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

seanmc1980

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. it costs about €200,000 to raise a child from birth until they reach 21/ finish college. If every single person were required to show that they can afford to do that before they have kids then hardly anyone would be giving birth. Who decides how much income you need to have before you get to have a kid? I'm sure you can see 20 odd years into the future though, in your infinite wisdom; and guarantee that you will never ever depend on help from anyone else.

as said before i think general cop on will tell you if you can afford a child or not.

Galtee wrote: »

Firstly, the tax credit is something for free in its simplest terms and hence the same principle applies to abolishing the child benefit. Why should you automatically be entitled to child benefit? Well why should you automatically be entitled to a tax credit? It's part of the system we live within.
.

I think you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the tax system, of course you can do away with tax credits but i will result in people paying about 10k extra a year in tax. i'm sure a reasonable gov would adjust rates to bring the tax payers effective rate down to what it was when they had a tax credit.
your comparing apples and oranges in fairness.

you earn 40k per year. tax rate is 21% you get a tax crediit of 2000. you pay 8400-2000 = 6,400
do away with tax credits you pay 8,400 per year.
Gove do away with credits but reduct tax rate to 16% = tax payable of 6,400
The above are 3 mentods of collecting tax

Now have a kid = 140*12 = 1680 cash in hand.

Can you see the difference
apples and oranges

seanmc1980

My name is URL wrote: »

So those who are irresponsible and have a kid should just be allowed to fall by the wayside, and the kid face a life of hardship because of its parents? I'm no clairvoyant but I can imagine that leading to a lot more problems in future, and ultimately at a greater social cost than giving them some help when they need it..

please think of the children mrs lovejoy!!!

if the parents were that **** in the 1st place i'm pretty sure 140 quid a month won't make a difference as i said before its usually spend on drink and fags anyway. funny concept for the parents, get a job! pay for your own chidren??

Hells Belle

seanmc1980 wrote: »

please think of the children mrs lovejoy!!!

if the parents were that **** in the 1st place i'm pretty sure 140 quid a month won't make a difference as i said before its usually spend on drink and fags anyway. funny concept for the parents, get a job! pay for your own chidren??

Still waiting on a link for that.

Galtee

seanmc1980 wrote: »

as said before i think general cop on will tell you if you can afford a child or not.



I think you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the tax system, of course you can do away with tax credits but i will result in people paying about 10k extra a year in tax. i'm sure a reasonable gov would adjust rates to bring the tax payers effective rate down to what it was when they had a tax credit.
your comparing apples and oranges in fairness.

you earn 40k per year. tax rate is 21% you get a tax crediit of 2000. you pay 8400-2000 = 6,400
do away with tax credits you pay 8,400 per year.
Gove do away with credits but reduct tax rate to 16% = tax payable of 6,400
The above are 3 mentods of collecting tax

Now have a kid = 140*12 = 1680 cash in hand.

Can you see the difference
apples and oranges

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. :rolleyes: Also, how much tax credit do you get that will result in you paying 10k extra a year in tax if taken away. Misunderstanding indeed. Also, if you read my previous posts properly you'll see that I mentioned the tax credit as an example of people being hypocritical about the system. ie People seem to think they can pick whatever they want from a system and then moan about everything else. I wouldn't mind but this thread was started on the back of a comment made by a man who could just as easily have said double child benefit if he thought he'd get more publicity out of it. :rolleyes:

pwurple

The reason child benefit was given as money to the mother, and not as a tax credit was because historically there was a problem with working fathers not handing over a penny to the mother for the children. This was a ringfenced payment given to the mother for that exact reason.

Maybe times have moved on, but I would hazard a guess that scenario isn't gone completely.

seanmc1980

Hells Belle wrote: »

Still waiting on a link for that.

here's one for cigs,

http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=2010Charts/Chart3.3.jpg

low income groups make up over 60% of smokers

seanmc1980

pwurple wrote: »

The reason child benefit was given as money to the mother, and not as a tax credit was because historically there was a problem with working fathers not handing over a penny to the mother for the children. This was a ringfenced payment given to the mother for that exact reason.

