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

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe we could use our brains and get to the roots of our problems

That's what the upcoming current expenditure cuts are all about.
The root of our problem is due to us spending more than we can raise in taxation, because

1. we relied on unsustainable tax reciepts from the construction bubble to fund current expenditure, and
2. we narrowed our tax base.

It looks like we're going to start taking corrective action on our current expenditure. Expect some widening of the tax base to follow (more people in the tax net, new taxes).

Maebh

I would protest because if you don't tell the gov you're pissed off you have no right to complain when they do things you don't like.

But, more specifically, I'm pissed off at the way people are being treated in this country. I'm pissed off that the poor are being made targets, being made to pay for things they had little to no part in causing. I'm talking about all the cuts the gov say we need.

There's an argument to be made for a complete policy shift away from cutting expenditure, and all I wanted to say when I came on this thread was maybe people should be thinking of alternatives to the things the gov is telling us, and maybe y'all shouldn't be (somewhat) repeating back what you've heard ministers say.

Because, if you don't question the way things are, then nothing will change. We're very good, in Ireland, at not questioning the things we're told, and all I'm doing is trying to understand what's going on, and when I see something I don't agree with, I speak up, if only to ask questions, or seek clarification.

That's why I'd protest tomorrow, if I could :P

Maebh

Maebh wrote: »

No, tell me. Hard figures would be nice.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/Viewtxt.asp?DocID=5647&CatID=54&m=p&StartDate=01+January+2009

• 38% are estimated to be entirely exempt from Income Tax.
  
• The top 20% of income earners pay 77% of all Income Tax.
  
• The top 2.5% of income earners pay one third of all income tax
  
• The top 6.5% of income earners pay half of all income tax
  
• The top 12.5% of income earners pay almost two thirds of all income tax

.

Problem is so many people took out gigantic mortgages over crazy periods like 35-40 years and now cant afford to take a tax increase, wage cut or a drop in child benefits.

Root of our problem is the cost of living here

dvpower wrote: »

That's what the upcoming current expenditure cuts are all about.
The root of our problem is due to us spending more than we can raise in taxation, because

1. we relied on unsustainable tax reciepts from the construction bubble to fund current expenditure, and
2. we narrowed our tax base.

It looks like we're going to start taking corrective action on our current expenditure. Expect some widening of the tax base to follow (more people in the tax net, new taxes).

yeah and people want them to cut capital spending instead of current spending.......big star for who can tell the class which spending type generates growth for the country?

AARRRGH

We need to keep childrens allowance. It encourages people to have children, and right now that's really important for the economy, as we'll need them to pay tax towards our pensions!!

Stark

Maebh wrote: »

Ah, come on. I'm not saying anything about punitive taxes. I'm not a fecking communist here. I'm just saying that when tax cuts are being given, the right believes in a top-down approach, but when taxes are being raised, the rich are immune because "they drive the economy". All I'm saying is a little fairness wouldn't go amiss.

As for the original topic, though, I still stand by my assertion that a universal child benefit is a sign of a civilised country taking care of its future. However, I do think that an increased payment per each child one has is a crazy incentive to have more kids. There y'go, I'm not all for keeping the system intact ...

The rich aren't immune. They pay 53% tax (PAYE+PRSI+levies combined). I need to find the exact figures, but currently only half of workers pay tax, only somewhere between 10 and 20% pay the higher rate of tax and somewhere around 5% pay half of our total tax intake. That doesn't give a whole lot of scope for increasing tax intake from the top, you'd need to look at broadening the taxpayer base to see real returns. At that point, you're getting into robbing Peter to pay for Paul territory. If you start taxing people on minimum wage then you need to lower social welfare payments in order to maintain an incentive for people to work. One way or another, we can't move forward without cuts.

Edit: I see blindjustice has posted figures from January 2009. The numbers of people exempt from income tax is even higher now as people in the private sector are suffering wage cuts that bring them into lower tax brackets.

AARRRGH

AARRRGH wrote: »

We need to keep childrens allowance. It encourages people to have children, and right now that's really important for the economy, as we'll need them to pay tax towards our pensions!!

Surely a change from 30/35/40 year mortgages back to 20/25 year mortgages with normal property prices would save more money than keeping childrens allowance? Once upon a time 15 year mortgages were not unusual :O

NAMA will take our money and put a floor under property prices, less spending money as a result of unnecessarily high mortgages will have a bigger impact. But once ye have your childrens allowance ye dont care

dodgyme

Deleted User wrote: »

Should everything be about interest groups?
Maybe we could use our brains and get to the roots of our problems
we need to wake up we really do
fighting amongst ourselves

I'ill take that as a 'no' shall I?

irish_bob

Maebh wrote: »

Actually, I don't believe in uncontrolled spending, nor do I believe in ever-increasing tax rates. I'm saying people should be taxed accordingly. If you have benefited from this society enough to earn a high wage you should pay more taxes. If you have been unlucky in life and need a leg up, you should not be burdened unfairly.

