Child benifit for those on over €100,000 may be taxed?

lightspeed

I read on the RTE news app that theyare considering taxing the child benefit for those earning over€100,000. Good God, why do we even have to dancearound the idea?
Why cant we abolish It 100% for those on that kind of money? The country is still spending more thanwe take and our welfare system is still based on artificially createdrates from borrowed money that never should have been borrowed to begin with.

Its a god damn disgrace that childbenefit exists for such wealthy people who dont need it.
I hate every bit of the corruption,excuses and hypocrisy of this country. Some say we need to tax the rich and others say we need to cut welfare.
What happens when those on welfare are the rich?
Then your In Ireland so bend over.

chin_grin

Space bar on your phone fecked?

CodyJarrett

In before the accusations of safety pin vandalism on condoms.

buck65

Think of the children Joe.

Tombi!

Just calm down, it's a "may be taxed". There's still a good chance it won't be.

juan.kerr

I'd abolish it completely if we plan to make savings. 100k combined income makes you rich? That's a laugh.

jam_mac_jam

Should be much lower than 100k should people on 50k be getting it? I don't think so

AckwelFoley

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

lightspeed

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

What other side of the debate, they earn more so they pay more. It not hard to understand but such corrupt charitable donation is hard to understand

juan.kerr

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Lets tax it and include ALL social welfare entitlements as taxable income including rent allowance and medical cards.

FGR

If anything there should be a ceiling on welfare in general meaning that when all benefits are totted up you shouldn't be on more than minimum wage.

As for those who are working - include it as taxable income.

jam_mac_jam

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Do they? I doubt the majority of people on over 100k are paye workers.So I doubt they are contributing their share.

EchoO

Did they say how much this is expected to save? Doesn't sound like it would be that much.

AckwelFoley

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Do they? I doubt the majority of people on over 100k are paye workers.So I doubt they are contributing their share.

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

juan.kerr

EchoO wrote: »

Did they say how much this is expected to save? Doesn't sound like it would be that much.

I thought I read somewhere that the administration overhead would negate any cost savings. This applied for means testing and making taxable I think.

However having said that I don't really see how it is true for making it taxable.

jam_mac_jam

AckwelFoley wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Do they? I doubt the majority of people on over 100k are paye workers.So I doubt they are contributing their share.

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

did i say that?

AckwelFoley

[/Quote]did i say that?[/Quote]


Well by contributing I assume we are talking about tax, which is essentially funding the government coffers

On a site note..those that can least afford to have children tend statistically to be the the ones that have the most.

But sure..let the wealthy work and pay for others to have lItters of children they cant afford.

juan.kerr

We should be taxing people for having children they can't afford. Might help solve some of the countries social problems.

lightspeed

AckwelFoley wrote: »

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.

dvpower

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

did i say that?

Why do you doubt that people on >100k are paying their fair share?

A teacher married to a nurse, both half way up their payscale would be hitting 100k

jam_mac_jam

dvpower wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

did i say that?

Why do you doubt that people on >100k are paying their fair share?

A teacher married to a nurse, both half way up their payscale would be hitting 100k

I thought it was 100 each

juan.kerr

lightspeed wrote: »

Cant you get that, just get it.

Strange how you have seem to have accepted the political reality but only as it applies to the 'well off'.

jam_mac_jam

[Quote/]


Well by contributing I assume we are talking about tax, which is essentially funding the government coffers

On a site note..those that can least afford to have children tend statistically to be the the ones that have the most.

But sure..let the wealthy work and pay for others to have lItters of children they cant afford.[/QUOTE]

Well, its not just the wealthy though is it, its all of us. Including people on very low wages.

I don't think its fair that somebody on 20k who doesnt have kids is paying for somebody on 100k who does.

dvpower

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I thought it was 100 each

Combined I thought. Individualisation wouldn't make sense for this.

average_runner

lightspeed wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.

Better of reducing dole payments and that would save more.

AckwelFoley

.[/QUOTE]


No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.[/Quote]


I'm quite aware of the concept. But you fail to understand my point. It's once again the net contributor to the governments coffers that is getting asked to foot the bill.

The have never worked will never work brigade with 10 children doesn't worry because his money will be in the post office.

Yet if I earned 100k and worked hard to earn it including all tow sacrifices to get there..I wouldn't be entitled to child benefit.

My argument is merely devils advocate.

jam_mac_jam

dvpower wrote: »

Combined I thought. Individualisation wouldn't make sense for this.

Oh, I thought it was each. In that case my point is arse as most on 50K would pay similar percentage tax or higher to those on much lower wages.

average_runner

lightspeed wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.