Maybe times have moved on, but I would hazard a guess that scenario isn't gone completely.

unfortunately the system was massively abused by single mothers and their partners in the last 10 yrs.

mr kr0nik

Believe it or not but there are mothers (generalising here) who would be considered living in a high income family that don't get a penny from the husband and can only survive on the child benefit.

Galtee

I would guess that the system is actually being abused more through tax avoidance by big companies than it is by single mothers having children specifically to claim benefits.

Wompa1

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Believe it or not but there are mothers (generalising here) who would be considered living in a high income family that don't get a penny from the husband and can only survive on the child benefit.

but why is that the tax payers problem? couldn't that kind of lady apply for an assistance grant rather than just be given one?

Wompa1

Galtee wrote: »

I would guess that the system is actually being abused more through tax avoidance by big companies than it is by single mothers having children specifically to claim benefits.

Two wrongs don't make a right....

That's been a common approach to debate on Boards over the last few years.

But the politicians do this or that, corporations do this or that so why shouldn't I?

Marijuana should be legalized because Alcohol is legal and that causes more deaths etc.

That's a poor defence in my eyes.

pwurple

seanmc1980 wrote: »

unfortunately the system was massively abused by single mothers and their partners in the last 10 yrs.

I don't see how child benefit can be abused. If you mean single parent allowance etc, then that is a different topic.

Wompa1 wrote: »

but why is that the tax payers problem? couldn't that kind of lady apply for an assistance grant rather than just be given one?

Any means testing is done on a per-family basis. Same problem.

seanmc1980

Galtee wrote: »

I would guess that the system is actually being abused more through tax avoidance by big companies than it is by single mothers having children specifically to claim benefits.

elaborate how companies are abusing the system? i work in a multi national company which employees 400 people. out CT bill for FY11 was 18m. we paid the revenue 9m in paye and PRSI (provided the employment) that makes 27m in 1 year paid to the irish gov,
yeah big bad company alright

tax avoidance is legal. social welfare fraud isn't? thats the difference

Galtee

Wompa1 wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right....

That's been a common approach to debate on Boards over the last few years.

But the politicians do this or that, corporations do this or that so why shouldn't I?

Marijuana should be legalized because Alcohol is legal and that causes more deaths etc.

That's a poor defence in my eyes.

It wasn't a defence so shouldn't have been construed as one. I was merely offering an opinion, that's all. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right but to me it's a little funny the way people in general tend to blindly latch on to one comment without looking at the big picture and you'd have to wonder why that is.

Wompa1

pwurple wrote: »

I don't see how child benefit can be abused. If you mean single parent allowance etc, then that is a different topic.


Any means testing is done on a per-family basis. Same problem.

But nothing is in place yet? How do you know the means test would be family based?

mr kr0nik

Wompa1 wrote: »

but why is that the tax payers problem? couldn't that kind of lady apply for an assistance grant rather than just be given one?

Because she wouldn't probably qualify for one.

Hells Belle

seanmc1980 wrote: »

here's one for cigs,

http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=2010Charts/Chart3.3.jpg

low income groups make up over 60% of smokers

And they spend all their C/A on fags? Presuming it's one child it's 300 fags per month or 70 ish per week. Depending on brand of course and you know poor people love brands....

Come on, according to your link the average smoker is a male aged 25-44, unemployed and living in Munster. Not single mothers who you seem to have the biggest problem with.

Maybe you should have read the full research before cherrypicking what you thought backed up your views.

Galtee

seanmc1980 wrote: »

elaborate how companies are abusing the system? i work in a multi national company which employees 400 people. out CT bill for FY11 was 18m. we paid the revenue 9m in paye and PRSI (provided the employment) that makes 27m in 1 year paid to the irish gov,
yeah big bad company alright

tax avoidance is legal. social welfare fraud isn't? thats the difference

Who condoned social welfare fraud? Girls who have babies just so they can collect child benefit isn't fraud, it's perfectly legal. It may well be stupid, but it's not fraud.

Wompa1

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Because she wouldn't probably qualify for one.

Galtee wrote: »

It wasn't a defence so shouldn't have been construed as one. I was merely offering an opinion, that's all. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right but to me it's a little funny the way people in general tend to blindly latch on to one comment without looking at the big picture and you'd have to wonder why that is.

