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
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Maebh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Maebh


    Personally, I think ye're all mad.

    First off, the OP for suggesting that a couple earning 40,000 is in any way comfortable enough to forgo child benefit.
    Secondly, to all those who keep referring to the welfare spongers. It's not exactly a career move for most people. I admit, a few people are just lazy, whatever, you have them everywhere. But right now the majority of unemployed people have only recently lost their jobs, have already faced harsh adjustments, and to say they deserve to lose more money is bordering on criminal.
    To say that the people on welfare at the moment are all sponging, that child benefit should be cut to all people regardless, is insane.
    If you can't see why that is, well then, you have bigger issues.
    Thirdly, universal child benefit is a good thing. I find it absolutely mad that nobody seems to think that. There are all sorts of practical, real-world reasons why everybody should be entitled to child benefit.
    Tax the rich if you have a problem with their being rich, but the government should leave children outta it.

    This is a stupid idea, floated by stupid people, which is being spread in the stupid media...Ye're all being suckered into thinking that these cuts are necessary, take a look beneath the surface and find out about the real state of this country before you start suggesting money should be randomly cut from swathes of people.


  • Options
    #63
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Maebh wrote: »
    Personally, I think ye're all mad.

    First off, the OP for suggesting that a couple earning 40,000 is in any way comfortable enough to forgo child benefit.
    Secondly, to all those who keep referring to the welfare spongers. It's not exactly a career move for most people. I admit, a few people are just lazy, whatever, you have them everywhere. But right now the majority of unemployed people have only recently lost their jobs, have already faced harsh adjustments, and to say they deserve to lose more money is bordering on criminal.
    To say that the people on welfare at the moment are all sponging, that child benefit should be cut to all people regardless, is insane.
    If you can't see why that is, well then, you have bigger issues.
    Thirdly, universal child benefit is a good thing. I find it absolutely mad that nobody seems to think that. There are all sorts of practical, real-world reasons why everybody should be entitled to child benefit.
    Tax the rich if you have a problem with their being rich, but the government should leave children outta it.

    This is a stupid idea, floated by stupid people, which is being spread in the stupid media...Ye're all being suckered into thinking that these cuts are necessary, take a look beneath the surface and find out about the real state of this country before you start suggesting money should be randomly cut from swathes of people.

    What is your solution/suggestion?

    Mine is, an annual Half Life on welfare. So that the newly unemployed are not hit, but the long-term unemployed are!

    As for child benefit, it was a good thing when we had money. But now we need people working, spending and feeding the economy. So why not implement a tax break for creche fees, rather than a hand-out! Encourage people to work!


  • Options
    #64
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Maebh wrote: »
    This is a stupid idea, floated by stupid people, which is being spread in the stupid media...Ye're all being suckered into thinking that these cuts are necessary, take a look beneath the surface and find out about the real state of this country before you start suggesting money should be randomly cut from swathes of people.

    These cuts are necessary though- thats the problem.
    Our credit rating was downgraded a further 2 points yesterday by Fitch to AA- which makes it a lot more expensive for us to borrow money than it is for our continental friends. Germany pays 1.65% less on its borrowings than we do.

    We will have borrowed 28 billion this year- aside from all the bank bailouts etc. This accounts for almost 60% of total expenditure. We need to cut 13 billion from this by 2012- and have signed up to do so.

    All social welfare disbursements- including childrens' welfare, pensions etc- will be cut. All public sector pay and numbers will be cut. All capital expenditure will be cut. All health expenditure will be cut. If you imagine that any element of expenditure is safe- irrespective of how you cherish it- you will be sorely dissappointed.


  • Options
    #65
    Dickerty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Dickerty


    Easy there Maebh - very few posters are suggesting randoms cuts, people have their own arguments. And yes, these cuts are necessary, as are many other cuts.

    I have two kids and we have one income. The benefit we get makes a real difference, but I don't believe we are entitled to it cause we have kids. And if there are some payments make, I believe it should be on a reducing scale for each kid - 100% for kid 1, 65% for kid 2, 35% for kid 3, and nothing beyond that...


