Children's Allowance

thesimpsons

I wouldn't mind not receiving children's allowance if I had proper free education including books & copies, library books, arts & crafts, bus fares, voluntary contribs, school swimming lessons etc. If I got free medical cover for my kids too I could see a way out of child benefit. But, as someone who pays top rate of tax and also has to pay for education (despite "free education"), medical expenses, college in the future, etc - a small rebate of children's allowance is the only thing I can claim back from my portion of taxes paid out. Why isn't child allowance and "back to school allowance" paid out in voucher system for school books, clothes & uniforms, bus fares, etc.

MaceFace

thesimpsons wrote: »

I wouldn't mind not receiving children's allowance if I had proper free education including books & copies, library books, arts & crafts, bus fares, voluntary contribs, school swimming lessons etc. If I got free medical cover for my kids too I could see a way out of child benefit. But, as someone who pays top rate of tax and also has to pay for education (despite "free education"), medical expenses, college in the future, etc - a small rebate of children's allowance is the only thing I can claim back from my portion of taxes paid out. Why isn't child allowance and "back to school allowance" paid out in voucher system for school books, clothes & uniforms, bus fares, etc.

The bigger question is why is someone who pays the higher rate of income tax receiving state welfare?

I personally think that the allowance should be done away with completly and that the savings made should allow us to reduce something such as VAT.

Welease

MaceFace wrote: »

The bigger question is why is someone who pays the higher rate of income tax receiving state welfare?

I personally think that the allowance should be done away with completly and that the savings made should allow us to reduce something such as VAT.

/confused.... don't those 2 statements essentially contradict? A saving in VAT is likely to be more beneficial to a higher income family as they will purchase more VAT applicable items, so in essence they would receive more benefit than the lower income family.

Idbatterim

I dont care how un pc this sounds, but who do we want to have kids? the lower classes or the upper and middle? there shouldnt be any child allowance! there should be a reduction in PAYE, PRSI & Income levy, that way you promote having kids to those you actually want to have kids! Can you imagine the cost to the state of Anto and Jacinta having a kid as oppossed to Ross and Sorcha? Honsetly though the whole point of keeping the birth rate up is to support future generations, but you cant tar all kids as the same. Overall Id imagine most kids from the lower classes of society (who have the most kids) would over their life times be result in a net loss to the system... Never mind when they push out a few "welfare for lifers" while they are still in the womb!

Idbatterim

when you all say means tested, I take it you want the ones already paying the way of the entire country to take another hit? Maybe we should all just quit our jobs and hope somebody else bails us out!

Littleroo

People who go to the doctor at the drop of a hat just because they have the medical card piss me off........I don't feel well and I have to wait till I get paid to go to the doc

Welease

Idbatterim wrote: »

when you all say means tested, I take it you want the ones already paying the way of the entire country to take another hit? Maybe we should all just quit our jobs and hope somebody else bails us out!

Thats the problem when you have a system whereby people actually state "it's not worth my while to work".. the rest of us get to pay more for those who can't be arsed.

The_Honeybadger

Jip wrote: »

Are parents not tax payers now ? Myself and my wife have been paying the top rate for god knows how long, will we be due a big fat refund cheque when the child is born refunding all the taxes we paid ?


I do agree however it should be means tested, but there's the attitude of some people out there wondering why they should be paying for someone elses child who are seemingly ignorant of the fact that probably the majority of parents are paying taxes.

Can't argue with that, i was a top rate payer for years but have now dropped below the level due to redundancy / changing job

Good points on either side of the argument, means testing will not happen due to the admin nightmare it would turn into, so guess they will reduce the rate again in the next budget.

MaceFace

Welease wrote: »

/confused.... don't those 2 statements essentially contradict? A saving in VAT is likely to be more beneficial to a higher income family as they will purchase more VAT applicable items, so in essence they would receive more benefit than the lower income family.

I can see how one may think that, but the issue is not about how much benefit a higher earner may receive, but rather the government are paying money to one group of people over another with the only difference being one set have kids.
Instead, everyone should be treated equally and those that are either not fortunate or not wishing to have children should not be penalised by having to subsidise those that don't.

And I couldn't care less about those that argue they are due the money because they pay high taxes. It is just the usual "what about me" culture that is part of Ireland today.

Welease

MaceFace wrote: »

I can see how one may think that, but the issue is not about how much benefit a higher earner may receive, but rather the government are paying money to one group of people over another with the only difference being one set have kids.
Instead, everyone should be treated equally and those that are either not fortunate or not wishing to have children should not be penalised by having to subsidise those that don't.

