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

Dudess

Did he suggest means testing though? There's a big difference between that and simply scrapping it.

hondasam

Dudess wrote: »

Did he suggest means testing though? There's a big difference between that and simply scrapping it.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/oleary-scrap-my-childrens-allowance-scrap-everyones-529230.html#ixzz1eMnPIJfmf

he said scrap it and give it to those who need it through other allowances.

My_left_leg

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.

because "it's me entitlement".:rolleyes:

Gandhi

In the US some benefits are given as a REFUNDABLE tax credit, which means that if you claim it you can actually end up receiving a refund check that exceeds all the taxes you paid during the year. This way someone who makes a small income can still benefit from it. Because it is done via your tax return, then de facto means-testing is done for free.

My_left_leg

Scruffles wrote: »

means testing is a great idea-as long as the cut off point for qualifying isnt to low,many in the UK miss out on various means tested baby/child related benefits because they are a tiny bit over the mark,but they are still on a very low income.

this is just a thought but perhaps instead of giving child benefits in money,they shoud be given in vouchers for specific baby/child needs [according to their age] instead,or shops to have a tab system for people who claim those benefits,give them each a tab up to the cost of the benefit or spread out between different shops,the reciepts can be sent back to the benefits people to show what is being purchased-anything not allowed and they can get warnings and lose the benefit if they carry on doing that.
its a way at stopping people spending their kids daily living needs money on things for themselves that are luxuries.

i agree scruffles, which is why i believe mean testing should be graduated along say 5 different bands, with the least well off getting 100% of benefits, and the richest getting 0%, those in between would qualify for somewhere in between depending on where your income falls.

i also agree with your voucher scheme idea allowing parents to buy the essentials and not feck off down the pub with it!

amacachi

Am I the only one who read the bit where he said it should go into different supports for families who are on low incomes?

John Doe1

Also i humbily suggest children should be abolished

tayto lover

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one who read the bit where he said it should go into different supports for families who are on low incomes?

Gone way past that now. The knives are out.

Wertz

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one who read the bit where he said it should go into different supports for families who are on low incomes?

You're the only one who's admitting to it :pac:

skyhighflyer

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

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

I have a fair idea but I don't see why I should be responsible for bearing the cost of someone else's choice to have kids.

booboo88

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I have a fair idea but I don't see why I should be responsible for bearing the cost of someone else's choice to have kids.

Seconded.

Guy:Incognito

For Forks Sake wrote: »

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.

It wasnt always that way though. How old are MOL's kids?

tayto lover

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I have a fair idea but I don't see why I should be responsible for bearing the cost of someone else's choice to have kids.

I am probably a good bit older than you SO I would have paid for you. Cheers.

For Forks Sake

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one who read the bit where he said it should go into different supports for families who are on low incomes?

Yes.

rabble rabble rabble

skyhighflyer

tayto lover wrote: »

I am probably a good bit older than you SO I would have paid for you. Cheers.

You're absolutely right. I still don't see how that detracts from the point I'm making, what with my having been unable to express opinions on this matter before I was in existence.

tayto lover

skyhighflyer wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I still don't see how that detracts from the point I'm making, what with my having been unable to express opinions on this matter before I was in existence.

Just like the kids who are benefiting now then.

hondasam

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It wasnt always that way though. How old are MOL's kids?

6yrs, 4yrs 2yrs and a baby I think, around these ages.

Littlehorny

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I have a fair idea but I don't see why I should be responsible for bearing the cost of someone else's choice to have kids.

You have made a personal choice not to have kids, fair enough. But all i can say is in many years to come you might be glad of a young person to help you out cause you wont have a family around you to help you out and if you think the taxes you paid will mean this government will come to your aid, well i think you know the answer to that one.

skyhighflyer

Littlehorny wrote: »

You have made a personal choice not to have kids, fair enough. But all i can say is in many years to come you might be glad of a young person to help you out cause you wont have a family around you to help you out and if you think the taxes you paid will mean this government will come to your aid, well i think you know the answer to that one.