  • Options
    #66
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭dodgyme


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    ...

    your argument would just benefit sponging. why would any woman wait until they are financially better in a position to have children when they can get up the duff and get a payment they wouldnt get shall they go to college,married etc etc. Now that to me is criminal since the taxpayer will foot the bill and the payment will become a right of the irresponsible!!

    dont let the SUV'S in lucan taint your mind too much


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭dodgyme


    Deleted User wrote: »
    yore ma!

    there is a forum for dull responses. try 'after hours' for 'yore ma'.


  • Options
    #68
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Maebh wrote: »
    Personally, I think ye're all mad.

    First off, the OP for suggesting that a couple earning 40,000 is in any way comfortable enough to forgo child benefit.

    Maybe 40k is too low to remove from the child benefit state but as I have stated before - I don't need child benefit.
    I am not daft enough to give it back as I am entitled, but remember the key point - if you stopped giving welfare to people who do not need it, you can increase the welfare to the people who really need it!

    40k = 750 a week. Unless it is a two income household where both are on just above minimum wage I would think 40k is a figure worth debating.
    I would suggest that those who have 40k a year and think it is not enough, it is because their mortgage is too high (not saying if that is right or wrong, but besides this outlay, why would 40k not be enough)?


  • Options
    #69
    Maebh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Maebh


    Means test child benefit and you automatically make it a stigma to receive it. And then there are those mothers whose partner earns enough to pay for childcare but doesn't give them any. The whole idea behind universal child benefit, much as it may not be needed for those who are rich (and btw, I'm not saying I like giving rich people money willy-nilly, on the contrary) child benefit, in civilised countries, is seen as a statement of support for children. You support the child, not the parent. It's not foolproof, it's not perfect, but if you start saying who can and cannot receive it you get into all sorts of tricky individual problems.

    As for "but the cuts are necessary!" replies. Why? 4billion euro is a number, picked arbitrarily by the wasters we have in power, there are other, much larger numbers, that were also picked out and given to banks, NAMA, etc. Why in the name of God, people, are ye willing to accept these cuts when banks have been bailed out? Why are we allowing our government to give money to the people who got us in this mess in the first place, but take money from people who haven't got it to give?

    Look, I'm not attacking anybody, and I don't really mean to come off like a raving lunatic, but I've been getting angrier and angrier recently at the bull that is washing over us from the media, the politicians, the bankers. It really should all come to a head, but instead we're rolling over and accepting it when they tell us that the cuts are necessary.


  • Options
    #70
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭dodgyme


    Maebh wrote: »
    Means test child benefit and you automatically make it a stigma to receive it. And then there are those mothers whose partner earns enough to pay for childcare but doesn't give them any. The whole idea behind universal child benefit, much as it may not be needed for those who are rich (and btw, I'm not saying I like giving rich people money willy-nilly, on the contrary) child benefit, in civilised countries, is seen as a statement of support for children. You support the child, not the parent. It's not foolproof, it's not perfect, but if you start saying who can and cannot receive it you get into all sorts of tricky individual problems.

    As for "but the cuts are necessary!" replies. Why? 4billion euro is a number, picked arbitrarily by the wasters we have in power, there are other, much larger numbers, that were also picked out and given to banks, NAMA, etc. Why in the name of God, people, are ye willing to accept these cuts when banks have been bailed out? Why are we allowing our government to give money to the people who got us in this mess in the first place, but take money from people who haven't got it to give?

    Look, I'm not attacking anybody, and I don't really mean to come off like a raving lunatic, but I've been getting angrier and angrier recently at the bull that is washing over us from the media, the politicians, the bankers. It really should all come to a head, but instead we're rolling over and accepting it when they tell us that the cuts are necessary.

    If CA needs to be looked at, I think it should be cut for everyone receiving it. e.g. cut it by 10% across the board. This would be cheap (almost no administration) and sould bring in squared off figures to the finance dept.


