way we can really put it to work helping people who really need it - not people like me!

    Why take 10 years to wind it down?
    It is very obvious that its supposed to be assistance towards expenses associated with children- why not give universal childcare in one foul swoop- and meals for all children at primary school level- and abolish the payment.


  • Options
    #49
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Why take 10 years to wind it down?
    It is very obvious that its supposed to be assistance towards expenses associated with children- why not give universal childcare in one foul swoop- and meals for all children at primary school level- and abolish the payment.

    The reason I say 10 years is that there are many people who are relying on this to keep their head above water and removing it will cripple many of them.
    By slowly winding it down, it will allow time for those that need it now to work their way out of it while not allowing a new generation of parents to fall into the trap.


  • Options
    #50
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    smccarrick wrote: »
    why not give universal childcare in one foul swoop- and meals for all children at primary school level- and abolish the payment.

    Universal childcare - why?
    The only children who need childcare are those whose parents are both working.
    Besides, child benefit is about 1/4 the cost of full time childcare.

    Meals in schools, organized by the Department of Education and Idiocy- are you joking?


  • Options
    #51
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    MaceFace wrote: »
    The reason I say 10 years is that there are many people who are relying on this to keep their head above water and removing it will cripple many of them.
    By slowly winding it down, it will allow time for those that need it now to work their way out of it while not allowing a new generation of parents to fall into the trap.

    The reason I was suggesting doing it immediately- is because in politics 10 years is an eternity- and you will get some hippy do-gooder in at some stage who will halt or even reverse any intended changes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Meals in schools, organized by the Department of Education and Idiocy- are you joking?

    Let Agriculture do it- contract out the preparation and supply- but specify that all ingredients have to be Irish- and you have the Irish farmers and food industry sorted in one foul swoop. We already have the school milk scheme administered by the Department- this could be tagged onto it in some way?


  • Options
    #53
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Why not cut child benefit entirely for everyone, replace it with tax credits to an equal value.


  • Options
    #54
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Why not cut child benefit entirely for everyone, replace it with tax credits to an equal value.

    Because you have to be working, for tax credits to be of any use (unless of course, you are also proposing to tax all income- including social welfare income?)


  • Options
    #55
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Hollyg'lightly wrote: »
    Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

    Surely it might save a few pence, afterall i've known people to say they never use it weekly, as it goes striaght into the savings.

    I fit into that catagory... and I think it should be removed.
    We simply put it into an education fund for our daughter!

    I would be in favour of a subsidy for creche fees. But only if both parents are working!


  • Options
    #56
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    dodgyme wrote: »
    There is no automatic entitlement. To get CA you need first to produce a child. For many people it is the first tangable thing they ever get back from the state after years of working. For others its the first tangable thing they get from the state after not working atall.

    I think a 19yrs old with 2 kids probably needs support. ?? My problem is that she knows this because it is well known in the sub-culture of sponging.

    As i said already my examples were more realisitic in what they represent then choosing MOL or Mother Theresa or whoever. You just want to find a rich extreme and say 'there I am right'. What about a poor extreme should they be entitled to it?

    Your missing the point. Once you have a child, regardless of your income, there is an automatic entitlement to state child support. This is insanity and how it ever came to pass that where you have a child, you automatically are entitled to state support, is nothing less than a criminal waste of much needed tax payers money.

    As I said already, the only test necessary is, "do you need child support/state benefit to rear your children???". Arguably someone with a generous joint or individual income of over possibly 60K a year does not need child benefit because they have enough means to rear their children without state support...

    I'm not being mean spirited here, but handing over child benefit to people who enjoy high incomes is nothing less than criminal in my eyes...

    As for the argument that, "the wealthy pay more tax so why would you seek to deprive them of state benefits when they pay more tax...", I'm self employed and I have to pay not just my own PAYE and PRSI, my company has to pay Employers PRSI for employees, but I'm not entitled to a washer from the state, not social welfare, nothing... Just because you pay more tax, it certainly doesn't follow that you are antitled to more state benefits, if anything it is the exact opposite as things currently stand, at least if you are self employed...


  • Options
    #57
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Because you have to be working, for tax credits to be of any use (unless of course, you are also proposing to tax all income- including social welfare income?)

    Now, I'm not sure about this, but I was recently told that we are the only country where child benefit increases with every child you have!
    If that is true, does that not mean having a huge brood is a career choice?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we the only place that does this?


  • Options
    #58
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Because you have to be working, for tax credits to be of any use (unless of course, you are also proposing to tax all income- including social welfare income?)
    No, I'm suggesting that child benefit could be considered as a contribution to child care.

    This way provides an incentive for people to work for a living rather than have lots of kids and live as benefit surfers.


  • Options
    #59
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Gurgle wrote: »
    No, I'm suggesting that child benefit could be considered as a contribution to child care.

    This way provides an incentive for people to work for a living rather than have lots of kids and live as benefit surfers.
    • Common sense
    • Rewarding effort
    • Fueling the economy
    What hope do you think that idea has in this joke of a state!!?


  • Options
    #60
    Alcatel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Alcatel


    For goodness sake, we in Ireland must think we're inventing the wheel or what? Look at a country like Germany, where the entire social welfare and taxation system is linked, graded and makes some logical sense. Why the hell don't we just do it like they do, rather than trying to make up figures like 'let's dump it from people on 40k'

    Does that depend on how many kids they have? Where's the nuance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dodgyme wrote: »
    I suppose your mother gave it back?

    yore ma!


Advertisement