A great idea to save millions?

Big Mouth

I want to throw this idea out there:

Basically cut child benefit by 50% immediately. Then after three months offer people a chance to withdraw from child benefit for a one off payment of €500 or something like that (Aimed at higher income families).

Obviously some details would need to be ironed out but the general premise is very good I think the country would save hundreds of milllions.

I think it encourages more personal responsibilty, less sense of entitlement and it would allow for alot more public spending on things like child healthcare.

Shoot me down people......

Suryavarman

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you want people to pay not to receive child benefit?

goldenhoarde

i think BiGMouth means that they get a once off payment then of 500 and then no more CB

i can see this could be a good idea but do you know any irish person who would give up "free money"?

woodoo

It should certainly be cut and the money put into state creches.

NinjaTruncs

You have no idea how much people get for CA do you, why would anyone take the offer of €500 to come off of it, makes no sense at all, you'd need to offer more like €x,000. Also it'd be the less well off who would take it as it's be a bigger lump sum upfront, the well off would continue to save what they get.

nommm

Not sure about cutting accross the board but it should definately be reduced taken away from those that don't need it.

psychward

so a junkie desperate for a fix could get 500 euro to get high for a few days so long as they agree to let their kids starve in future due to giving up future child benefit payments ?

I think the only way forward is for payments such as this to be means tested,

Oral Surgeon

Big Mouth wrote: »

I want to throw this idea out there:

Basically cut child benefit by 50% immediately. Then after three months offer people a chance to withdraw from child benefit for a one off payment of €500 or something like that (Aimed at higher income families).

Obviously some details would need to be ironed out but the general premise is very good I think the country would save hundreds of milllions.

I think it encourages more personal responsibilty, less sense of entitlement and it would allow for alot more public spending on things like child healthcare.

Shoot me down people......

Wow, this is the work of a genius, call the Dept of finance, no the IMF, no the world bank- your talent is wasted here....

JDxtra

I'm glad you're not in charge! People depend on this payment to help with the expense of raising children. Cutting it by 50% immediately is plain ridiculous.

And higher income families are not daft. They ain't going to accept a one of payment to replace small regular payments over a longer period that is worth more. It's only those struggling that would accept that offer - with detrimental affects for their future finances.

air

It should be reduced and also included in taxable gross income, end of story.

Big Mouth

Maybe I should have explained it better, the people who receive the one off payment would be the type who have larger incomes.

So the offer goes out and then the government starts mean testing people who haven't taken the one off payment option, so those that should have takent the payment are now taken off child benefit and receive either nothing or part payment i.e. they stayed on 2 months after the cut off date so they now receive €500 minus the two months.

Oh and to the person with the junkie story, whats the difference between one off and monthly payments? They'll spend it on heroin either way, at least the child could be taken into care if they can't be supported by their junkie parents and at least the funds from the cuts would pay for said care

28064212

The correct way to approach it would be to drastically reduce child benefit, while drastically increasing subsidies to child-related expenses. Obviously diapers, baby-food and children's clothing. The amount of money parents have to spend on supposedly free education is ridiculous. School-books, uniforms, "voluntary" contributions. These should all be free, or as close as makes no difference. That way, children of irresponsible parents aren't losing out because their parents would rather buy another pint

psychward

Big Mouth wrote: »

Oh and to the person with the junkie story, whats the difference between one off and monthly payments? They'll spend it on heroin either way, at least the child could be taken into care if they can't be supported by their junkie parents and at least the funds from the cuts would pay for said care

The difference is their stupidity, recklessness and lack of impulse control. If someone they owe a drug debt to is going to break their legs they will typically revert to their typical short term impulsive behaviour and look after number 1. I'm not so sure about the being taken into care thing. I see some shocking behaviour of junkies pushing prams while out of their minds in Dublin City Centre turning the air blue with swearing, threatening their kids with violence etc. Sadly I don't think the state cares about the kids at all. Now unfortunately even if the state cared it couldnt afford to do much. It's possible that one parent could put pressure on another to get this 500 euro. Maybe the only thing keeping them above water is one of the parents. It's very tricky to say ok this money is for your kids then tell someone they can give it up for their own short term gain when really it shouldnt be theirs to give up but their kids to be spent on them. Just my 2 cents.