If u keep taxing the successful people more it will become a place where there is no reward for working hard. Easier for sucessful person to walkout on the country and leave it in bigger mess. Solve the area where we spend most and thats the dole

jam_mac_jam

average_runner wrote: »

If u keep taxing the successful people more it will become a place where there is no reward for working hard. Easier for sucessful person to walkout on the country and leave it in bigger mess. Solve the area where we spend most and thats the dole

Why not do both? I dont think many people will be too worried about 100 quid a month. So although I agree you shouldnt tax people too high in this case I dont think it will have much of an effect.

AckwelFoley

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

average_runner wrote: »

If u keep taxing the successful people more it will become a place where there is no reward for working hard. Easier for sucessful person to walkout on the country and leave it in bigger mess. Solve the area where we spend most and thats the dole

Why not do both? I dont think many people will be too worried about 100 quid a month. So although I agree you shouldnt tax people too high in this case I dont think it will have much of an effect.

True..but neither will the higher property taxes they will pay or the higher increased income tax rate that WILL be brought in.

See the thing is..there's not too many earning 100k. But when they then reduce if to say 80 or 60 more will be affected to increase revenue and then there comes a point people just say **** it.. why bother.

Welease

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

[
Well, its not just the wealthy though is it, its all of us. Including people on very low wages.

I don't think its fair that somebody on 20k who doesnt have kids is paying for somebody on 100k who does.

That really is stretching the arguement a bit far

According to taxcalc.ie

A married person on €100K with 1 child will take home €63,483 (36,517 tax)
A married person on €20K with 0 children will take home €18,745 (1255 tax)

Person A (100K) earns 5 times what Person B (20K) earns, but pays 29.1 times the amount of tax...

For the OP, one of the reasons it hasnt been done is that the Revenue and Social Welfare systems are not linked, so SW can't means test based on what people earn at present.

dvpower

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Oh, I thought it was each. In that case my point is arse as most on 50K would pay similar percentage tax or higher to those on much lower wages.

Actually you might be right - they are talking about individualisation. It doesn't make sense at all.

MINISTER Joan Burton has described her idea for taxing child benefit for
parents earning more than €100,000 as a "personal preference".


The Minister for Social Protection is under increasing pressure to identify
the terms of the proposed child benefit tax for those on more than €100,000.


A suggestion that the tax would be based on the individual income of parents rather than their joint salaries has raised eyebrows.


If the idea was to go ahead it would see a family where one person earns
€100,000 paying tax, but a couple with a joint income of €198,000, split evenly, could escape the new tax.

http://www.herald.ie/news/ill-tax-child-benefit-on-100k-parents-says-burton-3176144.html

jam_mac_jam

Welease wrote: »

That really is stretching the arguement a bit far

According to taxcalc.ie

A married person on €100K with 1 child will take home €63,483 (36,517 tax)
A married person on €20K with 0 children will take home €18,745 (1255 tax)

Person A (100K) earns 5 times what Person B (20K) earns, but pays 29.1 times the amount of tax...

For the OP, one of the reasons it hasnt been done is that the Revenue and Social Welfare systems are not linked, so SW can't means test based on what people earn at present.

You are missing the point. Of course the person on 100k pays more than the person on 20K. I never argued that.

My point is that its not fair that those on low income are paying for the kids on those on high incomes when there is better things the money could be spent on.

Pay for your own kids, everyone.

lightspeed

The report published by the ERSI a few weeks ago that was suspiciously withdrawn showed that 44% of peope on welfare, particuarly those with children were better off with the welfare benifits than if they obtained employment.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/44-of-people-with-kids-may-be-better-off-on-dole.html



Then another recent report i read of on RTE states that the divide between rich and poor has grown ever wider.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0716/social-justice-ireland-says-rich-poor-gap-widens.html

"A policy briefing by Social Justice Ireland shows that the income of Ireland's poorest households fell by over 18% in a single year, while the income of the richest rose by 4%. The report suggests that the top 10% of the population receives almost 14 times more disposable income.

In comparison, the poorest are experiencing the worst income distribution over the past 30 years."



What do the two reports above prove?

They prove how corrupt and unsustainable the whole system is. Its not that the richers need to be taxed more which they do, its that the whole pyramid of corruption needs a complete overhaul to the point that its based on reality.



No one seems interested in whats right for the country or what is justified.

people on welfare don't seem to want any reform even if they know that they themselves cannot justify their arguments. Same goes for people on the higher wages. Its people like me in the middle who suffer the most with chronic back pain from getting bent over by those on the bottom exploiting an unsustainable system and those on top happy as long they get their undeserved bacon with the rest of the parasites.