Well it is a system that does need to be looked into.. But it should be top to bottom and include all social welfare benefits, housing etc. But there does need to be some element of fairness, afterall if taken to it's logical conclusion why should anyone subsidize someone else who doesn't have enough PRSI stamps earnt/left.

MaceFace wrote: »

And I couldn't care less about those that argue they are due the money because they pay high taxes. It is just the usual "what about me" culture that is part of Ireland today.

I don't see many argueing that position in fariness. But they can hardly be accused of the usual "whine about me" culture, as they are the people who are funding this extravagant social welfare system of ours. Without those folks going out and earning top level, this country would be in an even worse state.

Taxipete29

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont care how un pc this sounds, but who do we want to have kids? the lower classes or the upper and middle? there shouldnt be any child allowance! there should be a reduction in PAYE, PRSI & Income levy, that way you promote having kids to those you actually want to have kids! Can you imagine the cost to the state of Anto and Jacinta having a kid as oppossed to Ross and Sorcha? Honsetly though the whole point of keeping the birth rate up is to support future generations, but you cant tar all kids as the same. Overall Id imagine most kids from the lower classes of society (who have the most kids) would over their life times be result in a net loss to the system... Never mind when they push out a few "welfare for lifers" while they are still in the womb!

So at a time when we need a good birth rate, you want to put it in the hands of the people least likely to actually have children??

MaceFace

Taxipete29 wrote: »

So at a time when we need a good birth rate, you want to put it in the hands of the people least likely to actually have children??

Ah, I see - to feed the pyramid scheme that is the pension time bomb?

I was not going to mention this point as it may be considered off topic, but it is important in the context as the idea of rewarding people for having children is not something that should be done in the bigger scheme of things.

When looked at objectively, I would think most would agree that the population explosion that has occured in the world over the last 100 years is a much larger problem that a pesky few bob in our back pockets.

Jip

MaceFace wrote: »

Instead, everyone should be treated equally and those that are either not fortunate or not wishing to have children should not be penalised by having to subsidise those that don't.

So what do you propose ? Everyone pays a standard rate of tax and once someone has a kid their tax rate is increased ? It's a ridiculous idea.

Do you then have people who smoke and drink pay higher taxes than those who don't (excluding excise and duty), same with people who have medical cards, free travel and so on ?

If you take the selfish argument about subsidising people with kids you better start complaining about everyone else in the state as we all benefit from the welfare system one way or another, be it the aforementioned medical cards to rent relief to VRT/VAT discounts on vehicles for those with disabilities.

OMD

Jip wrote: »

So what do you propose ? Everyone pays a standard rate of tax and once someone has a kid their tax rate is increased ? It's a ridiculous idea.

If you take the selfish argument about subsidising people with kids you better start complaining about everyone else in the state as we all benefit from the welfare system one way or another, be it the aforementioned medical cards to rent relief to VRT/VAT discounts on vehicles for those with disabilities.

Not to mention mortgage interest relief and pension tax relief.

Welease

MaceFace wrote: »

I was not going to mention this point as it may be considered off topic, but it is important in the context as the idea of rewarding people for having children is not something that should be done in the bigger scheme of things.

I don't think it's actually meant to reward people for having children... no more than social welfare is a reward for being unemployed or in some cases being umemployable.. It's a payment to cover the costs of having children. Subtle but important difference.

MaceFace

Jip wrote: »

So what do you propose ? Everyone pays a standard rate of tax and once someone has a kid their tax rate is increased ? It's a ridiculous idea.

Do you then have people who smoke and drink pay higher taxes than those who don't (excluding excise and duty), same with people who have medical cards, free travel and so on ?

If you take the selfish argument about subsidising people with kids you better start complaining about everyone else in the state as we all benefit from the welfare system one way or another, be it the aforementioned medical cards to rent relief to VRT/VAT discounts on vehicles for those with disabilities.

Don't know why you think I would propose this.

IMO a government handout should be limited to those that are really in need of it and as much as possible only for events that were outside the control of the individual.

Childrens welfare - no
mortgage interest relief - no
JSB - yes, linked to a percentage of your last salary.
JSA - only enough to live on, but no extra. Bring back butter tokens. Also not payable if you have savings.
Medical cards - yes, but there should be a cost per visit and per perscription to avoid abuse.

OMD wrote: »

Not to mention mortgage interest relief and pension tax relief.

Pension tax relief is important and it should be fair to all.
The state pension should not be payable to those that have other large pensions (thinking Seanie and his 500k a year pension).