Welease

Define "larger income"...

It will be supported by those who fall below your definition..

carm

Better still, forget the Child Benefit payments or means test them entirely.

Let's just cut the HUGE rent supplements going into landlord's bank accounts all over Ireland. That'll save millions.

Big Mouth

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

You have no idea how much people get for CA do you, why would anyone take the offer of €500 to come off of it, makes no sense at all, you'd need to offer more like €x,000. Also it'd be the less well off who would take it as it's be a bigger lump sum upfront, the well off would continue to save what they get.

Yeah I do know, because I have an 8 month old child and by the way me an my partner are really struggling at the minute before you ask.

And if you read my original post I said my idea isn't set in stone and its a rough idea not nailed down to the figures i mentioned

bryaner

Would it not be easier just to cut off family's bringing in 80k and over?

80k just popped out of my head as a figure, so maybe more or less just

have a cut off at some point.

RandolphEsq

Big Mouth wrote: »

I want to throw this idea out there:

Basically cut child benefit by 50% immediately. Then after three months offer people a chance to withdraw from child benefit for a one off payment of €500 or something like that (Aimed at higher income families).

Obviously some details would need to be ironed out but the general premise is very good I think the country would save hundreds of milllions.

I think it encourages more personal responsibilty, less sense of entitlement and it would allow for alot more public spending on things like child healthcare.

Shoot me down people......

An even better idea would be to introduce forced abortions for those who cannot afford to have a child thus doing away with the need for CA!

Squall19

bryaner wrote: »

Would it not be easier just to cut off family's bringing in 80k and over?

80k just popped out of my head as a figure, so maybe more or less just

have a cut off at some point.

That's the way to do it.

70k for a family of 4, 75k for a family of 5, 80k for a family of 6 etc.

I wouldn't go under 70k as they are not exactly the well off.

When paye, usc and all the stealth taxes come off the 70k is barely above 50k.

THENORTHSIDER

Why don't we suggest that we remove it altogether and while we are at it lets put a tax on children wouldn't that bring in a handy few bob.

Why not have a licence for children and if any child roaming the street is found to have no licence then they can be impounded. And if they aren't claimed after lets say 4 days ( don't want to keep them any longer they may eat to much) then they will be put down.

bryaner

Squall19 wrote: »

That's the way to do it.

70k for a family of 4, 75k for a family of 5, 80k for a family of 6 etc.

I wouldn't go under 70k as they are not exactly the well off.

When paye, usc and all the stealth taxes come off the 70k is barely above 50k.

Unreal that the numptys above are unable to simplify it like that..

Welease

If you are not willing to specify details... (% reduction or income cut off point) .. then the thread is pointless...

Everyone seems to be willing to cut everyone else... but less willing to cut themselves.. so specifics are required.

Squall19

RandolphEsq wrote: »

An even better idea would be to introduce forced abortions for those who cannot afford to have a child thus doing away with the need for CA!

It's just ****in money.

Do you want ous to turn into animals and kill unborn children, so we can pay back corrupt *****.

Don't lose your sight my friend.

psychward

Squall19 wrote: »

It's just ****in money.

Do you want ous to turn into animals and kill unborn children, so we can pay back corrupt *****.

Don't lose your sight my friend.

The State has already made a step down that road with people dying from suicide at the shame of being unemployed and bankrupt; and little girls being refused vaccines against developing cancer when they grow up for the lack of some paltry 15 Million euro. All this while bankrupt developers get 200k per year from NAMA and their kids will never worry about not affording a vaccine etc. The state has been hijacked by corruption and amorality.

ArmaniJeanss

Squall19 wrote: »

That's the way to do it.

70k for a family of 4, 75k for a family of 5, 80k for a family of 6 etc.

I wouldn't go under 70k as they are not exactly the well off.

