He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

Run_to_da_hills

O'Leary should also confine those with screaming kids to the rear of his planes while he is at it.

tayto lover

niallsparky wrote: »

How would you suggest someone goes about returning their Children's Allowance to the State. To whom should they address their cheque?

I'm sure the Dept. of Finance would take it from him if he addresses it to them and attaches a little note containing his name and address. After they get up of the floor of course.

For Forks Sake

Abi wrote: »

My understanding of it is that the parents must send a copy of the childs birth cert to childrens allowance before the payments start. Is this still not the case?

In our case, there was an office on the maternity ward of the hospital (Mullingar) to which you could register the birth on the spot without having to go to the SW office. The person handling the registration then took a copy of the cert as soon as she's done the formalities and sent it on to the relevant SW section.

Micky Dolenz

It's the most stupid of allowances. It should come in the form of a tax credit.

Bluefox21

Braelyn Bewildered Timekeeper wrote: »

Of course he needs to promote his airline and it's new routes. Everyone knows you can fly to London for a tenner but they didn't know about the new routes from Knock, until he mentioned a touchy subject to make the headlines. Jack. Pot.

Which is also going to ensure the stability of 500 jobs in the Knock region. Don't understand all the hatred towards Ryanair and O'Leary. Without him we'd all be paying extortionate prices with Aer Lingus.

Snickers Man

Storminateacup wrote: »

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have them.

This is the pisstake forum right? We don't have to take any of these arguments seriously, OK?

Good. Well then Stormforce in a teacup, I take it you have no ambition to live into old age where you will have to rely on a younger generation to take care of you in your frail dotage.

I hope you have put aside sufficient funds for your pension, which in your case will be enough to purchase a simple cyanide capsule to end it all once you get to 65 or whatever the retirement age will be when you reach it and just put yourself out of your misery.

"Ah wait", I hear you say. "I will have made provision for my retirement. I have invested wisely and accummulated assets which will see me through my usual level of Bacchanalian debauchery until such time as I shuffle off this mortal coil!"

To which I say "Bollox!" Whatever investment you have made for your retirement (Pension fund, property speculation, Banking deposit) is merely a downpayment on the industry and productivity of a future generation. A generation that will be spawned, nurtured and educated at least to a point by society in general. Of course the bulk of the burden will fall on their parents. That is only right and proper. But it is utterly unfair to expect the young people whose work will feed and clothe you in your decrepitude to be raised without a smidgeon of support from yourself.

That's the simple case for child benefit, or free or subsidised education or free or subsidised health care in a nutshell.

Now this bit about: "Rich bastards like Micko don't need it so cut it for everyone."

On the face of it means testing seems only fair. But in practice, such means testing only ends up with costs accelerating and little real benefit to those who need it.

Even in America, the land where there is no free lunch, ever, many died in the wool capitalists provided some services for free (eg local telephone calls) because it would cost more to calculate the bill than it would have done to make the damn thing free.

Of course civil servants love means testing; more jobs for the boys. But I would rather have the likes of Mick O'Leary get a few extra quid that he doesn't need than see some middle income family with four kids suddenly fall outside the support net.

For Forks Sake

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

O'Leary should also confine those with screaming kids to the rear of his planes while he is at it.

There should be plenty of room in the hold to confine them seeing as he sure as hell doesn't want to put any luggage in there

Abi

Bluefox21 wrote: »

In fairness to the man, he is probably the best person in the world for achieving cost effective performance. His job is to run a low cost airline which he does extremely well. I would seriously consider any suggestions he has to reform our current systems which imo are a joke.

I agree it is. People like him should never have been receiving child benefit in the first place. Nobody is denying the better off shouldn't be in receipt of this payment.

The best argument against his suggestions (not from you admittedly) are that the government is incapable of implementing a more effective proposal. This speaks volumes.

Why should he hand back his child benefit and what difference would it make? The reality is that a sizable proportion of families who receive CB are not dependent on it and it could be put to better use. Fair play to the man for bringing the issue into the public eye.

Why didn't he suggest means capping beyond a certain level? No he decided some controversy to get publicity was the way forward, and in turn angering those less well off in the process.

daltonmd

"I think you scrap it for everybody...You need to channel children's allowance (to those who need it) through income support schemes, where you're trying to channel money to those on very low incomes," he said.

Give to those who need it and take it from those who don't.

Nothing wrong with that...

hondasam

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is the pisstake forum right? We don't have to take any of these arguments seriously, OK?

Good. Well then Stormforce in a teacup, I take it you have no ambition to live into old age where you will have to rely on a younger generation to take care of you in your frail dotage.

I hope you have put aside sufficient funds for your pension, which in your case will be enough to purchase a simple cyanide capsule to end it all once you get to 65 or whatever the retirement age will be when you reach it and just put yourself out of your misery.

