Stop child benefit to middle/high income parents?

tudlytops

stainluss wrote: »

What about those who do work and recieve child benefit due to poor wages?

No one is talking about those, we talking about those who don't want to work and those on high wages and still claiming child benefit.

I did say all benefits should be means tested.

CityCentreMan

Child Benefit or "mickey money" as it is known in some circles is a bit of a political hot potato. Regardless of financial status, this part of the family income is usually controlled by the "mammy" exclusively.

With the exception of a very small proportion of the female population (mostly comprised of the childless and the child averse) this is a very touchy issue and it would take a very foolish politician who would seriously consider reducing, abolishing or means testing it.

Whilst this is clearly a regressive benefit which us paid to a considerable proportion of the population who don't need it, it would be political suicide to tackle it head on( although I would love to see Brian Cowan & co attempt it and love it even more when they suffered the consequences).

Looking at it pragmatically, the only sensible solution is to include it as taxable income. This will achieve the following:
a) poorer families remain unaffected;
b) all eligable mothers continue to get it & control it;
c) a significan proportion will be recovered from families ( tho not usually the mammy directly) that don't need it.

Like old age pensions and tax on kids shoes there are some issues that need to be treated very carefully indeed.

tudlytops

Well i would vote for anyone that has the courage to put this country right and i wouldn't be alone.

stainluss

CityCentreMan wrote: »

it would take a very foolish politician who would seriously consider reducing, abolishing or means testing it.

I agree.

Thats the problem with democracy. We get nothing done.

Too bad most of the dictators were *****:p.Gives the whole system a bad name.
Too many cooks/politicians/arse-kissers spoil the broth:p

97i9y3941

we see them on tv wednesday in their big house,giving the sob story that they where hit hard on the child benefit...

97i9y3941

tudlytops wrote: »

i was wondering when the foreign issue would pop up.

unfortantly since we are the one nation,they are entilted to it,but yes i see its open to abuse since we are generous in contrast of rest of europe,the only person i ever see vocal about it is retired minister ivan yates,he often bring it up

tudlytops

Problem is exactly that, but i wouldn't say generous, Ireland is a very expensive country to live in, i would say naive and far to easy to commit benefit fraud.

I mean how easy would be to cross check car tax with benefit claimers and then ask them, how comes you drive a 2009 car or a luxury car and are claiming?

or how can you be on benefits and afford 2 cars or more?

Excluding people that just lost their jobs, if you are on benefits i don't see how one can afford it.

i still think benefit fraud, and better management of the public sector would save a lot of money

tudlytops

and why unfortunately? many Irish of the years have also taken advantage of that.

97i9y3941

harks back to the welfare system mate,only takes in your income,so hide your fortune into assets/other items and you are legally "below the threshold"..

97i9y3941

tudlytops wrote: »

and why unfortunately? many Irish of the years have also taken advantage of that.

because its an taboo subject,if anyone spoke about it in the dail they be sent to slaughter..

tudlytops

yes but a lot of them can only afford this assets because they are claiming and working.

And as for the public sector, how comes one can be off sick for 15 years and on a full wage, i want a job like that, i'm sure i can come up with some stress issue or something to keep me on the sick of the rest of my days.

97i9y3941

alot of people that made these stupid rules are the ones that got into power,looking at the current gov,most of them are former teachers etc..

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

because its an taboo subject,if anyone spoke about it in the dail they be sent to slaughter..

Well i always speak my mind, you like me, you don't like me, no skin of my nose, i say it as I believe it to be, and if I'm showed wrong I know how to apologise and mend my ways.

97i9y3941

i didnt mean to come across that way,i ment as in thats why they would never bring it up in gov

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

alot of people that made these stupid rules are the ones that got into power,looking at the current gov,most of them are former teachers etc..

Oh gosh don't get me started on the teachers, cry, cry, cry

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

i didnt mean to come across that way,i ment as in thats why they would never bring it up in gov

But why don't we the Irish citizens bring up the issue, i mean we are very good at moaning and pointing out what's wrong, but we not so go at pointing out solutions, especially if those solutions are going to affect us for the worse, even when we know that, that's the only way.

maryjane007

ntlbell wrote: »

if you buy uniforms in the right place they're pretty cheap (as long as you're not buying for a football team) something that can be expsensive is the yearly book change which could be looked into.

a good pair of doc shoes/boots should last years. if you're forking out for exspensive nike apron runners that last a few weeks, then really the goverment shouldn't be subsidiising people's poor descision making.

(i'm not suggesting you do any of the above, i mean in general)

thats easier said the done. my kids secondary school the only thing you can shop around for is the shirt, everything else has a crest including a t shirt for pe which is 35 euro alone. childrens bodies change to much between say 11 and 17/18 to even imagine that your going to get through those years without without many replacements.

97i9y3941

teachers/book companys have alot to answer too,every year we often hear about the high costs of books but nothing is ever done about it which f#cking sickens me,its well know that the publishing companys like the drug companys with the doctors awards teachers for the promotion of their books..