  • Options
    #71
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Maebh wrote: »
    As for "but the cuts are necessary!" replies. Why? 4billion euro is a number, picked arbitrarily by the wasters we have in power, there are other, much larger numbers, that were also picked out and given to banks, NAMA, etc. Why in the name of God, people, are ye willing to accept these cuts when banks have been bailed out? Why are we allowing our government to give money to the people who got us in this mess in the first place, but take money from people who haven't got it to give?

    Its not an arbitrary figure pulled out of thin air by our politicians actually. Its a figure that was agreed with the EU Commission- by way of excusing our budget deficit with could well hit 14% of GDP by years end.

    We also have to cut a further 5 billion in the 2011 budget and another 4 billion in the 2012 budget.

    If there are these levels of ructions with the first 4 billion of budget cuts- what the hell is going to happen next year with the next 5 billion and the following year with the next 4 billion?

    People really seem to have this idea that money grows on trees- and somehow we'll never run out, we can always borrow more money from someone else, somewhere else.

    By 2014- at current borrowing levels- over 45% of all income tax receipts will go on servicing our national debt (and thats assuming interest rates don't soar- which they are scheduled to........)

    We need to make massive cuts- its not an optional pick and choose- we need to make massive cuts across the board.

    People are going to hurt, they are going to hurt badly. Its all well and good saying- shaft the rich ****, they can afford it- unfortunately, they are also the shower most likely to be up to their neck in debt- so no, they can't.

    In the 1980s when we last had a financial crisis here- the national government was bankrupt- but private sector debt levels were virtually non-existant. This is not the case this time round- every Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary- is borrowed up to their neck, with negative equity Bulgarian apartments and those second and third properties lying vacant in Carrick-on-Shannon because they can't find tenants........

    If you really imagine that children's benefit is somehow sacrosanct- for anyone, you're mistaken. All the cards are on the table, there are no sacred elephants. Abolishing all the tax reliefs- is a good way to rap the richer people on the knuckles and make a grab for more of their income- but at the end of the day- even those on minimum wage are going to find themselves in the tax band........

    People need to get real.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Maebh wrote: »
    As for "but the cuts are necessary!" replies. Why? 4billion euro is a number, picked arbitrarily by the wasters we have in power, there are other, much larger numbers, that were also picked out and given to banks, NAMA, etc. Why in the name of God, people, are ye willing to accept these cuts when banks have been bailed out? Why are we allowing our government to give money to the people who got us in this mess in the first place, but take money from people who haven't got it to give?

    Banks are necessary for the economy to survive and recover and NAMA is far more complex than simply "giving the banks money". Pissing away €4bn is not the way to go and whatever comforts people manage to hang onto today will be lost threefold over in 5-10 years time when the time comes to repay that money tree that we've been borrowing from. If we keep going as we're going, the interest repayments alone will consume 40% of our tax intake.


  • Options
    #73
    harsea8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 238 ✭✭harsea8


    MaceFace wrote: »
    Maybe 40k is too low to remove from the child benefit state but as I have stated before - I don't need child benefit.
    I am not daft enough to give it back as I am entitled, but remember the key point - if you stopped giving welfare to people who do not need it, you can increase the welfare to the people who really need it!

    40k = 750 a week. Unless it is a two income household where both are on just above minimum wage I would think 40k is a figure worth debating.
    I would suggest that those who have 40k a year and think it is not enough, it is because their mortgage is too high (not saying if that is right or wrong, but besides this outlay, why would 40k not be enough)?

    40K only equals 750 a week before tax/income levy/PRSI....I can't be arsed to work this out exactly but, it's likely to be more like ~500 a week. Take into account the fact that the person would have to pay full whack for mortgage/rent, medical card, etc...it's unlikely to be a huge amount more than some people on social welfare end up with per week.


  • Options
    #74
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    On an income of 40 to 50k, you're coming out with about the same as a family on social welfare+rent allowance+medical card+child benefit etc. If you take child benefit away from the couple on 40-50k, then you remove all incentive for them to stay in the workforce imo.

    Maybe take child benefit away from people on very high incomes but not from the people on 40k.