How else could we have such overpaid politicians?

Its because the only way politicians can get way with such high wages and lavish lifestyles is because they kept increasing welfare payments to compensate. The only reason they could increase the payments so much was because of the so called boom. The boom was based on borrowed casino money. It never should have happened and therefore the environment for the corrupt politicians and bankers to create such a system should never have existed. Its clear it no longer those but yet both the lower and upper class still live in fantasy world.

Welease

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You are missing the point. Of course the person on 100k pays more than the person on 20K. I never argued that.

My point is that its not fair that those on low income are paying for the kids on those on high incomes when there is better things the money could be spent on.

Pay for your own kids, everyone.

They don't pay for higher income kids.. they pay less than 1,300 per year which covers public services (health, education, Garda, roads, council services etc.).. What they actually pay wouldnt cover jack of the services they utlise, and it wouldnt even cover the cost of 1 child benefit..

Define "fair" ... now there's a mega thread in itself

Fair will mean a million different things to a million different people..
Why should someone who got off their backside, got an education and worked damn hard to earn their 100K have to pay 29 times the tax (or 6 times the effective tax rate) than someone who put in a fraction of the effort? Whats "fair" about that?

(I don't necessarily disagree with you btw.. but it is pointless to debate using terms like "fair" and losely claming that someone on 20K pays the child benefit of higher earners.. they don't)

dotsman

I am of the same opinion as I have been for every other thread on this matter:

Simply get rid of it. It is an horrific concept - one void of any logic and sense. The state should support all children equally through the provision of better schools, crèches, playgrounds, youth-clubs, sporting facilities and child protection services etc rather than paying adults to have kids.

jam_mac_jam

dotsman wrote: »

I am of the same opinion as I have been for every other thread on this matter:

Simply get rid of it. It is an horrific concept - one void of any logic and sense. The state should support all children equally through the provision of better schools, crèches, playgrounds, youth-clubs, sporting facilities and child protection services etc rather than paying adults to have kids.

That would make a lot of sense, the money could be put to much more use then a small amount for everyone.

Chinasea

Why when we have the fattest population explosion in Europe are we encouraging people to have children.

dvpower

Chinasea wrote: »

Why when we have the fattest population explosion in Europe are we encouraging people to have children.

wut?

Welease

dotsman wrote: »

I am of the same opinion as I have been for every other thread on this matter:

Simply get rid of it. It is an horrific concept - one void of any logic and sense. The state should support all children equally through the provision of better schools, crèches, playgrounds, youth-clubs, sporting facilities and child protection services etc rather than paying adults to have kids.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That would make a lot of sense, the money could be put to much more use then a small amount for everyone.

How would that help those low income families linked above (including the large % of recently unemployed people) feed and clothe their children?

lightspeed

dvpower wrote: »

wut?

i assume he meant to say fastest. If I'm not mistaken Ireland has the highest rates of pregnancy in the EU.

If its really meant to go on children then why cant lower earners receive vouchers that can only be used on food, clothes and nappies and the like so they are unable to use them to buy fags and beer.
Those on high earning wages should receive nothing. They worked hard and crawled up the ladder. Good for them, it still does not justify state sponsored aid as if their children are on trocaire boxes when their parents are earning over €100,000 a year.

I've heard the argument that prices for food has come down so welfare payments should also come down. Its not that i dont agree with that point but it would seem that the same people who make that argument also support child benifit for those on over €100,000.:mad:

woodoo

I think it should be abolished and replaced with real things that are definitely spent on children. Like school meals, free books, free school uniforms for the poor and people who are struggling. Or even better spend the money on a subsidising child care to encourage people out to work (when there is some) and making life a little easier for those than are working.

Its better than giving the money to the parents to do what they like with. Some will use it wisely others will go on holidays, piss it up against the wall or smoke it.

Chuck Stone

Welease wrote: »

According to taxcalc.ie

A married person on €100K with 1 child will take home €63,483 (36,517 tax)
A married person on €20K with 0 children will take home €18,745 (1255 tax)

The married person on 20K will have little or nothing left at the end of the week so will have spent all their money and have paid a large proportion of it in VAT, Waste collection, TV licence, Road tolls, electricity, gas, petrol etc.

So at the end of the year, as a percentage of their income, the 20K PA will have been stripped as much if not more so than the 100K PA.

Boombastic

Chinasea wrote: »

Why when we have the fattest population explosion in Europe are we encouraging people to have children.