"Ah wait", I hear you say. "I will have made provision for my retirement. I have invested wisely and accummulated assets which will see me through my usual level of Bacchanalian debauchery until such time as I shuffle off this mortal coil!"

To which I say "Bollox!" Whatever investment you have made for your retirement (Pension fund, property speculation, Banking deposit) is merely a downpayment on the industry and productivity of a future generation. A generation that will be spawned, nurtured and educated at least to a point by society in general. Of course the bulk of the burden will fall on their parents. That is only right and proper. But it is utterly unfair to expect the young people whose work will feed and clothe you in your decrepitude to be raised without a smidgeon of support from yourself.

That's the simple case for child benefit, or free or subsidised education or free or subsidised health care in a nutshell.

Now this bit about: "Rich bastards like Micko don't need it so cut it for everyone."

On the face of it means testing seems only fair. But in practice, such means testing only ends up with costs accelerating and little real benefit to those who need it.

Even in America, the land where there is no free lunch, ever, many died in the wool capitalists provided some services for free (eg local telephone calls) because it would cost more to calculate the bill than it would have done to make the damn thing free.

Of course civil servants love means testing; more jobs for the boys. But I would rather have the likes of Mick O'Leary get a few extra quid that he doesn't need than see some middle income family with four kids suddenly fall outside the support net.

WTF?
I hope that makes sense to you because I understand none of what you are going on about.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

It's the most stupid of allowances. It should come in the form of a tax credit.

what about the people who do not work? people on the dole.

Abi

daltonmd wrote: »

"I think you scrap it for everybody...You need to channel children's allowance (to those who need it) through income support schemes, where you're trying to channel money to those on very low incomes," he said.

Give to those who need it and take it from those who don't.

Nothing wrong with that...

He's just re-hashed something everyone else agrees with, but sensationalized it to gain publicity. He knew exactly what he was doing.

parrai

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Which is also going to ensure the stability of 500 jobs in the Knock region. Don't understand all the hatred towards Ryanair and O'Leary. Without him we'd all be paying extortionate prices with Aer Lingus.

Don't think the point Frada is making is about hatred, it's about how the clever use of marketing MO'L is using, by attaching his opinion of a crucial, current event will draw free advertising to his business plan

wicklowdub

Not that his opinion matters a jot more than anyone else's but it always amazes me that he comes out with this rubbish when he is lauching a new destination. Same as Roy Keane when he is in town for the guide dogs, at least that is not self promotion.

Inquitus

Storminateacup wrote: »

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have them.

Most of us could afford them when we had them prior to 2008, it's only now where middle Ireland is being squeezed that it's becoming an issue. In 2007 I could have done without the childrens allowance, in 2011 if it was taken away it would have a drastic effect on the family circumstances.

hondasam

Inquitus wrote: »

Most of us could afford them when we had them prior to 2008, it's only now where middle Ireland is being squeezed that it's becoming an issue. In 2007 I could have done without the childrens allowance, in 2011 if it was taken away it would have a drastic effect on the family circumstances.

I suppose you can't give them back. They are still your responsibility not the tax payers.

daltonmd

Abi wrote: »

He's just re-hashed something everyone else agrees with, but sensationalized it to gain publicity. He knew exactly what he was doing.

I don't think so. Some people here are playing the man not the ball. It's not what was said, but who said it!!

It should be scrapped and in it's place there should be tax credits for low earners and means tested for social Welfare recipients.

westendgirlie

For Forks Sake wrote: »

In our case, there was an office on the maternity ward of the hospital (Mullingar) to which you could register the birth on the spot without having to go to the SW office. The person handling the registration then took a copy of the cert as soon as she's done the formalities and sent it on to the relevant SW section.

But you still have to sign the "application form child benefit" form, right?

Register junior, get a birth cert and bung the baby in the bentley. And take the bypass around SW (less traffic).

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

what about the people who do not work? people on the dole.

They would get it through the social welfare system.
It should not be a blanket allowance.

Means test or (more affordabley to the state) tax credit is the way to go. Millions would be saved every year if it wasn't given to the parents of children who didn't really need it. It should be a necessity and not a luxury.

Nolanger

They should give an allowance for NOT having kids.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Which is also going to ensure the stability of 500 jobs in the Knock region. Don't understand all the hatred towards Ryanair and O'Leary. Without him we'd all be paying extortionate prices with Aer Lingus.

Ah come on. How could you be so obtuse? I'm not criticising O'Leary or Ryanair. I'm merely pointing out that he often makes controversial statements whenever Ryanair make an announcement to get the airline in the papers. He's playing you all for fools with this tactic and you fall for it every time.

For Forks Sake

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They would get it through the social welfare system.
It should not be a blanket allowance.