Welease wrote: »

I don't think it's actually meant to reward people for having children... no more than social welfare is a reward for being unemployed or in some cases being umemployable.. It's a payment to cover the costs of having children. Subtle but important difference.

Well, believe it or not, there are plenty of people who can milk the system because they have children, but this is a tiny minority.
What I mean is that why should the government pay someone cash every month for having children?
If a person really needs the money to survive with a new child, they should be able to apply for some sort of social/income assistance.

Seriously, I receive child welfare and mortgage interest relief. I need neither. Is that fair?

Idbatterim

maceface you hit the nail on the head! "IMO a government handout should be limited to those that are really in need of it and as much as possible only for events that were outside the control of the individual." I concur 100%! No decision in life should be taken lighlty, and when people mess us, they not someone else should deal with the consequences! No doubt some of the bleeding hearts on boards will disagree with that aswell!

Welease

Idbatterim wrote: »

maceface you hit the nail on the head! "IMO a government handout should be limited to those that are really in need of it and as much as possible only for events that were outside the control of the individual." I concur 100%! No decision in life should be taken lighlty, and when people mess us, they not someone else should deal with the consequences! No doubt some of the bleeding hearts on boards will disagree with that aswell!

I dont necessarily disagree with you... but the point of the child benefit was slightly different.. The child didnt make any mistakes and is not at fault, so the payment is to make sure that the child receives the basics.

Hotblack Desiato

Taxipete29 wrote: »

On what planet do you actually contribute enough to pay the full cost of your pension at retirement age?? You are living in fantasy land if you think you are??

Presumably you mean occupational pension, as almost everyone of pensionable age is entitled to the state pension anyway, even if they never worked in their life.

For many lower paid civil servants, the occupational pension (difference between what they get and the state pension) is very small. In some cases, they will end up paying more in pension contributions and the so-called 'pension levy' than they will get back in occupational pension, even if they live to the average life expectancy at retirement.

Oh and just because it was called a 'pension levy' doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with pensions, it was just a politically acceptable name for a pay cut by the back door. People with no entitlement to a public sector occupational pension are paying it. People are paying it on income which is not pensionable. The money is not going into a pension fund. It's got nothing to do with pensions.

Zamboni

I would like to see the introduction of scrapping the childrens allowance.
Any child born after the 1st of January 2012 should not receive an allowance.
Announce it in the budget for 2011 and give plenty of warning.

Anyone who then decides to reproduce should calculate this into the equation as to whether they have the resources and therefore ability to responsibly raise a child and cover the costs.
This would not affect anyone who currently has kids so nobody could moan about it.
It would mean significant future savings in social welfare payments.
It would hopefully create a more mature attitude to reproduction.
It would reduce 3rd and 4th generation 'dolers'.

dean21

murphaph wrote: »

If we don't have children now we will have an even bigger pensions crisis. The birthrate has to be 2 kids per couple average, just to maintain the population. I agree however that wealthy people should have this allowance removed as they will have kids regardless if they want to.

Tax it that is a fair way of doing it and all that is required is to change the legislation

RichardAnd

Zamboni wrote: »

I would like to see the introduction of scrapping the childrens allowance.
Any child born after the 1st of January 2012 should not receive an allowance.
Announce it in the budget for 2011 and give plenty of warning.

Anyone who then decides to reproduce should calculate this into the equation as to whether they have the resources and therefore ability to responsibly raise a child and cover the costs.
This would not affect anyone who currently has kids so nobody could moan about it.
It would mean significant future savings in social welfare payments.
It would hopefully create a more mature attitude to reproduction.
It would reduce 3rd and 4th generation 'dolers'.

Agreed. I think childrens' allowance is another hallmark from a different age. If someone deems it fit to bring another life into this world, it is their responsibility to care for that child.

It also might have the added effect of making people think twice about having children. Large families are not economically feasible anymore, children simply cost too much to raise and doing a bad job of it just creates problems down the line.

Zamboni

RichardAnd wrote: »

Agreed. I think childrens' allowance is another hallmark from a different age. If someone deems it fit to bring another life into this world, it is their responsibility to care for that child.

It also might have the added effect of making people think twice about having children. Large families are not economically feasible anymore, children simply cost too much to raise and doing a bad job of it just creates problems down the line.

This is the point.
Wealthy families can afford to have plenty of kids and rightly so as they can afford to look after them, but large families on the dole?
The poor gits in the middle slave away trying to afford maybe two kids at best.
Social inclusion or not, taxpayers should not be paying for non contributing members of society to reproduce.
A report appeared today that 9,000 children leave school prior to completion each year and that they mostly come from non working households.