They're not fat, they're pregnant!

chubchub

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Welease wrote: »

That really is stretching the arguement a bit far

According to taxcalc.ie

A married person on €100K with 1 child will take home €63,483 (36,517 tax)
A married person on €20K with 0 children will take home €18,745 (1255 tax)

Person A (100K) earns 5 times what Person B (20K) earns, but pays 29.1 times the amount of tax...

For the OP, one of the reasons it hasnt been done is that the Revenue and Social Welfare systems are not linked, so SW can't means test based on what people earn at present.

You are missing the point. Of course the person on 100k pays more than the person on 20K. I never argued that.

My point is that its not fair that those on low income are paying for the kids on those on high incomes when there is better things the money could be spent on.

Pay for your own kids, everyone.[/Quote


Well i think You will find by the same argument that its not fair for someone on higher wages to cover cost of wages on someone with lower incomes. There is a lot better things to be done with wages for someone paying more as well.

Also one person on 100 grand a year would pay more tax than two people on 50 so in a way its unfair to one income higher families and may ultimately force middle class workers out of work, say example of nurse and teacher given when 120 plus a month is cut depending on amount of kids. It's not conducive to creche facilitates etc and this is not a situation the government want.

Steven81

The one thing i dont get is how in other years you got more family allowance with the more children you had, the first child is the one that costs the most the others get their hand downs.

From the above i am suggesting reducing the second and subsequent child allowance but leaving the first the same.

chubchub

dotsman wrote: »

I am of the same opinion as I have been for every other thread on this matter:

Simply get rid of it. It is an horrific concept - one void of any logic and sense. The state should support all children equally through the provision of better schools, crèches, playgrounds, youth-clubs, sporting facilities and child protection services etc rather than paying adults to have kids.

Wholeheartedly agree. This would do away with the concept of people being better on the dole and to stay at home and there would be less pressure on workers and government overall. This should have been done of courses in boom times when money was there to kick of this instead of upping welfare benefits

Welease

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The married person on 20K will have little or nothing left at the end of the week so will have spent all their money and have paid a large proportion of it in VAT, Waste collection, TV licence, Road tolls, electricity, gas, petrol etc.

So at the end of the year, as a percentage of their income, the 20K PA will have been stripped as much if not more so than the 100K PA.

You are correct, but the bold part is the key difference in this particular post.. % of income does not reflect the amounts paid, and in the previous example does not mean that it's correct to start stating a 20K income earner is subsidising a 100K earner for child benefit.. they are not.

(pedantically of course they could be as we don't track money through the system, but realistically the 100K earner gets some return from their own taxes via some state benefits available to them.. their tax paid would cover child benefit)..

The reality is the 100K earner is far more likely to be subsidising the 20K earner.

Caliden

How else can those people pay the bill for sky plus if they rid of child benefit?!

Use their salaries?! Are ya mad in the head

lightspeed

Most people who support cutting the dole and social welfare payments in general make the argument that welfare is not suppose to enable to people to have a decent standard of living but just so they can survive until they obtain employment and can support themselves.

For anybody who supports that argument, how can you support people earning over €100,000 and receiving child benifit.

To that i say make up your mind which side of the coin you are on. Do you believe that welfare should be given only to those who need it or to those who you feel worked really really hard and deserve it?

You cant have it both ways.

Welease

lightspeed wrote: »

Most people who support cutting the dole and social welfare payments in general make the argument that welfare is not suppose to enable to people to have a decent standard of living but just so they can survive until they obtain employment and can support themselves.

For anybody who supports that argument, how can you support people earning over €100,000 and receiving child benifit.

To that i say make up your mind which side of the coin you are on. Do you believe that welfare should be given only to those who need it or to those who you feel worked really really hard and deserve it?

You cant have it both ways.

Very loose terminology....

Define "need it"..

Does someone on welfare "need" sky tv? do they "need" alcohol? Do they need a computer and broadband when the libraries have it? The list can go on and on.. "Need it" doesnt mean a thing in this context..

Conversely, someone working hard to keep a business afloat, working 12+ hours per day, worked abroad for years to gain experience.. should someone who having worked 20-40 years (as noone starts on 100K or anywhere near it), and who built a business risking his house and finances on loans to employ 30 people, have to hand over more and more money so some folks who have never worked a day in their life can get a holiday and Dr Dre headphones?

It's easy to draw polar opposites (as I did) and build a case.. but the reality is always somewhere inbetween. It's not a coin, because there are far more than 2 sides.

The reality is that it is unknown in this country how much money would be saved by this change as the Revenue and SW systems have no interfacing ability. It could actually cost more money to make this change than to leave well alone (and it may also be a cheap-ish fix)..

Telling people to make a choice when none of the actual facts are available is somewhat rash..