Means test or (more affordabley to the state) tax credit is the way to go. Millions would be saved every year if it wasn't given to the parents of children who didn't really need it. It should be a necessity and not a luxury.

Apparently there's no linkup between the computer systems of Revenue and DSP, hence why no means testing can be introduced.

But there's a whole other days rant in that...

For Forks Sake

westendgirlie wrote: »

But you still have to sign the "application form child benefit" form, right?

Register junior, get a birth cert and bung the baby in the bentley. And take the bypass around SW (less traffic).

I assume my wife signed the confirmation form.

And as you can see from my sig, it's a 12 year old VW Golf, not a Bentley

Wertz

Everyone's on about means testing...any idea how much such system cost? The current means tests for SW payments and medical cards can't cope as it is and the PS are being downsized not increased.

Tax credits for the working and extra payment per child on weekly SW payments for those who are not. It's pretty simple.

Micky Dolenz

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Apparently there's no linkup between the computer systems of Revenue and DSP, hence why no means testing can be introduced.

But there's a whole other days rant in that...

On that note, lets not be to too quick to have a link up system, esp to Revenue :P

Storminateacup

I think it's pathetic - to the guy who wrote the novel. I have a child, I work my ass off. Infact, I was labelled a bad mother on this very forum, for leaving her to go to work. Lol. A bad mother because I work to feed, clothe and put a roof over her head. Instead of sitting back expecting the government to hand me taxpayers money.

She is my child. My responsiblilty. If I couldn't have afforded her, I wouldn't have had her.

And don't even get me started on what most parents spend their childrens allowance on. Their children? Oh puh-lease.

Wile E. Coyote

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

You don't know how much it costs to raise a child, do you?

I don't know how much it is but I know I can't afford it which is why I don't have any.

Myself and my wife are both working full time and we can't afford to have kids so why should our taxes go to supplement the lifestyles of those who have them?

westendgirlie

For Forks Sake wrote: »

I assume my wife signed the confirmation form.

And as you can see from my sig, it's a 12 year old VW Golf, not a Bentley

Ah for forks sake, I thought you were michael o'leary in disguise

dj jarvis

Storminateacup wrote: »

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have them.

what a moronic post :eek:
so someone who was working and could afford to raise the children find themselves laid off and unable to now finance the up keep of their children
so starve because you think they should not get the allowance ???

you a posting sh1t - sure there are thoughtless parents spending the children's allowance on drugs and booze - but the VAST MAJORITY dont

fine take away the allowance - to appease idiots who dont understand how badly this is needed by most of the family's receive it
and in its place the government will have to fund creche and childcare , clothing - food - and other supports that the majority of civilized western nations provide

obviously your parents could afford to have children and handed the payment they received back to the state coffers - seeing they did not need it
mindless - dumb as rocks statement

means test is the ONLY fair solution

vicwatson

Originally Posted by Stocking Drinks Whiskey
You don't know how much it costs to raise a child, do you?

Obviously he does as he has 4 of them?

Yeh, but how many has he raised?

Storminateacup

The social welfare/childrens allowance should be given in the form of food stamps/clothes stamps. Like in America, there are certain things you can't purchase on their social welfare. Be less of it drank and smoked then, yeah?

Wertz

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Apparently there's no linkup between the computer systems of Revenue and DSP, hence why no means testing can be introduced.

But there's a whole other days rant in that...

Incredible isn't it. In this day and age and two vital computer systems for the expenses of the country speak different languages. The crazy thing is reveneue and DSP both use PPS numbers as identifiers...

Logical Fallacy

dj jarvis wrote: »

what a moronic post :eek:
so someone who was working and could afford to raise the children find themselves laid off and unable to now finance the up keep of their children
so starve because you think they should not get the allowance ???

you a posting sh1t - sure there are thoughtless parents spending the children's allowance on drugs and booze - but the VAST MAJORITY dont

fine take away the allowance - to appease idiots who dont understand how badly this is needed by most of the family's receive it
and in its place the government will have to fund creche and childcare , clothing - food - and other supports that the majority of civilized western nations provide

obviously your parents could afford to have children and handed the payment they received back to the state coffers - seeing they did not need it

another childless - mindless - young and dumb as rocks statement

means test is the ONLY fair solution

Just sell the kid of eba(b)y.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Storminateacup wrote: »

I have a child, I work my ass off.

Good, nobody likes seeing the extra baby weight on a woman for too long.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They would get it through the social welfare system.
It should not be a blanket allowance.

Means test or (more affordabley to the state) tax credit is the way to go. Millions would be saved every year if it wasn't given to the parents of children who didn't really need it. It should be a necessity and not a luxury.