Sorry defence may have been the wrong word to use. The bigger picture as I see it with obviously forgetting some things because it's off the top of my head is: All earners need to be paying tax, no exceptions. Companies need to be paying tax and following the commercial laws in place. Politicians and Public officials need to have their pays reviewed and work practices reviewed. Public spending in general needs to be heavily scrutinized. Subsidized Irish companies should be pressured into keeping things local in return for the publics assistance or they should be privatized.

Don't think anybody is missing the bigger picture, we are living with it every day.

will56

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Believe it or not but there are mothers (generalising here) who would be considered living in a high income family that don't get a penny from the husband and can only survive on the child benefit.

Why is then the taxpayers responsibility ?
Surely the issue in those situations is the marriage itself.

Eric Cartman

all child related benefits should be scrapped and replaced by a lowering of the higher rate of income tax by 5% per child up to 4 children , This would end the situation where poor people / people on the dole are having kids to get money and encourage the currently childless couples who are doing well to have children in exchange for a decent tax break.

The world cant live off the spawn of a bunch of uneducated wasters who sit at home all day and have no greater aspirations than staying in their council house all day until the smokes and drink finally kill them

donalg1

Dont think just scrapping it is the way to go now, but it should certainly be means tested at the very least, and anyone on Social Welfare who is receiving the qualified child payment of 29.80 per week should not be getting it as they are technically getting it twice, if they are to be given anything they should be given the difference between the childrens allowance and child dependant payment which works out around €6 per week and no more.

seanmc1980

Hells Belle wrote: »

And they spend all their C/A on fags? Presuming it's one child it's 300 fags per month or 70 ish per week. Depending on brand of course and you know poor people love brands....

Come on, according to your link the average smoker is a male aged 25-44, unemployed and living in Munster. Not single mothers who you seem to have the biggest problem with.

Maybe you should have read the full research before cherrypicking what you thought backed up your views.

is it reasonable that family collecting the C/A would spend 70 euro on fags and drink?
i havn't the slightes problem with sigle mothers. i have a problem with the gov paying my taxes to people to have chidren. as i've said before raise your own chidren don't expect hand outs from the gov.

the atricle was quiet specific 60% of smokers are from lower income's it doesn't take a leap of faith to put 2 and 2 together.

saywhatyousee

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i've said before raise your own chidren don't expect hand outs from the gov.

Fair enough dont be complaining in a few years time when there are no taxpayers to pay for your pension.

seanmc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

all child related benefits should be scrapped and replaced by a lowering of the higher rate of income tax by 5% per child up to 4 children , This would end the situation where poor people / people on the dole are having kids to get money and encourage the currently childless couples who are doing well to have children in exchange for a decent tax break.

great solution eric if u want kids work and you will get a tax break.

Galtee

seanmc1980 wrote: »

great solution eric if u want kids work and you will get a tax break.

And what about if you can't get a job?

seanmc1980

saywhatyousee wrote: »

Fair enough dont be complaining in a few years time when there are no taxpayers to pay for your pension.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! don't worry about my pension love thats the benfits of having a private pension! lol good laugh there!

seanmc1980

Galtee wrote: »

And what about if you can't get a job?

2 options, get a job or emigrate. there is loads of work out there in ireland and abroad.

Sparkyd2002

Galtee wrote: »

And, in the system you live in you are entitled to a child benefit because you have children. You can't just pick and choose what suits you. :rolleyes:

eh actually i can. but that doesnt make it right! I could just not take my Childrens allowance on prinipal but then that would make me an idiot ! Im saying a blanket benefit irrespective of financial status payed for by the revenue/borrowings of the govt is wrong.

Galtee

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

eh actually i can. but that doesnt make it right! I could just not take my Childrens allowance on prinipal but then that would make me an idiot ! Im saying a blanket benefit irrespective of financial status payed for by the revenue/borrowings of the govt is wrong.

eh actually no you can't, you're entitled to child benefit if you have children, you can't do anything about that, the general point being made was that people tend to pick on this item alone because they automatically think that being a taxpayer gives them the moral highground and it doesn't. Handing it back wouldn't make a person an idiot if they were sticking by a principle and showing they have morals, taking it despite their principle and still moaning about it would make someone an idiot.

dj jarvis

Dudess wrote: »

Working people get children's allowance so I don't get what the "Don't have kids if you can't afford them" stuff is about.

