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

sheesh

I don't think people understand the senior civil servants that make stuff like this happen are the people that are going to be hurt by this

bet you it never happens

dotsman

Welease wrote: »

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

For a person who could afford to have children at the time, but now unable, they can rely on savings, all the other welfare payments the person is entitled to, Family income supplement, single parents allowance etc.

If they couldn't afford to have kids in the first place - then they shouldn't have.

Welease

dotsman wrote: »

For a person who could afford to have children at the time, but now unable, they can rely on savings, all the other welfare payments the person is entitled to, Family income supplement, single parents allowance etc.

If they couldn't afford to have kids in the first place - then they shouldn't have.

If thats the basis for benefits then why don't we apply that to all benefits?

(Devils Advocate) Why should I have to pay for people who can't find jobs, bought/rented a house they can't afford, can't be arsed to retrain or emigrate to find a job, want free medical cover, want free travel, want higher social welfare than the bulk of Europe, want their kids to do a Arts degree, while complaining that I get €140 a month back from the many tens of thousands of tax I paid per year. If they can't afford it, then they should have stayed at home with their Mum..

Boombastic

Children (read parents) don't seem to ever have to hear the word 'no' these days. Most of the time what the child wants the child gets because everyone else has one, so they 'need' it to.

steddyeddy

In my career I have theres the possibility that I will be on over one hundred thousand. Its a long way off but Ill get there and when I do I would be absolutly ashamed to collect child benifit that should and could go towards those who need it.

Yes the better off pay more taxes but things like child benifit should be used to help those who really need it. Im from one of the poorer sections of society and will be joining one of the richer sections. I have no problem paying large taxs to enable and fund the social mobility that allowed me to get here.

seamus

dotsman wrote: »

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.

Agreed. Even a "free pass" scenario where the children of parents on benefits are given access to things which they would otherwise have to pay for. A blind cash handout is exceptionally lazy and in most cases the kids who are in most need of support are the ones least likely to see a penny of that money spent on themselves.

It's illogical anyway. We tax people, then give them back some tax. Now they're talking about taxing that money again. More red tape and idiocy.

In reality, as I've always said on this topic, we should be incentivising higher eage earners to have more children, not penalising them. Lower wage earners and those on benefits should find it more difficult to have children, because they don't have the money for them. We shouldn't be making it easier for them to have more children.

In the long run this is better for the economy because in general the children of higher wage earners go on to earn higher wages. The children of lower wage earners go onto earn lower wages.

We're setting ourselves up for a big problem in thirty years' time if people collecting the dole are encouraged to have families of six, whereas those in lower and upper classes only have families of one or two out of economic necessity.

Give tax credits for having children and assistance to benefit recipients by way of free services, not free money. That way you get the "benefit" of having children when you start earning money to pay for them.

smash

steddyeddy wrote: »

In my career I have theres the possibility that I will be on over one hundred thousand. Its a long way off but Ill get there and when I do I would be absolutly ashamed to collect child benifit that should and could go towards those who need it.

Yes the better off pay more taxes but things like child benifit should be used to help those who really need it. Im from one of the poorer sections of society and will be joining one of the richer sections. I have no problem paying large taxs to enable and fund the social mobility that allowed me to get here.

100k does not make you rich. Far from it.

And if it's a long way off, by the time you his it, it's not going to be worth much really.

chainsawman

Even I owned the house without a mortage, I earned €25,000 a year with one child, I dont really need a children Allowance, because We have enough to live on. And I am a single parent.

IrishAm

dotsman wrote: »

If they couldn't afford to have kids in the first place - then they shouldn't have.

Europeans are not reproducing at a replacement level. We all need to have more kids. Otherwise, we shall cease to exist.

smash

dotsman wrote: »

For a person who could afford to have children at the time, but now unable, they can rely on savings,

May not have any or may have spent it by now.

dotsman wrote: »

all the other welfare payments the person is entitled to,.

Who says they get any other welfare payments?

dotsman wrote: »

Family income supplement,

may not be entitled to it.

dotsman wrote: »

single parents allowance etc.

May not be single.

Lando Griffin

Some sums here.
Family 2 adults 2 children under 4 both working and both in childcare.
Public transport not an option.
Both on 50,000 per year - 100000 total. ( Approx )
table.JPG

smash

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Some sums here.
table.JPG

You forgot birthdays and christmas.

Lando Griffin

smash wrote: »

You forgot birthdays and christmas.

Included in the Household equipment ( toys, fixtures & fittings & maintenance ) @ 400

smash

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Included in the Household equipment ( toys, fixtures & fittings & maintenance ) @ 400

400 a year for birthdays and Christmas as well as fixtures & fittings & maintenance? That's not half enough.

Lando Griffin

smash wrote: »

400 a year for birthdays and Christmas as well as fixtures & fittings & maintenance? That's not half enough.

It soon will have to be.

I also have not included a social life, holidays or activities for the family.