Correction. I've made a personal choice not to have them until/unless I can afford to.

dj jarvis

tayto lover wrote: »

I am probably a good bit older than you SO I would have paid for you. Cheers.

and probably paid for his collage education also , did his parents receive and accept their child payments ?

i think people are forgetting that the majority of people who receive the payment spend it locally , even if they spent it ALL on drink and fag the government would get 60% back in direct taxes

real clever idea taking cash from people who spend it in the state on taxable goods - sure we dont need any more jobs do we ?

suggest tax exiles should be chased - then the political class and sure why not then tap the professionals while we are at it and work down the gravy train till we get to the children

like i said earlier - the smell in this county is getting worse by the day

skyhighflyer

tayto lover wrote: »

Just like the kids who are benefiting now then.

Also true, but for every kid that benefits there's another whose parents are either pissing it up against a wall or who don't need it. Means testing until the current generation of kids are 18, then phase it out altogether.

skregs

For Forks Sake wrote: »

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.

It is in its hole automatic, when my daughter was born 8 weeks ago we had wait for the hospital to finish all their paper work and send it into the Department of Social Protection, apply for a birth certificate from Lombard Street registration office, wait to receive an application form from the Dept, go out to a welfare office in Darndale or some ****hole near it, get her PPS number that we needed the birth cert for, send off the childrens allowance application form and we're still waiting to hear a reply.

tl,dr:

You **APPLY** for childrens allowance, if you don't want/need it, don't apply for it

Dags

God this guy is so annoying.........., means test it then the likes of him won't get any payment !!

tayto lover

skyhighflyer wrote: »

Also true, but for every kid that benefits there's another whose parents are either pissing it up against a wall or who don't need it. Means testing until the current generation of kids are 18, then phase it out altogether.

Correct but do you not think they would "piss it all up the wall" even if CB was dis-continued. The child has no say unfortunately but not all parents use the money on alcohol and in many homes the money is welcomed and used as intended. I wouldn't like to judge everyone else and only hope that CB is used for the good of the children it was intended for.

greystonesgirl

It's not "his" children's allowance to give away. It's the only social welfare payment directly paid to mothers in Ireland regardless of marital status and many mothers only source of independence regardless of the income of their husband in all sorts of situations.

Chuck Stone

means testing it creates bureaucracy - just make it an offence to collect after 100K pa earnings or something

xsiborg

hondasam wrote: »

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

what about them?

seriously?

are they incapable of budgeting? like people that work for a living have to do?

Mike 1972

Is anyone who thinks theyre well off enough not to need this money actually forced to accept it. I thought one had to go down to the post office and sign for it or something. Surely they could just not go

greystonesgirl wrote: »

It's the only social welfare payment directly paid to mothers in Ireland regardless of marital status and many mothers only source of independence regardless of the income of their husband in all sorts of situations.

So the Husband/partner's income could be LOWER than the mothers and yet the mother still gets the payment.

How is that right ?

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

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

xsiborg wrote: »

what about them?

seriously?

are they incapable of budgeting? like people that work for a living have to do?

This is what my reply was in response to. Maybe you did not read the thread.

xsiborg

hondasam wrote: »

This is what my reply was in response to. Maybe you did not read the thread.

apologies hondasam, i was reading through the thread there now since i last posted on the third page, having read through your subsequent posts i realise i took you up wrong...

dj jarvis

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is anyone who thinks theyre well off enough not to need this money actually forced to accept it. I thought one had to go down to the post office and sign for it or something. Surely they could just not go



So the Husband/partner's income could be LOWER than the mothers and yet the mother still gets the payment.

How is that right ?

Historically the fathers would grab the payment and piss it against a wall , they changed it so they would have half a chance of getting it near the children, or at least for their benefit by giving to the mothers only

i agree with this 100%

maddragon

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I would like to see Mr O' Leary in charge of public sector reform

Really. So you think anarchy and possible civil war would help matters.

Carlow52

Abi wrote: »

Ignorant prick.



You've said it pal.


Cutting it for those on low incomes is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Cutting it off for those of over a certain income bracket, I'd agree with.

Simpler solution: cut the prick => no child=>no allowance.

7 bill is just 2 many

Ya can really spot the stupid idiots in any Michael o Leary thread. We should have them more often and IP ban the worst offenders.

kraggy

mikom wrote: »

Said on the day Ryanair announces four new routes from Knock airport.



Suckered again folks.
Too easy Michael, too easy.

Except in this case, he's putting forward a totally rational idea.

As opposed to his publicity stunts such as charging for using the toilets on aircraft and charging lower fares for people prepared to stand up at the back of a 737 on the way to Berlin.

mikom

kraggy wrote: »

Except in this case, he's putting forward a totally rational idea.