When paye, usc and all the stealth taxes come off the 70k is barely above 50k.

bryaner wrote: »

Unreal that the numptys above are unable to simplify it like that..

Well most 'numptys' are probably aware that cut-off points are a notoriously bad way of doing things.
As you immediately have a situation (in squall19s example) whereby the person on 69K is immensely better off than the his colleague on 71K (both with 4 kids). And if his boss called him in the next day and offered him a nice promotion and a 3K pay rise he'd have to reject it. So it disincentivises people to seek to better themselves and pay more tax along the way.

A system of gradiated payments are far superior to arbitrary cutoffs as wherever you set the cutoff you create ludicrous inequalities either side of it.

antoobrien

carm wrote: »

Let's just cut the HUGE rent supplements going into landlord's bank accounts all over Ireland. That'll save millions.

Just like CB the rent supplement is aimed at a specific target - keeping a roof over peoples heads.

Here's a suggestion - instead of paying rent supplement allow them to stay in NAMA properties/ghost estates under strict terms. It'll cost more initially to repair/finish/furnish properties but in the long run it should reduce the state payments while maintaining the properties.

Hell give them an equity stake in the property, say 0.1% per month of tenancy, as an incentive to maintain the property.

bryaner

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well most 'numptys' are probably aware that cut-off points are a notoriously bad way of doing things.
As you immediately have a situation (in squall19s example) whereby the person on 69K is immensely better off than the his colleague on 71K (both with 4 kids). And if his boss called him in the next day and offered him a nice promotion and a 3K pay rise he'd have to reject it. So it disincentivises people to seek to better themselves and pay more tax along the way.

A system of gradiated payments are far superior to arbitrary cutoffs as wherever you set the cutoff you create ludicrous inequalities either side of it.

Fair enough, but there has to be a cut off feckin somewhere I know for a fact that certain doctors wifes around my way boast of saving the child benefit they receive to go on holidays to the Caribbean every year, thats just soo wrong..

ei.sdraob

THENORTHSIDER wrote: »

Why don't we suggest that we remove it altogether and while we are at it lets put a tax on children wouldn't that bring in a handy few bob.

Why not have a licence for children and if any child roaming the street is found to have no licence then they can be impounded. And if they aren't claimed after lets say 4 days ( don't want to keep them any longer they may eat to much) then they will be put down.

Great idea, can call it the "human footprint tax" and label it "green" and have the Greens support it, for the sake of the environment of course :eek:

THENORTHSIDER

"human footprint tax"

excellent idea making it green great way to endorse it:eek:

firemansam4

antoobrien wrote: »

Just like CB the rent supplement is aimed at a specific target - keeping a roof over peoples heads.

Here's a suggestion - instead of paying rent supplement allow them to stay in NAMA properties/ghost estates under strict terms. It'll cost more initially to repair/finish/furnish properties but in the long run it should reduce the state payments while maintaining the properties.

Hell give them an equity stake in the property, say 0.1% per month of tenancy, as an incentive to maintain the property.

This sounds like a good idea on the face of it and something I was thinking about myself, the only potential problem with this is there is probably many land lords at the moment relying on the rent from these rent supplements to keep up the mortgages on their houses, and we might end up with a lot more unpaid mortgages as a result of this and a lot more properties on the books of Nama.

But by me saying this i am in no way agreeing that the state should continue to fund this huge bill to keep these landlords happy, but it is still something to think about.

anymore

Big Mouth wrote: »

I want to throw this idea out there:

Basically cut child benefit by 50% immediately. Then after three months offer people a chance to withdraw from child benefit for a one off payment of €500 or something like that (Aimed at higher income families).

Obviously some details would need to be ironed out but the general premise is very good I think the country would save hundreds of milllions.

I think it encourages more personal responsibilty, less sense of entitlement and it would allow for alot more public spending on things like child healthcare.

Shoot me down people......