Which parent would get the tax credit? I know you will probably laugh but I'm serious,it would be a problem for some.
There would be a lot of work involved in doing it this way.

mikom

I'm tired of these motherfucking suckers on this mother****ing plane/thread!!

My name is URL

Storminateacup wrote: »

The social welfare/childrens allowance should be given in the form of food stamps/clothes stamps. Like in America, there are certain things you can't purchase on their social welfare. Be less of it drank and smoked then, yeah?

So, just because some people spend their money foolishly; everyone should have a great degree of their personal liberties revoked? Maybe you should ask your boss to pay you in food stamps too.. ya know.. just in case.

Agent Smith

he's right.

I'd also scrap single mothers allowance, for any single mother not living alone

Storminateacup

URL - you see, the difference between my wages and the childrens allowance is I get off my ass for my wages jnstead of staying on my back for childrens allowance.

It should not be something you're entitled to. Personal liberty to spend other peoples money? Are you serious?

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

Which parent would get the tax credit? I know you will probably laugh but I'm serious,it would be a problem for some.
There would be a lot of work involved in doing it this way.

No where near as half as what it will cost in the very long run.

If one parent is working and sole carer of child, they would benefit from it. If both parents were primary carer it would be shared or claimed by highest earner.

gerryo777

Agent Smith wrote: »

he's right.

I'd also scrap single mothers allowance, for any single mother not living alone

It was only a matter of time before single mothers were brought into it....

gerryo777

Storminateacup wrote: »

I think it's pathetic - to the guy who wrote the novel. I have a child, I work my ass off. Infact, I was labelled a bad mother on this very forum, for leaving her to go to work. Lol. A bad mother because I work to feed, clothe and put a roof over her head. Instead of sitting back expecting the government to hand me taxpayers money.

She is my child. My responsiblilty. If I couldn't have afforded her, I wouldn't have had her.

And don't even get me started on what most parents spend their childrens allowance on. Their children? Oh puh-lease.

Bitter, Much?

My name is URL

Storminateacup wrote: »

URL - you see, the difference between my wages and the childrens allowance is I get off my ass for my wages jnstead of staying on my back for childrens allowance.

It should not be something you're entitled to. Personal liberty to spend other peoples money? Are you serious?

My point was that you are generalizing it grossly. Not everyone who is on the dole or in receipt of a social welfare payment falls into the group that you're describing. The people you're referring to are in the tiny majority.. so why punish everybody else for their mistakes or poor decisions.

Micky Dolenz

gerryo777 wrote: »

BITTER, MUCH?

Why so shouty?

Gyalist

For Forks Sake wrote: »

westendgirlie wrote: »

The only way you get childrens allowance is if you apply for it. Why are the rich putting their claims in if they say they don't need it?

Don't bother applying if you don't want it.

When you register the childs birth with the state (legal requirement) the details automatically go to the Dept of Social Protection who issue the child with a PPS number and start a claim for Childrens Allowance. Parents don't apply for it, it's automatically issued.

Only went through the process 6 weeks ago when my daughter was born. And I would be in favour of means testing, for the record.

Is that so? I've never claimed Children's Allowance for my child.

gerryo777

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Why so shouty?

Stupid caps lock!:rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz

gerryo777 wrote: »

Stupid caps lock!:rolleyes:

hATE THAt :P

crackcrack30

In addition to comming cuts in welfare Joan should decide that from lets say '2013' that all subsequent social welfare applications are paid out at a reduced rate with some benifits post 2013 scrapped altogether.......
this would ease the burden on people caught up in the housing/unemployement bubble that have their 'Beds already made' but would give future welfare clients food for thought before they become completely dependant on state social welfare.

Within 10 years there would be a much more cost effective system in place...... Im tierd of looking at the two teen with baby 'family' with everything provided on cue..........................

hondasam

dj jarvis wrote: »

what a moronic post :eek:
so someone who was working and could afford to raise the children find themselves laid off and unable to now finance the up keep of their children
so starve because you think they should not get the allowance ???

you a posting sh1t - sure there are thoughtless parents spending the children's allowance on drugs and booze - but the VAST MAJORITY dont

fine take away the allowance - to appease idiots who dont understand how badly this is needed by most of the family's receive it
and in its place the government will have to fund creche and childcare , clothing - food - and other supports that the majority of civilized western nations provide

obviously your parents could afford to have children and handed the payment they received back to the state coffers - seeing they did not need it

another childless - mindless - young and dumb as rocks statement

means test is the ONLY fair solution

Are you saying when people decide to have children the factor in what they get in Child benefit?
If it was scrapped would people stop having children?

texidub

If it can't be cost-effectively means-tested, is it time for a Chinese-style, 1 child policy til we get through this mess? For 5 years perhaps? Forced abortions or imprisonment for those who have more than one child. Any surplus babies can be used for dog food or finger food, perhaps?