LookBehindYou

I dont see why they cannot think about taxing child benefit.
Its simple, just add it in income and get taxed on it.
The people who are not earning enough to get taxed will not lose.

tudlytops

maryjane007 wrote: »

thats easier said the done. my kids secondary school the only thing you can shop around for is the shirt, everything else has a crest including a t shirt for pe which is 35 euro alone. childrens bodies change to much between say 11 and 17/18 to even imagine that your going to get through those years without without many replacements.

I know what you mean, some schools have really expensive uniforms.

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

teachers/book companys have alot to answer too,every year we often hear about the high costs of books but nothing is ever done about it which f#cking sickens me,its well know that the publishing companys like the drug companys with the doctors awards them for the promotion of their books..

thats in the perents hands to change, get together and refuse to buy new books. I don't think the schools are going to send all the children home.

I remember being in school and teacher saying open the new books on page .... and the old ones on pag ..., what was wrong with that?

People have to get together and do something about it and stop talking, act not moan

tudlytops

LookBehindYou wrote: »

I dont see why they cannot think about taxing child benefit.
Its simple, just add it in income and get taxed on it.
The people who are not earning enough to get taxed will not lose.

yeah but that would affect those who don't need it and they all have friends in high places, that won't allow that to happen

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

RealityCheck

LookBehindYou wrote: »

I dont see why they cannot think about taxing child benefit.
Its simple, just add it in income and get taxed on it.
The people who are not earning enough to get taxed will not lose.

I think the feeling is it will take too long and is not as simple as an all round cut. I can see however the government making a commitment to taxing it come Budget 2011. This should shield the less well off when cuts are required in future years. However, you would think all the same will all the holla baloo about the commission on taxation and an bord snip reports that they could have a fair policy like this in place by now. But sure wer'nt they negotiating with the Unions one week before the budget hoping to come to an agreement instead of leading and dictating policy like they should. With the absolute hole we are in, abdicating responsibility to self interest groups like that just wont cut it in the next few years. .

tudlytops

Iolar wrote: »

I firmly believe all benefit should be means tested

yes i said that before, all benefits, and means should include all assets with the exception of the family home and a car where no other form of transport is possible.

Pete4779

stainluss wrote: »

....

At the moment, youre taxes are paying for child benefit for those who dont deserve it and probably use it to pay a butler.:P

How does this make you feel?
Yes, its in Frankfurt:p

Yes clearly it is, but Mister Money Tree who lives in the Giant Money Tree on Kaisterstrasse http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/escb/shared/img/7_big.jpg is going to start looking for something in return very soon

At the moment the vast majority of child benefit payments that come from taxes go to people who don't pay any tax at all. So what if a few hundred people who make €200k+/year get it, they are also paying back over 50% in income taxes into the system in the first place.

The problem is with the "tax the rich" strategy is that eventually they run out of money

97i9y3941

well,someone summed it up good for me one day,they said to me,the poor cant afford to live abroad so we tax them to death,whilst the rich can..

K-9

CityCentreMan wrote: »

Child Benefit or "mickey money" as it is known in some circles is a bit of a political hot potato. Regardless of financial status, this part of the family income is usually controlled by the "mammy" exclusively.

With the exception of a very small proportion of the female population (mostly comprised of the childless and the child averse) this is a very touchy issue and it would take a very foolish politician who would seriously consider reducing, abolishing or means testing it.

Whilst this is clearly a regressive benefit which us paid to a considerable proportion of the population who don't need it, it would be political suicide to tackle it head on( although I would love to see Brian Cowan & co attempt it and love it even more when they suffered the consequences).

Looking at it pragmatically, the only sensible solution is to include it as taxable income. This will achieve the following:
a) poorer families remain unaffected;
b) all eligable mothers continue to get it & control it;
c) a significan proportion will be recovered from families ( tho not usually the mammy directly) that don't need it.

Like old age pensions and tax on kids shoes there are some issues that need to be treated very carefully indeed.

I actually would normally agree with you, EXCEPT, they already have cut it.

The Early Childcare payment went too!

Would you agree then, that it isn't that a touchy subject?

I agree on the taxation point. Cuts have already been made on CB, affecting lower incomes more. Straight cuts do that.

There comes a time when more cuts will seriously effect lower income families. They can't cut back much more. SW will be cut in the next budget.

Can middle income/upper families sit easily with taking a €10 of poor families just to satisfy a principle of universal child benefit?

Darragh29

I find it amazing how many mummies I see at my local primary school driving cars trucks, that I think cost 100K plus, such as Range Rovers, etc....

If you can afford this mode of transport, how can you claim to need Child Benefit??? How can you be spending 600 Euro a month on HP for a 5 Series, but yet be claiming that you can't survive without Child Benefit???

Absurdum

Darragh29 wrote: »

I find it amazing how many mummies I see at my local primary school driving cars trucks, that I think cost 100K plus, such as Range Rovers, etc....

If you can afford this mode of transport, how can you claim to need Child Benefit??? How can you be spending 600 Euro a month on HP for a 5 Series, but yet be claiming that you can't survive without Child Benefit???

How do you know they claim it? Have they told you that they can't survive without it, or are you jumping to conclusions?