Ni I wont shoot you down but will offer another suggestion - only allow people in the HSE to take sick leave if ........they are sick. Spoke with a lady yesterday who was refreshed after her annual sick leave !

antoobrien

firemansam4 wrote: »

This sounds like a good idea on the face of it and something I was thinking about myself, the only potential problem with this is there is probably many land lords at the moment relying on the rent from these rent supplements to keep up the mortgages on their houses, and we might end up with a lot more unpaid mortgages as a result of this and a lot more properties on the books of Nama.

But by me saying this i am in no way agreeing that the state should continue to fund this huge bill to keep these landlords happy, but it is still something to think about.

That's the big one all right, but there might be benefits to it. It could be used to fundamentally reform the rental sector e.g instead of individual investors they could join co-ops. Sorry I can't be more specific, it's a vague thought rather than an actual plan.

I'm sure there is more than just that problem, as well as others not in the financial/economic space either. A committed socialist told me she is against using ghost estates for social housing as it runs the risk of creating the same problems seen in council estates all over again (she grew up in one).

anymore

psychward wrote: »

The State has already made a step down that road with people dying from suicide at the shame of being unemployed and bankrupt; and little girls being refused vaccines against developing cancer when they grow up for the lack of some paltry 15 Million euro. All this while bankrupt developers get 200k per year from NAMA and their kids will never worry about not affording a vaccine etc. The state has been hijacked by corruption and amorality.

Choice : Buy vacine for daughter or new designer jeans and new model mobile .
Solution: buy jeans and mobile and go on protest march over vacines.

Frank Black

CB is a joke – it was allowed to grow into its current behemoth-like state by successive FF governments who only had one solution for every problem – ‘let’s just throw money at it’.
Increasing CB payments were all about encouraging both parents back into the workplace as the economy needed as many workers as possible back in the ‘good old days’. There was a huge shortage of crèche/childminders to look after the children that would have traditionally been looked after by one parent, and as the laws of supply and demand came into operation, the price of childminding rocketed.
Next step - frustrated parents ringing into Joe Duffy complaining about childminding prices.
Government becomes nervous of all these people complaining – ‘hmm, what if they get so angry they won’t vote for us at the next election – I know, let’s just increase CB payments to everyone – that’ll quieten down the rabble’.
Guess what – it worked, we voted them back in again and again, mainly because most of the electorate (like the Government) are stupid and selfish..
Only problem was that when the whole house of cards fell down we were left with the legacy of ridiculously high CB payments which are unsustainable in the long-term.
And CB was just one example, there are many others such as PS pay and pensions and Social Welfare.
Myself and my wife, who are both in reasonably well paid employment, get €280 lodged into our account every month – it’s a joke and there are thousands more couples like us.

The problem is trying to disentangle it now.
It’s only paid to the mother, so they’ve no way currently of means testing it for a couple whether married or not – so people suggesting that it gets linked to income should explain how exactly this gets done.
Some people are probably really dependant on it, so cutting it for everyone seems unjust.

My suggestion – it should continue to be paid to the mother, but treated as taxable income. Now, it’s not a perfect solution because in some families where just the mother is working they will pay more tax than in a family where just the father is working, but it’s probably the simplest solution for now.

antoobrien

black francis wrote: »

My suggestion – it should continue to be paid to the mother, but treated as taxable income. Now, it’s not a perfect solution because in some families where just the mother is working they will pay more tax than in a family where just the father is working, but it’s probably the simplest solution for now.

One tweak to that. Give all mothers an extra tax credit (which can be transfered to the father in single tax families) to cover CB, up to a certain income level e.g. 50k. The start phasing it out over the next say 25k. That way we don't have to change the current system immediately and can still treat it as taxable as income. In theory (if it's done right) it won't affect lower income families and will be fairer to middle income families.

amen

My suggestion – it should continue to be paid to the mother, but treated as taxable income

why the mother? What happens if the father stays at home to mind the kids?

I have children and I don't save the CA. It used to buy their school books, uniforms, clothes, food etc.

Children cost a lot but when they become productive working citizens the state gets the CA back in the tax on income they earn which also goes to support those in receipt of state pensions etc.

That said while I wouldn't like childrens allowance along with all income no matter the source should be taxable. If you earn below the taxable limit then you don't pay tax.

