Children's Allowance

eyescreamcone

I think Children's Allowance should be means tested and abolished for fourth and subsequent children.

There are families collecting more than 1000 per month regardless of their income, just because they have large families. This to me is absolutely crazy!!!

Maybe there is a case for helping existing large families who grew up with this system, but we need to draw a line at this stage and tell people that if you want to have a big family - you will have to look after them yourself.

I think there was some family on the Late Late recently with 11 children and collecting around 1800 children's allowance per month.
This to me is just taking the piss.
Is there any logical justification for this???

SEPT 23 1989

These children will pay your pension when you retire

dark crystal

I honestly have no idea why this payment is not means tested. There should be an income cut-off point, definitely.

biko

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I think there was some family on the Late Late recently with 11 children and collecting around 1800 children's allowance per month.
This to me is just taking the piss.
Is there any logical justification for this???

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

jimmurt

biko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

Yeah it does, but why should we pay for it. If the family can't afford it, stop having kids.

SunnyDub1

jimmurt wrote: »

Yeah it does, but why should we pay for it. If the family can't afford it, stop having kids.

Maybe they can afford to have that many kids. But I think it's fair to say of a person is offered money by the state they will take it, Regardless of what kind of money the earn.

rainbowdash

I think they should reduce the allowance for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th kids etc.

Say €160 for the first then €20 each less for each subsequent child.

This is on the basis that 1 car will bring 3 kids to school for the same cost of having 1 kid in it, if they are in bunk beds then 2 or more can share a room that costs the same to build, heat and light as for 1 kid, clothes, schoolbooks, bikes etc. can be passed down from child to child etc. etc.

seamus

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Is there any logical justification for this???

If we stop breeding, the economy collapses.

In reality, as I've said before it should be linked to tax credits. You get tax credits for every child after the second one, meaning that those on higher salaries are encouraged to have more kids and those on lower salaries are encouraged to avoid having more (because they get little or no benefit) unless they can afford it.

davet82

lets just start castrating people

thebigbiffo

I've never taken a f'ucking cent in welfare or any other allowance and have paid huge amounts of tax for the last 12 years...i'm raising two kids to become the next generation of taxpayers.

take the only bit i get back away from me and i'll treat you to some kneecap readjustment.

davet82

thebigbiffo wrote: »

take the only bit i get back away from me

pffft... me, me, me, me, me, me, thats all i ever hear

jimmurt

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

Maybe they can afford to have that many kids. But I think it's fair to say of a person is offered money by the state they will take it, Regardless of what kind of money the earn.

I 100% agree with you there. That is why I think it's up to the state to come up with an alternative. I don't blmae the families.

In some cases it's taking from the poor (some tax payers) and giving to the rich (some families).

jimmurt

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I've never taken a f'ucking cent in welfare or any other allowance and have paid huge amounts of tax for the last 12 years...i'm raising two kids to become the next generation of taxpayers.

take the only bit i get back away from me and i'll treat you to some kneecap readjustment.

OP mentioned means testing not take it away from everyone.

BTW your second sentence completely contradicts the first part of your first sentence.

davet82

jimmurt wrote: »

BTW your second sentence completely contradicts the first part of your first sentence.

i think we got what he ment in all fairness, leave the nit pickin for lice infected scalps please

frag420

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

Not the most popular idea but I bet it would work. Although cost of staples in some estates will go through the roof!!

Sappa

In the Uk if one earner or both incomes are over 48k sterling the childrens allowance is stopped.
It's a joke here,there's a family near by with 7 kids,not married and claiming everything while the husband works every day given as a tradie.
It should be 140 for the first,120 second,100 3rd and 50 quid for every other child,that or means test it but this spineless govt are too fearful of doing that or touching the oap's.

muppetkiller

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

These children will pay your pension when you retire

I think you'll find the children the OP's referring to will never contribute taxes in the future either

Apologies if I'm reading you incorrectly OP.

Omar82

biko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

So am I- that's why I won't be having 11.

As much as I would love my own football team of kids, I don't plan on having any until I can afford them.

I don't expect others to pay for them. I think the whole CA should be periodically abolished, or at a minimum, as the opening post suggests, it should be means tested.
I'd also cap it at 2/3 kids, after that if you want them, be prepared to pay for them.

davet82

Omar82 wrote: »

I'd also cap it at 2/3 kids, after that if you want them, be prepared to pay for them.

or drown them :cool:

John Doe1

Yeah rabble rabble one child policy

iguana

The thing I don't really understand about child benefit is why parents of multiples get so much more. If you have twins you get child benefit for 3 children. If you have triplets you get child benefit for 6 children. I understood why there was a 3 times in a life 'bonus' for multiples, at birth, starting school and, I think, starting secondary. Having two or more children of the same age and having to buy two lots cots, school uniforms and books, instead of being able to hand down to your second and subsequent children can be a financial hardship on those occasions. But why, month on month, would the parents of twins have more expenses than the parents of children born one after the other?

davet82

iguana wrote: »

The thing I don't really understand about child benefit is why parents of multiples get so much more. If you have twins you get child benefit for 3 children. If you have triplets you get child benefit for 6 children.