Well I don't understand why anyone would come out with that monumentally stupid line in any context, but there you go...

i agree 100% , some sh1te being posted here , and i would wager that all the people who are bitching about hard luck cases getting a hand out also got CA for them when they where children , did they give it back ? they did in their bollox - and did any of you go to college of the backs of my taxes ? why should i pay for you ? BECAUSE ITS GOOD FOR US ALL
and most are taking the education paid for by me and they leaving the country and not repaying the 80,000 per gob****e debt to the people
in that case you are also as bad as the dole and tax cheats

so i suggest people in glass house's should shut the f2uk up

a panel of experts and social commentators on newstalk today branded anyone who suggest that people should not have kids if they cant afford them as idiotic morons who muddy the gene pool- FFS do you people not think before you post??????

oxygen thieves the lot of ya

mloc

If you can't afford to have children, don't.

It's ridiculous to have a child and then expect everyone else to pay for its upbringing.

EDIT:

Contraception is available free for those on lower incomes.

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

If you can't afford to have children, don't.

It's ridiculous to have a child and then expect everyone else to pay for it's upbringing.

can i ask did your parents receive child benefit ? were they working ?
did you got to college ? did you receive grants or "free education" ?
did you or your parents receive mortgage interest relief payments ?
if you have a family do you get the child benefit payments ?

why should we as tax payers subsidize you for all of the above ?

( not picking on you - just making a point , people forget they get benefits all the time , we should call a spade a spade , if your " middle class " is cool but out of work then f you )

mloc

dj jarvis wrote: »

can i ask did your parents receive child benefit ? were they working ?
did you got to college ? did you receive grants or "free education" ?
did you or your pparents receive mortgage interest relief payments ?
if you have a family do you get the child benefit payments ?

why should we as tax payers subsidize you for all of the above ?

( not picking on you - just making a point , people forget they get benefits all the time , we should call a spade a spade , if your " middle class " is cool but out of work the f you )

I'm sorry, I can't see your argument through all the straw men.

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

I'm sorry, I can't see your argument through all the straw men.

what a cop out

answer the question - but you wont , becasue you have no answer

but please enlighten me on the straw man part - how am i twisting your words???
its a simple question , you made a statement and have been challenged so its a fair question

unless your really cant answer it

mloc

dj jarvis wrote: »

can i ask did your parents receive child benefit ? were they working ?
did you got to college ? did you receive grants or "free education" ?
did you or your parents receive mortgage interest relief payments ?
if you have a family do you get the child benefit payments ?

why should we as tax payers subsidize you for all of the above ?

( not picking on you - just making a point , people forget they get benefits all the time , we should call a spade a spade , if your " middle class " is cool but out of work then f you )

Right, if you insist.

My parents were working and received child benefit. I went to college, and I did not receive a grant. They did not receive mortgage relief (to my knowledge). I don't have a family.

No one should receive child benefit. I believe in college fees, and I think students should contribute.

By your logic, those that contribute the most should receive the least?

My name is URL

mloc wrote: »

If you can't afford to have children, don't.

It's ridiculous to have a child and then expect everyone else to pay for its upbringing.

'Everyone else' pays for many aspects of bringing up a child. Would you extend your logic to education? If you can't afford to pay the private fees to have your child schooled then don't expect 'everyone else' to pay for it. :rolleyes:

mloc

My name is URL wrote: »

'Everyone else' pays for many aspects of bringing up a child. Would you extend your logic to education? If you can't afford to pay the private fees to have your child schooled then don't expect 'everyone else' to pay for it. :rolleyes:

I think primary and secondary education should be free. Not third level.

Quality education is important for any child, from any background.

I do think, however, that those who cannot afford to raise a child should not have one. It is damaging to the child, to the parents and to society. Of course, having a child is a right, but it also comes with the responsibility of raising it and funding it yourself.