  • Options
    #75
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Maebh wrote: »
    As for "but the cuts are necessary!" replies. Why? 4billion euro is a number, picked arbitrarily by the wasters we have in power, .

    In a way you are right Maebh. The real figure is not 4 billion it is 24 billion cuts a year that we need. That means each family in Ireland either has to pay 24,000 a year extra in tax every year or else we have to reduce government spending by a similar amount. Obviously reducing spending by 24 billion in 1 year would be next to impossible so it is going to be done in stages. Starting now with 4 billion.


  • Options
    #76
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Stark wrote: »
    On an income of 40 to 50k, you're coming out with about the same as a family on social welfare+rent allowance+medical card+child benefit etc. If you take child benefit away from the couple on 40-50k, then you remove all incentive for them to stay in the workforce imo.

    Maybe take child benefit away from people on very high incomes but not from the people on 40k.

    Why not just reduce it slightly (10% or so with clear indication of future reductions) tax it for everyone. Low paid get it all, those on lower rate of tax get most of it, those on higher rate of tax get half of it.


  • Options
    #77
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    OMD wrote: »
    Why not just reduce it slightly (10% or so with clear indication of future reductions) tax it for everyone. Low paid get it all, those on lower rate of tax get most of it, those on higher rate of tax get half of it.

    That makes sense. And as a first step I would support it.

    But why not offer a proper tax break for working couples with creche fees?
    Encourage both parents to work and fuel the recovery we need.


  • Options
    #78
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    optocynic wrote: »
    That makes sense. And as a first step I would support it.

    But why not offer a proper tax break for working couples with creche fees?
    Encourage both parents to work and fuel the recovery we need.

    This whole "creche" thing is another Celtic Tiger millstone that is wrappped around our necks now. Only when property prices went through the roof, did it become a necessity for both parents to have to work.

    The fabric of fammily life has been forever altered by these greedy pigs in banks and in government that decided that both parents had to be working to pay a mortgage...


  • Options
    #79
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    optocynic wrote: »
    That makes sense. And as a first step I would support it.

    But why not offer a proper tax break for working couples with creche fees?
    Encourage both parents to work and fuel the recovery we need.

    How about the opposite and encourage only one worker per household.
    This will mean more "households" in employment, and therefore less people on welfare.

    There aren't enough jobs to go around for us all.


  • Options
    #80
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    This whole "creche" thing is another Celtic Tiger millstone that is wrappped around our necks now. Only when property prices went through the roof, did it become a necessity for both parents to have to work.

    The fabric of fammily life has been forever altered by these greedy pigs in banks and in government that decided that both parents had to be working to pay a mortgage...

    Hmmmmmmmmm, I see your point, but I feel the move towards women having equal careers to us men is a great stride forward for what was a backward society here.

    the unfortunate side effect was a near doubling of house prices..


  • Options
    #81
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    MaceFace wrote: »
    How about the opposite and encourage only one worker per household.
    This will mean more "households" in employment, and therefore less people on welfare.

    There aren't enough jobs to go around for us all.

    The more jobs you create, the more wealth you create... the more wealth, the more spending... the more spending, the more jobs...

    The pattern is there.

    And our mortgages are too high for just one person per houshold to work.
    Besides, who should stay at home? Lots of couples out there where they both have successful careers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Maebh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Maebh


    optocynic wrote: »
    Hmmmmmmmmm, I see your point, but I feel the move towards women having equal careers to us men is a great stride forward for what was a backward society here.

    the unfortunate side effect was a near doubling of house prices..

    Yup, yup, I agree with optocynic...women have been kept back for far too long in this country, and to say that somehow women working is destroying the loveliness of the fabric of the family way-back-when is jdsfn usdjbf gdjbg

    *bangs.head.off.keyboard.at.NUTTERNESS*


  • Options
    #83
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Maebh wrote: »
    Yup, yup, I agree with optocynic...women have been kept back for far too long in this country, and to say that somehow women working is destroying the loveliness of the fabric of the family way-back-when is jdsfn usdjbf gdjbg

    *bangs.head.off.keyboard.at.NUTTERNESS*

    That made me giggle...
    :D


  • Options
    #84
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    optocynic wrote: »
    Besides, who should stay at home? Lots of couples out there where they both have successful careers.