Is this true?? Gettin the missus some IVF then, ching ching

Super-Rush

Well this is a refreshing thread subject.

I think everyone should be means tested before being allowed to post on boards.

davet82

Super-Rush wrote: »

I think everyone should be means tested before being allowed to post on boards.

i fcukin knew there would be a tax on boards!

jaja321

frag420 wrote: »

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

Not the most popular idea but I bet it would work. Although cost of staples in some estates will go through the roof!!

Charming.

frag420

cheers......:p

Abi

Omar82 wrote: »

I don't expect others to pay for them. I think the whole CA should be periodically abolished, or at a minimum

That would cause ructions to say the least, it would need to be phased out. Some people depend on CA, it's the ones that don't need to be filtered out by means testing. Drastic measures like the above would cause an uproar.

I completely agree that it should be capped at two children.

eyescreamcone

14,736 euro per year for having 8 children.
This is before any other benefits are given out.

Why are we offering financial incentives to have a large family.
Most people would struggle to cater for more than a few kids so why is the state encouraging these large families???

Also, giving this money to wealthy persons is so wasteful it's not even funny.

Step 1 Tax all handouts (if you are under the threshold for paying tax - you pay none)
Step 2 Abolish new payments for fourth and subsequent children.

Step 3 Reduce these payments and number of people who qualify (especially those who earn more than 50,000 euro per year.

This would be far easier to implement than by asking people to volunteer payments (as per the household charge).

Also, it would start sending people a message that they need to fend for themselves and not be looking to the state for handouts!!!

iguana

davet82 wrote: »

Is this true?? Gettin the missus some IVF then, ching ching

It still is at the moment. They got rid of the 3 times a lifetime grants but still have the larger monthly payments. I guess on the other hand working mothers lose out on maternity leave if they have twins as maternity for a single birth and a multiple birth are the same length. Tbh, I think maternity should probably be a bit longer for multiples, with more time off given before the birth as twin + pregnancies are generally a lot more uncomfortable than a regular pregnancy.

Hobbes

eyescreamcone wrote: »

There are families collecting more than 1000 per month regardless of their income, just because they have large families. This to me is absolutely crazy!!!

"In 2012 Child Benefit is €140 per month for each of the first two children. From 1 Jaunary 2012 the rate for the third child is €148 and for the 4th and each subsequent child is €160."

So making over 1000 per month would require at least 7 children.

I take it you don't have children, because a 1,000 a month isn't worth the hassle of 7 kids.

seamus

iguana wrote: »

But why, month on month, would the parents of twins have more expenses than the parents of children born one after the other?

Maybe try looking after two babies at the same time and see if it's two or three times the effort of looking after one

It's probably something to do with how much more of a restriction twins/triplets places on the parents everyday life above a single child. You will have more difficulty finding babysitters to take your children, you have to use the buggy to go everywhere rather than a sling, and so on and so forth, which can end up directly affecting that parent's ability to earn, above the normal restrictions created by a single child.

Just as an example, a neighbour has twins born nearly a year ago and he works for himself in an on-call capacity. He is quite literally twice as wrecked as a normal parent (the guy looks like **** every time I see him ), but still has to get up and out in the van whenever the phone rings. So I can see how having twins would make it more likely for him to ignore a call and stay in bed than just having the one child. So not only are his costs doubled, his earnings are also affected.

eyescreamcone

Hobbes wrote: »

"In 2012 Child Benefit is €140 per month for each of the first two children. From 1 Jaunary 2012 the rate for the third child is €148 and for the 4th and each subsequent child is €160."

So making over 1000 per month would require at least 7 children.

I take it you don't have children, because a 1,000 a month isn't worth the hassle of 7 kids.

Don't have that many kids so!

davet82

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Don't have that many kids so!

eh i think that was the point

Abi

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Hobbes wrote: »

"In 2012 Child Benefit is €140 per month for each of the first two children. From 1 Jaunary 2012 the rate for the third child is €148 and for the 4th and each subsequent child is €160."

So making over 1000 per month would require at least 7 children.

I take it you don't have children, because a 1,000 a month isn't worth the hassle of 7 kids.

Don't have that many kids so!

You see, the more sensible sorts see the sense of that, and don't have that many kids. However we need to remove the incentive for the clowns that don't do their maths, and those having children in order to get social housing.

davet82

Abi wrote: »

You see, the more sensible sorts see the sense of that, and don't have that many kids. However we need to remove the incentive for the clowns that don't do their maths, and those having children in order to get social housing.

one child will get you social housing, no?

smash

For some people complaining about CA, you need to realise that during the recession in the 80's, your parents might have needed it to help raise you. The same as a lot of people these days need it to help raise their children too.

Abi

davet82 wrote: »

Abi wrote: »

You see, the more sensible sorts see the sense of that, and don't have that many kids. However we need to remove the incentive for the clowns that don't do their maths, and those having children in order to get social housing.

one child will get you social housing, no?

Yes, it would. Probably a two bedroom apartment. But then there's the mentality of those that have subsequent children in order to get a 3 bedroomed house or more. Yet another incentive to have more children. Fcuking stupid if you ask me.