Of course if we are doing this then we should also look at all of the Tax Allowances we give for Private Health Care, Section 21s, etc

Frank Black

amen wrote: »

why the mother? What happens if the father stays at home to mind the kids?

Because that's how it's currently paid - doesn't mean it's right or wrong - just simplier, and as our current buch of civil servants have demonstrated, it's best to keep things as simple as possible to avoid €3.6bn fcuk ups.

Gumbo

black francis wrote: »

Because that's how it's currently paid - doesn't mean it's right or wrong - just simplier, and as our current buch of civil servants have demonstrated, it's best to keep things as simple as possible to avoid €3.6bn fcuk ups.

Its also paid to the father if the mother is dead or signs the form to allow it.

ElWalrus

How about instead of providing cash payouts for social welfare, provide recipients with a kind of social welfare credit card, with a credit limit of 4x weekly welfare allowance. No cash withdrawals allowed, only acceptable as payment for goods and services that actually provide welfare (food, medicine, essentials, not luxury items) and as a condition of usage the state is allowed to view the statements. The state will clear the monthly balance, only if the recipient is meeting the above conditions.

I know there might be a load of reasons why this would be unworkable, but as a general concept might cut down on welfare fraud and/or allow the state to keep track of what the welfare money is actually spent on.

antoobrien

ElWalrus wrote: »

How about instead of providing cash payouts for social welfare, provide recipients with a kind of social welfare credit card, with a credit limit of 4x weekly welfare allowance. No cash withdrawals allowed, only acceptable as payment for goods and services that actually provide welfare (food, medicine, essentials, not luxury items) and as a condition of usage the state is allowed to view the statements. The state will clear the monthly balance, only if the recipient is meeting the above conditions.

I know there might be a load of reasons why this would be unworkable, but as a general concept might cut down on welfare fraud and/or allow the state to keep track of what the welfare money is actually spent on.

If nothing else it'll give the drive away from cash banking a serious leg up.

firemansam4

ElWalrus wrote: »

How about instead of providing cash payouts for social welfare, provide recipients with a kind of social welfare credit card, with a credit limit of 4x weekly welfare allowance. No cash withdrawals allowed, only acceptable as payment for goods and services that actually provide welfare (food, medicine, essentials, not luxury items) and as a condition of usage the state is allowed to view the statements. The state will clear the monthly balance, only if the recipient is meeting the above conditions.

I know there might be a load of reasons why this would be unworkable, but as a general concept might cut down on welfare fraud and/or allow the state to keep track of what the welfare money is actually spent on.

This is probably going off topic a bit, and i'm sure this has been debated many times before - by that I mean the whole paying social welfare to cover "Essentials only" not the credit card idea.

I find the whole tone pretty infuriating to be honest, provide food, medicine, essentials and keep checks on everyone, god forbid they might buy a luxury item like a birthday present for there son or daughter!
If you take this stand where do you draw the line at "Essentials"?
Is putting petrol in your car an essential or a luxury? because you might need it to stand any chance of getting another job, but is it essential to live?
what about being able to buy new clothes, surely people can just get free hand outs and still survive? does not matter that they are totally humiliated along with there kids.

I know all of this might sound ridiculous but my point is how do you draw the line at essentials, its not as easy as in writing.

I myself am unfortunate enough to be depending on state handouts for nearly the past year after working and paying taxes before that for 16 years, and in that time of working what infuriated me were people who were obviously getting handouts they didn't need or deserve but now i'm in this situation i find comments such as this equally infuriating.

BOHtox

It would be completely unfair that people earning over €100,000 should get the same % cut than those on the minimum wage. Means test it IMO.

psychward

firemansam4 wrote: »

I myself am unfortunate enough to be depending on state handouts for nearly the past year after working and paying taxes before that for 16 years, and in that time of working what infuriated me were people who were obviously getting handouts they didn't need or deserve but now i'm in this situation i find comments such as this equally infuriating.