And I'm also saying that because we are the people who pay their wages, the government should be listening to the ordinary folk. And that there are certain services that people should receive. And I'm saying they've made a right hash of it so far...

you want the nanny state to end all nanny states where the goverment is there to look after everyone regardless of individual circumstances , we cannot afford that no mater what

regarding tommorows protests , they are about the public sector wanting thier boom time wages maintained in a time of deep rescession regardless of the cost to everyone else and that includes those on social wellfare

The_Conductor

irish_bob wrote: »

regarding tommorows protests , they are about the public sector wanting thier boom time wages maintained in a time of deep rescession regardless of the cost to everyone else and that includes those on social wellfare

How do you make this out?
Anyone I know accepts that there simply is no money there.
Public sector pay, social welfare disbursements, REPS pay for farmers- and every single other aspect of govenment expenditure is going to get further cut, before we are out of this. December's 4 billion cut, is only the first in the series of EU mandated 3 year cuts........

Stark

smccarrick wrote: »

How do you make this out?
Anyone I know accepts that there simply is no money there.

The union reps don't though. "No cuts under any circumstances", that's the union line. Out of public sector employees I know, some are in the "it's inevitable" camp, others are in the "fight the power. Make everyone pay" camp.

irish_bob

smccarrick wrote: »

How do you make this out?
Anyone I know accepts that there simply is no money there.
Public sector pay, social welfare disbursements, REPS pay for farmers- and every single other aspect of govenment expenditure is going to get further cut, before we are out of this. December's 4 billion cut, is only the first in the series of EU mandated 3 year cuts........

so the union heads are misrepresenting thier members then , ive heard all the main union leaders this past week repeatedly rule out public sector pay cuts under any circumstances , this stance is at the heart of tommorrows protest

bonkey

One warning, posters and posterettes....

this is not a thread about the unions. Don't try and turn it into one.

Dickerty

So if we are to capture more from the lower earners, and keep fairness, then changes are needed in the lower band, in welfare payments, and in higher bands also (e.g. extra 1% on each).

Trampas

We can't tax paye people and not hit social welfare at the same time.

We need to make it worth peoples while to get a job when they are available than sitting at home collecting benefits.

Why should we have child benefit in the 1st place as people should pay their own way if they want to have kids.

Cuts are required and like any company when the figures don't match up then cuts in expenses need to be made.

Jamar

To the original question:

Child Benefit should not be a means tested benefit. It should be considered as part of the tax system.

Tax Relief is provided to all tax payers. A married couple can share these in whatever way is most beneficial. There is no such relief for children. Instead, a universal payment is provided.

Taxing the payment is not terrible. (But then, my sahm allowances can easily absorb this, right, and I might be earning 600k - and if the child is to be taxed, should they not get allowances too).

You could provide a tax credit for children, instead of a social welfare payment. But then, the low paid get nothing, so you have to basically do both. You could do a combination of them both, but then you have to administer a complex system.

It is my opinion that to means test CB is the equivalent of increasing the tax burden on parents. I would be against this. An equivalent tax increase would be to remove tax credit for those earning above 40,000! Let's do that, but don't just apply it to parents and children.

Stark

To put it into context, a couple with 3 kids on welfare gets €42,000 tax free as well as rent allowance, fuel allowance and medical card. Is it fair then to take the child benefit away from the person who is working, paying tax, not claiming other benefits and earning €40,000 gross?

Sarn

Stark wrote: »

To put it into context, a couple with 3 kids on welfare gets €42,000 tax free

or the equivalent of a single income, childless married couple on €55 k who get no benefit whatsoever.

smiley33

The childless couple who receive no benefits? Will hopefully when they retire get pension , medical card , free travel, fuel allowance , etc funded by the children who benefit from child benefit today . Also , did your parents not get child benefit ?
My neighbour , working , has 4 kids , different dads , kids farmed out to the different grannys ( free child care ) , living with dad of one of the kids , Got the back to school uniform allowance & gets single parent supplement .

97i9y3941

Welfare trap leaves couples better off on the dole

By Charlie Weston Personal Finance Editor
Friday November 13 2009

LOW-income people would be financially better off on the dole than working because of the range of benefits available to the unemployed, a leading tax expert has revealed.

