Just 8 parents opt out of child benefit since 2012

Mongfinder General

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I believe it's taxed at source. Just like welfare.

I'd like to see the calculations for a two parent, 3 kid family. I've never even heard that welfare is taxed never mind seen calculations to that effect

ectoraige

That figure of eight may be misleading though. The department routinely write to parents seeking confirmation of address and school enrolment. If the form is not returned, the payment will be stopped. So this is another avenue for parents who decide they don't need it anymore to stop claiming it. It's probably more likely to happen this way to be honest as all you have to do is to do nothing, rather then taking the time writing a letter asking to stop the payment.

Avatar MIA

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I've never even heard that welfare is taxed never mind seen calculations to that effect

Some welfare is taxed, such as Job seekers benefit (Income tax), but effectively only gets taxed if you have other income or have a spouse that is working.

pwurple

On means testing, I've been through 4 means-tested medical card applications in recent months for the over 70's, and I cannot see for the life of me how that saves the state money. Means testing is a crock of administrative excrement.

A 70 year old woman, partially deaf, almost completely blind and diabetic... Had to be means tested for that f-ing card. i'd say it took about 15 letters and 30 phonecalls to sort it out, and all she was living on was a pension. But because she had a small shop years previously, and had been self employed, out came the requirements for self assessment tax forms etc. The staff working in that means testing department, and the infrastructure to go with it cost more than any saving. But some smug idiot is delighted that the 70 year old who saved for their retirement or to pass on as inheritance, instead of blowing it all on fags and drink will get their due come upance now for being prudant.

Flat rate benefits make much more sense to me. creating a point at which you lose child benefit creates poverty traps. And means testing it is financially daft.


Similar socialist crap was brought in with the restructure and taxation of maternity benefit during my last pregnancy, which meant i had no time to save for it. someone like me, who gets no 'company top up' and pays top rate PRSI now gets less maternity benefit than someone who is topped up, or who paid a lower prsi contribution. F that! I pay more tax so obviously my family have to live on less income when i've had a child, rather than someone who contributes nothing. How does that make any sense?

And I can't transfer that leave to my husband and drag my arse back to work straight after giving birth so I can earn something (i'm the primary earner). Talk about giving you a good hard kicking for working hard. How feckin dare I.


This 100k malarky is getting very tired. Two working parents earning 50k each, which in their late 30's or 40's isn't too outrageous a propostion are now the 'superrich'? Give me a break. They are the squeezed middle. They pay for everything, and get no thanks. And now you want to take the meager child benefit?

You know who makes the most from child benefit? People with 10 children. And there are very very few high earners with ten children.


And another thing. You know where that child benefit goes? To pay for the children's education, because you can be damn sure they won't qualify for any grants.