I agree with you. Hundreds of thousands of people who are now long term unemployed worked their asses off during the boom and lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Then you have vultures swooping in and trying to heap the blame for societies ills on these people with an almost Dickensian attitude bordering on put them in workhouses that'll sort them out. While the true perpetrators are walking around Scot free getting 200k salaries from NAMA and big pensions.
As for the plastic card idea. That would just stigmatize people further. I find a lot of my best cheapest food at market stalls where there is no credit card machine etc. You just have to catch them at the right time when they are packing up for the day and lower their prices to get rid of it.

Prop Joe

Save Money,Do away with the dole,put everyone on community work schemes 25hrs a week,rest of the time they can be job seeking..Also increase FAS course money by a couple of bob,Encourage people out of work to go learn a new skill..Perfect sense to me

uberalles

Heres a UK idea to donate your fuel allowance if you dont need it and give it to a good cause.


http://fuelouryouth.org/

thetonynator

psychward wrote: »

The State has already made a step down that road with people dying from suicide at the shame of being unemployed and bankrupt; and little girls being refused vaccines against developing cancer when they grow up for the lack of some paltry 15 Million euro. All this while bankrupt developers get 200k per year from NAMA and their kids will never worry about not affording a vaccine etc. The state has been hijacked by corruption and amorality.

The vaccine has been reinstated and a catch up program is in place.

psychward

thetonynator wrote: »

The vaccine has been reinstated and a catch up program is in place.

I'm glad to hear it. No shortage of things left to moan about though

ElWalrus

firemansam4 wrote: »

This is probably going off topic a bit, and i'm sure this has been debated many times before - by that I mean the whole paying social welfare to cover "Essentials only" not the credit card idea.

I find the whole tone pretty infuriating to be honest, provide food, medicine, essentials and keep checks on everyone, god forbid they might buy a luxury item like a birthday present for there son or daughter!
If you take this stand where do you draw the line at "Essentials"?
Is putting petrol in your car an essential or a luxury? because you might need it to stand any chance of getting another job, but is it essential to live?
what about being able to buy new clothes, surely people can just get free hand outs and still survive? does not matter that they are totally humiliated along with there kids.

I know all of this might sound ridiculous but my point is how do you draw the line at essentials, its not as easy as in writing.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. It was just a thought I had on how to cut down on welfare fraud, but I'm happy to have holes poked in the idea. Actually that same argument came into my head when I started thinking about how you would go about implement it. Not easy to come up with ideas to reduce social welfare spending that targets those that abuse the system without impacting on those that really need it.

paullanders

Time to call time on our ever growing bellies and our ever increasing numbers of Diabetics.

Many of our children are growing up "larger" than the previous generation due to lack of exercise and an increase in poor/processed food.

We need to take this problem very seriously. Not only are we creating a people who will live in a very unhealthy state for the majority of their lives
but it will be an economic millstone over the rest of society.

Let's incentivize the parents. We need to set up a system where parents are given increased tax credits as long as their children pass a basic fitness test.

These tests can only be carried out for under 10s.

Simple tests can be agreed and the children ( in agreement with the parents) can be fitness tested twice a school year. The children are invited to get involved and create simple exercise routines which will become part of their normal lives, which we hope will last forever.

We are currently borrowing many Billions to bail out the Banks etc. Let's borrow some more to get our Children fit and healthy.

Let's frontload the health care of our next generation.

Let's start the debate today.

Idbatterim

so what about all the families who are actually worse off than those who have done nothing but leeched on the state all their lives? having educated themselves, both parents working their asses of, big mortgage etc to be paid?

carm

Idbatterim wrote: »

so what about all the families who are actually worse off than those who have done nothing but leeched on the state all their lives? having educated themselves, both parents working their asses of, big mortgage etc to be paid?

Are you talking about the extremely tiny percentage of people that every country has in the world that won't work, will never work? Try not to tar the rest of the good, honest people who have found themselves out of work in this recession with the same brush as the very few who don't give a shyte and never will. You won't change them.

With regard to those hard working families, I'd suggest they consider themselves very lucky to still be in employment and still have a mortgage to pay. There are many who don't have that luck who have educated themselves and worked throughout their lives until now.