    The woman of course! Silly.


  • Options
    #85
    Maebh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Maebh


    I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Hey, let's not accept these cuts at all. While we're at it, I don't like this complete and utter lack of interest in the livelihoods of the Irish people, these statements constructed to confuse and dishearten the public and the attempts to turn the citizens against each other....Why not...do...something...about....it...."

    But, the thing is, it's all very well and good for us to talk and talk on boards, but if that's all we're doing, well, we deserve to get what's coming...

    *shrug*...I dunno.


  • Options
    #86
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Stark wrote: »
    The woman of course! Silly.

    You say that now, but there is no WAY I would want to come home to a dinner cooked by my wife... that woman can burn water!

    When she was on maternity leave I actually lost weight!:D


  • Options
    #87
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Maebh wrote: »
    I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Hey, let's not accept these cuts at all. While we're at it, I don't like this complete and utter lack of interest in the livelihoods of the Irish people, these statements constructed to confuse and dishearten the public and the attempts to turn the citizens against each other....Why not...do...something...about....it...."

    But, the thing is, it's all very well and good for us to talk and talk on boards, but if that's all we're doing, well, we deserve to get what's coming...

    *shrug*...I dunno.

    We have to accept the cuts Maebh, for the simple reason that money does not grow on trees...
    We have to show progress to the ECB, or we will be cut off.


  • Options
    #88
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Maebh wrote: »
    I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Hey, let's not accept these cuts at all. While we're at it, I don't like this complete and utter lack of interest in the livelihoods of the Irish people, these statements constructed to confuse and dishearten the public and the attempts to turn the citizens against each other....Why not...do...something...about....it...."

    But, the thing is, it's all very well and good for us to talk and talk on boards, but if that's all we're doing, well, we deserve to get what's coming...

    *shrug*...I dunno.

    What would you do about it?


  • Options
    #89
    Maebh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Maebh


    Stark wrote: »
    What would you do about it?

    Well, that was kinda the reason for the *shrug*, and for saying I dunno.

    I'm thinking on it. I'm also writing a gazillion letters to politicians and finding out about the way things are done. Basically just informing myself because that's about all I can really do right now. However, I do feel that, collectively, people should refuse to be battered by the powers that be.

    Of course, this is all purely theoretical, though. Nothing anyone does will make any difference to Cowen & co.


  • Options
    #90
    Maebh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Maebh


    optocynic wrote: »
    We have to accept the cuts Maebh, for the simple reason that money does not grow on trees...
    We have to show progress to the ECB, or we will be cut off.


    *sigh*...people keep saying this.

    And yet. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that the gov would be able to bail out the banks (blah blah, it was necessary, yeah, well, somehow I find it hard to trust them about it) and fund nama and have a huge bloody surplus for years and years only to find that, oh no! we can't pay for social welfare any more!

    It's ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    You're just going to write a billion letters saying "don't do anything, continue as we are" and in a few years time the magic money tree (the ECB or whatever) is going to stop bearing fruit and we're going to be where we are now but with an extra €20bn or so in interest repayments. And what are you going to do then? Write a few letters saying "please magic me some food"? Maybe you should leave the policies to the people who don't plan on bankrupting the country for the sake of a few more years of comfort unless you have a better idea of where we're going to get the money to pay for your comforts.

    NAMA is money put aside from the ECB specially for our economic recovery and kept off our loan books. All going well it mightn't cost us anything, in likelihood it may end up costing us a few billion but the trade-off from that is an upturn in the economy and greater tax yields as a result. All the money being borrowed to pay for current expenditure is money that we'll never see again and the ECB is only lending us it in the first place on the condition that we borrow less every year. What's your plan for when the ECB decides we're not playing ball and stops lending us that money? Where do you think your money is going to come from then?


Advertisement