As opposed to his publicity stunts such as charging for using the toilets on aircraft and charging lower fares for people prepared to stand up at the back of a 737 on the way to Berlin.

Post number 187........ and Micheal is still laughin'......

kraggy

Quite possibly.

But I doubt it was all planned. Like I said, there hardly radical comments he made.

Helix

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

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

if you cant afford to have kids, dont have kids

blackdog2

Ok, has anyone a reason as to why someone on a huge salary needs money from those less well off to assist him/her in raising their children? Because that is what O'Leary is arguing against.

Regardless of who he is, he makes a valid point as far as I can see.

Bottle_of_Smoke

seriously depressing the amount of people on this thread ignoring that he suggested a system where only the people who need the money get it. Even after this being pointed out to them repeatedly

Helix

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

seriously depressing the amount of people on this thread ignoring that he suggested a system where only the people who need the money get it. Even after this being pointed out to them repeatedly

IT'S A BLOODY DISGRACE JOE!

Richard Dower

The childrens allowance should be scrapped...but only for the career scumbags, the single trollops with 2 or three kids from different men, who never put on clothes and wear PJ's in the middle of the day.

Yakult

Helix wrote: »

if you cant afford to have kids, dont have kids

Sometimes, you dont have a choice. **** happens n'all that.


The general feeling is that it should be means tested and not just handed out to anyone regardless of income and thats the way it should be.
Might cost a bit to set it up etc but in the long run it's worth the effort. Sadly that effort is lacking yet they expect all these numbers to just fade whilst they just tax the ass hairs off us, less effort.

Helix

Yakult wrote: »

Sometimes, you dont have a choice. **** happens n'all that.

you always have a choice. if you have a child that you cant afford, and because of your lack of ability to afford it the child suffers, then that's child abuse in my book

teishen

Scrap it, children's allowance was always a ****in' joke. You think you'd get any free handout in any of those eastern european countries?! Pfft...

blackdog2

Helix wrote: »

you always have a choice. if you have a child that you cant afford, and because of your lack of ability to afford it the child suffers, then that's child abuse in my book

Not a choice in this country I am afraid; try again next referendum

teishen

blackdog2 wrote: »

Not a choice in this country I am afraid; try again next referendum

Sure, you can always just go across to England, won't have any of that crap in my God fearing Catholic country. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yakult

Helix wrote: »

you always have a choice. if you have a child that you cant afford, and because of your lack of ability to afford it the child suffers, then that's child abuse in my book

I agree with what you are saying about not having a child unless you are financially capable etc. But some times accidents do happen, you cannot plan everything, all you can do is try to prevent it.

EnufisEnuf

As usual anytime Mick O'Leary opens his trap he causes controversy - but if you break it down, what he is saying has merit.

He is not saying that people who can't afford to live should not receive the money.
What he is saying is that there are some single parents or couples out there with children that could afford to go with out the €140 a month benefit - in order that someone who CANT afford it benefits.

Why is it a given that if you have a child the state pays you money!
(and yes I do know how much it costs to raise a child)
(and yes I do appreciate that not all pregancies are planned)

But either way - I shouldn't assume that the state will fund my children.

However, i would like to think, that if I couldn't afford to feed,clothe or educate them that the finances would be there.

As usual with the Social benefit system of this country it is a blanket sweep for ALL and not look at on a case/case basis.

Crude and politically uncorrect as he can be - Give Mick O'Leary the countries purse strings and we'll all feel the benefit of his ways ... and the country wouldn't be on it's knees!!!

Unforunately though, he'd pi55 too many people off as we do not like change as a people, and we like to think the world owes us a living.

ibarelycare

SeaFields wrote: »

Would it be an idea to scrap it altogether and use the revenue to instead provide free school uniforms, books and a daily healthy school lunch(s) to every child/teen for the duration of their primary and secondary education?

Spot on.

I'd love to know what percentage of CB given out in this country actually goes directly on feeding and clothing a child and putting them through school. It should be scrapped altogether and free uniforms, schoolbooks and school lunches should be provided instead with the money. Families who are struggling beyond that should be provided with food and clothing vouchers.

The way CASH is handed out willy nilly in this country is a disgrace. CB and social welfare should be paying to keep people just above the breadline, NOT to pay for cigarettes, alcohol, holidays, internet and Sky TV.