The fundamental issue is in Ireland, people see the taxpayer as a some sort of arm of the government. Instead of thinking every time an entitlement is claimed, "This is coming from someone else's pocket" there is a tendency in Ireland to think of getting one up on the government and claiming and demanding as much as they can. There is no social conscience.

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

Right, if you insist.

My parents were working and received child benefit. I went to college, and I did not receive a grant. They did not receive mortgage relief (to my knowledge). I don't have a family.

No one should receive child benefit. I believe in college fees, and I think students should contribute.

By your logic, those that contribute the most should receive the least?

as i thought - rubbish , you believe in college fees but you paid none !!
and it was ok for your parents to get CB but not others

i suggest you think before you post in future

tbh i got the answer from you i thought i was going to get

becasue your post was tripe so was your answer

mloc

dj jarvis wrote: »

as i thought - rubbish , you believe in college fees but you paid none !!
and it was ok for your parents to get CB but not others

i suggest you think before you post in future

tbh i got the answer from you i thought i was going to get

becasue your post was tripe so was your answer

The lack of logic in this post is astounding.

For a start, I'm not my parents and we have very different political views.

Secondly, laws change. You're saying that because of the laws in the past I'm not allowed have views on how they should change in the future?

saywhatyousee

seanmc1980 wrote: »

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! don't worry about my pension love thats the benfits of having a private pension! lol good laugh there!

Your pension probaly will be wiped out completely within the next two years you should watch Bloomberg channel 502 pension funds the world over are being decimated.

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

The lack of logic in this post is astounding.

For a start, I'm not my parents and we have very different political views.

Secondly, laws change. You're saying that because of the laws in the past I'm not allowed have views on how they should change in the future?

you do understand what logic is dont you ???

i know your not your parents - neither are the children of the people you want to stop getting CA

and im saying its some cheek to say other should not get what you got
and if your parents had a mortgage they got the relief

listen im guessing by your post that your young and have little life experience in these matters , you can be a right wing keyboard warrior all ya want but does not make your post anymore valid
- tell ya what come back to us when you have developed a moral frame work and a sense of charity for your fellow citizens

the reason we pay social insurance is for these very people , the clue is in the title

mloc

dj jarvis wrote: »

you do understand what logic is dont you ???

i know your not your parents - neither are the children of the people you want to stop getting CA

and im saying its some cheek to say other should not get what you got
and if your parents had a mortgage they got the relief

listen im guessing by your post that your young and have little life experience in these matters , you can be a right wing keyboard warrior all ya want but does not make your post anymore valid
- tell ya what come back to us when you have developed a moral frame work and a sense of charity for your fellow citizens

the reason we pay social insurance is for these very people , the clue is in the title

Answer this: are we are not allowed change the taxation system because people used to get more?

If you can leave out the ad hominem and straw men and stick to the issue at hand, it would save a lot of wasted bandwidth.

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

Answer this: are we are not allowed change the taxation system because people used to get more?

If you can leave out the ad hominem and straw men and stick to the issue at hand, it would save a lot of wasted bandwidth.

all i can hear is bla bla bla - me stick to the story , how about you answer some of the question i asked you in the last two posts????

the model you are proposing is the one they use in America , you cant afford it? , well tough on ya - and we see how that is working for the might usa, biggest prison population in the world , social deprivation for the lower classes leading to all kinds of trouble for the rest of the citizens

you see you cant deny that nations that give a sh1t about the citizens ( scandinavian , german dutch and french ) have less crime , better health and a all round better life for ALL in comparison to nations that dont care

why are the above nations ALL ranked in the top ten of oecd best nations listing - and the model you support are in the low 30's ?

so as i said in a previous post - you dont like the way it is here , either get the politicans to change the laws and stop CB or you leave here and go to what ever right wing utopian country you want

really i feel sorry for you

My name is URL

mloc wrote: »

I think primary and secondary education should be free. Not third level.

Quality education is important for any child, from any background.

I do think, however, that those who cannot afford to raise a child should not have one. It is damaging to the child, to the parents and to society. Of course, having a child is a right, but it also comes with the responsibility of raising it and funding it yourself.