Kolido

biko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that raising 11 kids costs a ****ing fortune.

Contraception is cheaper.

frag420 wrote: »

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

Not the most popular idea but I bet it would work. Although cost of staples in some estates will go through the roof!!

I'll take that job..The Fanny Stapler...sounds like a secure post

sunflower27

Can't see it being changed, to be honest. Any government that starts cutting back on people's allowances (certainly if it is a substantial cut) can kiss the next term goodbye.

That it isn't means tested is absolutely ludicrous.

smash

frag420 wrote: »

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

And what about the father's then? did they have no part in it?

davet82

smash wrote: »

And what about the father's then? did they have no part in it?

i blame the fcukin storks tbh

Chuck Stone

CA should be taxable income.

CA should only be paid on the first 2 children.

Council houses should be no bigger than three bed rooms.

Nodin

Bizarre that its not means tested. Makes far more sense than the mooted changes to single parent allowance coming in a year or two.

girl2

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I think Children's Allowance should be means tested and abolished for fourth and subsequent children.

There are families collecting more than 1000 per month regardless of their income, just because they have large families. This to me is absolutely crazy!!!

Maybe there is a case for helping existing large families who grew up with this system, but we need to draw a line at this stage and tell people that if you want to have a big family - you will have to look after them yourself.

I think there was some family on the Late Late recently with 11 children and collecting around 1800 children's allowance per month.
This to me is just taking the piss.
Is there any logical justification for this???

I totally agree.

Plus.....could someone tell me the reasoning behind this - I know of 2 instances where the family is living in the North, the wife is working in the north and getting child benefit up here, and because the husband works in the south, they are claiming the benefits down there. Now, Im talking about 2 families, who DO NOT need this money. One of them the husband is self employed and there are 5 children in the house (so the amount he claims is probably plenty) and the wife works part time and in the other case, the husband works full time on approx €100,000 per year and the wife works full time up here on £40,000. How the hell can this be right?

It maddens me. A lot. And I would love to take them finance people and by the scruff of the neck and teach them a thing or two about running a country's finances.

Nuff said

smash

girl2 wrote: »

I know of 2 instances where the family is living in the North, the wife is working in the north and getting child benefit up here, and because the husband works in the south, they are claiming the benefits down there.

It's fraud. Report them.

girl2

smash wrote: »

It's fraud. Report them.

I couldnt do that to be honest.

Plus the both of them claim that its totally legit, especially the one where him and her both work full time because apparently he looked into the whole thing (I work with the 2 wives, that's how I know that it's definitely true).

iguana

seamus wrote: »

Maybe try looking after two babies at the same time and see if it's two or three times the effort of looking after one

It's probably something to do with how much more of a restriction twins/triplets places on the parents everyday life above a single child. You will have more difficulty finding babysitters to take your children, you have to use the buggy to go everywhere rather than a sling, and so on and so forth, which can end up directly affecting that parent's ability to earn, above the normal restrictions created by a single child.

Just as an example, a neighbour has twins born nearly a year ago and he works for himself in an on-call capacity. He is quite literally twice as wrecked as a normal parent (the guy looks like **** every time I see him ), but still has to get up and out in the van whenever the phone rings. So I can see how having twins would make it more likely for him to ignore a call and stay in bed than just having the one child. So not only are his costs doubled, his earnings are also affected.

I'm not comparing having twins to just one child I said parents of children born after one after another. Is having twins really that different to any parent of more than one child? What about the parents of 'irish twins?' Or how exhausting it is for a mother of a toddler while pregnant with a second baby? Or introducing a newborn to an older sibling who gets clinging or acts up as their whole world has just been rocked on it's head? Or being pregnant with a third child while introducing a nervous 5 year old to schooling and dealing with a toddler at home? I can't honestly see any of those scenarios being any less exhausting than having twins, tbh.

Plazaman

frag420 wrote: »

I think after you have your second child yer fanny should be stapled shut unless you can prove you can afford to rear them!!!

Sweet zombie jesus, anal birth? Is there such a thing?

It would take an army of workers, similar to the census workers, to means test every house that has kids, then a further army to process these tests. Since there is a moratorium on hiring new public/civil service workers, even if it was the will of the people and the Government, one simply cannot just means test everyone...... well without massive costs anyway.

Hobbes

Abi wrote: »

However we need to remove the incentive for the clowns that don't do their maths, and those having children in order to get social housing.

There is no incentive for more children. Children are expensive! You don't get that 1,000 to magically spend on booze and fags. Nappies alone for the first couple of years is going to be drain on you.

Also this money isn't been given out of thin air. Anyone who works is basically getting their taxes back.

If you are not working and moaning about children allowance, how about not signing on as well.

Hobbes

girl2 wrote: »

I couldnt do that to be honest.

Then you are part of the problem.

Plus the both of them claim that its totally legit,

I am not sure about that. Around age 7 the social will send out a mail asking you to confirm your address and the school in Ireland your child is enrolled in so they can double check. We got one a few weeks back.

Assuming they filled that out correctly then they need not worry.

hondasam

It should be means tested and the same amount given for each child and it should be stopped once they finish primary school or say 13yrs.