And St Vincent de Paul has come out in support of a proposal in the An Bord Snip report that rent supplement for those on social welfare should be radically overhauled, the Irish Independent has learned.

An analysis by taxation lawyer Suzanne Kelly shows that a couple with two children would get total benefits worth €40,000 a year if the parents were both unemployed.

But if they took up work earning €35,000, they would end up with just €31,764 after tax.

Adding state benefits back in would leave the working family with a household income of €36,078 -- less than they would get if both of them were out of work.

Ms Kelly, a former president of the Irish Taxation Institute, said the social welfare system was "deformed. She found the jobless couple with two children would benefit as follows:

* Unemployment and allow-ance benefit of €204.30 a week, with another €135.65 a week for the spouse, and €52 a week for the two children.
* Rent supplement of €12,168 a year.
* Back-to-school allowance worth €586 a year.
* Funds to cover school transport and school books, valued at €600 a year.
* A medical card, with six GP visits and medicines, estimated to be worth €1,530 a year.

This comes to €35,263 over a year. Adding in child benefit of €3,984 a year takes the total to €40,261. In contrast, a couple with the same family and earning €35,000 gross, would only benefit from a GP visit card and child benefit.

The card would give the couple benefits of €330, and child benefit would be worth €3,984.

Meanwhile, chairman of St Vincent de Paul John Monaghan said the rental supplement scheme had turned into a poverty trap as there was no incentive for recipients to seek a job.

- Charlie Weston Personal Finance Editor

The_Conductor

smiley33 wrote: »

The childless couple who receive no benefits? Will hopefully when they retire get pension , medical card , free travel, fuel allowance , etc funded by the children who benefit from child benefit today . Also , did your parents not get child benefit ?
My neighbour , working , has 4 kids , different dads , kids farmed out to the different grannys ( free child care ) , living with dad of one of the kids , Got the back to school uniform allowance & gets single parent supplement .

Not necessarily.
If they were self employed or do not have sufficient stamps- they may very well *not* qualify for a pension (contributory or means tested non-contributory), their medical card is means tested, yes, they have free travel and tv licence- but so what....
You can't automatically assume that anyone will or will not qualify for a particular benefit (and you can be certain that qualifying criterion will be significantly tightened over the next 2-3 years).

S.

smiley33

Wasn't automatically persuming , am aware criteria applies to different circumstances , point being, todays children , will provide the various types of welfare for various recipients in the future . As a one income family , in receipt of child benefit (only ) , who drives a crappy car & buys supermarket clothes , and my Ch Ben doesn't go into savings . If I could be sure that my kids would get FREE education ( books , journals, toilet roll etc..) I agree with much earlier post that ALL child benefit be ploughed into education .

irish_bob

Fred83 wrote: »

Welfare trap leaves couples better off on the dole

By Charlie Weston Personal Finance Editor
Friday November 13 2009

LOW-income people would be financially better off on the dole than working because of the range of benefits available to the unemployed, a leading tax expert has revealed.

And St Vincent de Paul has come out in support of a proposal in the An Bord Snip report that rent supplement for those on social welfare should be radically overhauled, the Irish Independent has learned.

An analysis by taxation lawyer Suzanne Kelly shows that a couple with two children would get total benefits worth €40,000 a year if the parents were both unemployed.

But if they took up work earning €35,000, they would end up with just €31,764 after tax.

Adding state benefits back in would leave the working family with a household income of €36,078 -- less than they would get if both of them were out of work.

Ms Kelly, a former president of the Irish Taxation Institute, said the social welfare system was "deformed. She found the jobless couple with two children would benefit as follows:

* Unemployment and allow-ance benefit of €204.30 a week, with another €135.65 a week for the spouse, and €52 a week for the two children.
* Rent supplement of €12,168 a year.
* Back-to-school allowance worth €586 a year.
* Funds to cover school transport and school books, valued at €600 a year.
* A medical card, with six GP visits and medicines, estimated to be worth €1,530 a year.

This comes to €35,263 over a year. Adding in child benefit of €3,984 a year takes the total to €40,261. In contrast, a couple with the same family and earning €35,000 gross, would only benefit from a GP visit card and child benefit.

The card would give the couple benefits of €330, and child benefit would be worth €3,984.

Meanwhile, chairman of St Vincent de Paul John Monaghan said the rental supplement scheme had turned into a poverty trap as there was no incentive for recipients to seek a job.

- Charlie Weston Personal Finance Editor

would love to hear fergus ( no child should have to make do with hand me down school uniforms ) finlays reaction to this , that idiot was on radio the other night saying that if the xmas bonus is not reinstated , many people will go hungary this christmas