This is mentioned again and again in this thread. How exactly is it determined that one can 'afford to raise' a child? What criteria is used to set the standard for that?

My point about education was that it too is a socially provided service, in many ways it's no different than the dole or Children's Allowance. I don't get how people can whine about one existing; and at the same time continue to take for granted the other.

I agree with your last paragraph fwiw.. about people abusing the system. And abuse should be cracked down on big time.. but not by begrudging everyone an entitlement to some varying degree of assistance.

Dudess

My name is URL wrote: »

This is mentioned again and again in this thread. How exactly is it determined that one can 'afford to raise' a child?

What it translates as is: "I am selfish and greedy and I don't like anyone who is less fortunate than me receiving a helping hand, because they're getting something and I'm not".

Not talking about the scroungers (IF they're as commonplace as people say they are, which I personally doubt) but people who genuinely never had much of a chance. We're not all born on an equal footing, and while some people might say they should take responsibility for themselves and get a job, get an education (just by magic) it's very easy to say that from the position of being able to do so.
Sure, some people come from nothing and do very well for themselves, but they usually have family support. What about those who have neither family support nor education nor are employable? "Get a job" - yeah whatever. Like people who say that would give a junkie or a person with virtually no education a job.

It's very worrying that so many people think that way - even suspicious of St Vincent De Paul etc. It's Tea Party kinda sh1t... :-/

Communism is unworkable, but I'd sure as hell prefer it in theory to the "Let them eat cake" kinda thinking on this thread...

Plus, circumstances change - that's why it's not always possible to be one hundred per cent certain that you will be financially secure enough to raise your child(ren) comfortably. E.g. breaking up with your partner, losing your job... but I shouldn't have to list those things really - they're very basic, obvious things that the "If you can't afford children, don't have them" geniuses are more than well aware of.

mloc

dj jarvis wrote: »

all i can hear is bla bla bla - me stick to the story , how about you answer some of the question i asked you in the last two posts????

the model you are proposing is the one they use in America , you cant afford it? , well tough on ya - and we see how that is working for the might usa, biggest prison population in the world , social deprivation for the lower classes leading to all kinds of trouble for the rest of the citizens

you see you cant deny that nations that give a sh1t about the citizens ( scandinavian , german dutch and french ) have less crime , better health and a all round better life for ALL in comparison to nations that dont care

why are the above nations ALL ranked in the top ten of oecd best nations listing - and the model you support are in the low 30's ?

so as i said in a previous post - you dont like the way it is here , either get the politicans to change the laws and stop CB or you leave here and go to what ever right wing utopian country you want

really i feel sorry for you

You still didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it in case you might have missed it:

Do you believe that because entitlements were received in the past, they must be received in the future?

mloc

Dudess wrote: »

t's Tea Party kinda sh1t... :-/

I'm a libertarian; I support the original ideas of the tea party such a limited government, low taxation and reduction in entitlements.

I don't support the social conservatism that has permeated the Tea Party.

Dudess

mloc wrote: »

I'm a libertarian; I support the original ideas of the tea party such a limited government, low taxation and reduction in entitlements.

It marginalises people who are stuck in the poverty trap and can't get out of there. That is obviously just going to lead to more societal problems.

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

You still didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it in case you might have missed it:

Do you believe that because entitlements were received in the past, they must be received in the future?

no i dont - but does not change the fact that you are asking for something to be taken away from others that you and your family got ,

why are you and your kin so special ?
it should be changed to reflect the need of the recipient and the means of the recipient to pay their own way - simple

so how does that fit in with your privileged ideal of a democratic republic ?
you were the person that said " dont have kids if you cant afford them"
so please break down how you would work that great idea?

for example lets say your parents were working when they had you , then both lost their jobs , does that mean they should not get any help becasue they cant afford you ???/ do you understand how stupid that statement makes you look???

do you suggest we " humanly " dispose of children that parents cant afford ??
you really really just don't get it do you , so i propose you start a political party who's social welfare policy does not include any help for people who " cant afford kids " - and while we are at it college fees or dole

lets see how far you get - back to the dark ages with ya son - you have some growing up 2 do