Cut to child benifit for people earning over 100k to help fund childcare

1st child - full payment.

2nd child - 50% payment.

3rd child - no payment.




You know the stereotype of the single mother riding every cock in a mile radius, squeezing out loads of kids and using it to get a council house?

Well, unfortunately, despite being a stereotype, it's a real situation and I reckon that if there was no "free money" for having kids, and abortion was available, it would do no harm. Might curb back the amount of knack bags hanging around the place.

GreeBo

steddyeddy wrote: »

We know in the UK the lowest earners (bottom 10%) pay the highest proportion of their income on taxes relative to higher earners. I wonder if it's the same over in Ireland.

Its the ones not paying any tax that are screwing this 10% over, not the fact that the 1% at the other end arent paying 60%

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

You know the stereotype of the single mother riding every cock in a mile radius, squeezing out loads of kids and using it to get a council house?

Well, unfortunately, despite being a stereotype, it's a real situation.

Do you have her number - I know someone else has probably beat me to it this month, but i'll be ready come the 3rd July.

smileyj1987

Would it not be a good idea to scrap the payment altogther and use it to fund places for people who need childcare ? Seems to be the most logical thing to do.

Mongfinder General

It’s almost like there’s a war on families having kids.
In recent times we’ve seen marriage equality introduced which will lead to open homosexual relationships rather than gay guys and girls pretending to be straight, having a couple of kids but having gay sex on the side. Marriage equality allows them to be who they are which unfortunately means less kids.

Abortion legislation will impact birth rates.

And now the incentive to work harder is eroded if these proposed cuts are put in place.

What next? Sacrifice your first born to thr tax man?

Sebastian Dangerfield

I'd personally find it hard to vote FG again if this came in. Many on here will disagree, but a family income of €100k gross with a Dublin mortgage and childcare is not "wealthy".

I'm in this boat; our mortgage is €22k a year, two kids in crèche is €25k a year, out of our net salary. That's before you put a car on the road, purchase health insurance, etc. We've only just figured out how to cover the second child going into crèche, this would be a big hit. We've come to the conclusion that under current circumstances, we can't afford a third child. To now be told that we're too rich for one of the few direct benefits we receive is infuriating.

seamus

The problem here is that household with higher incomes likely have higher childcare costs than those on lower incomes.

That is, a two-income household earning 100k with two kids will have childcare costs of about €18k. That's 36k of their gross income.

A one-income household earning 50k with two kids will have childcare costs of zero.

So the benefit to the two-income household of going to work is about €580 a month into your hand. I dunno about you, but if someone told me I had to do a 40 hour week and barely see my kids from one end of week to the next, and I'll earn €134 a week, I'd tell you where to go.

This is why this is a bad move really - you're more likely to drive people (mostly women) out of the workforce and further reduce birth rates because it'll make no sense for two-income couples to have kids and both work.

It would make more sense to scrap child benefit and have something like a general means-tested child benefit supplement that's only available to two-income or single-parent families which reduces gradually as your income goes up.

Cordell

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Would it not be a good idea to scrap the payment altogther and use it to fund places for people who need childcare ? Seems to be the most logical thing to do.

You can use it as it is to fund the childcare of your choice by using the benefit to cover part of said childcare cost.

steddyeddy

Well I tell you what. I was asked to take on a new project in work. Intellectually challenging, an opportunity to gain mastery over new skills and a potential increase in wage. That was until I found out about this potential child benefit which supersedes all I've said previously. Now I actually feel punished despite having all the other opportunities and will now work less.

I mean does anyone actually think like this?

Ironically the same three posters who criticise people on social welfare for not having incentive to work thanked posts with this sentiment and/or posted similar waffle. Take a look at yourselves in the mirror lads.

Wheeliebin30

Hold on a minute??

http://www.thejournal.ie/child-benefit-means-testing-doherty-4053589-Jun2018/

“Social Protection Minister rules out means testing child benefit payment“

This is from an hour ago?????

Diemos

Another big issue is that there is a vast difference between a couple in Dublin who earn 100k combined vs a couple in Roscommon who earn 100k combined. There may be families with 6 figure incomes in the captial who are scraping to get by.

Sleepy

It should be scrapped entirely - give those of us working an equivalent tax credit for each child and increase the child dependent welfare rates by a commensurate amount: neutral effect on taxpayers and welfare recipients but should save the office in Letterkenny a huge amount of their headcount.

Never going to happen though, we can't make public servants redundant, especially in an unemployment blackspot like Donegal.

cbyrd

Allinall wrote:

The vast majority of unearned income is already taxed.

Agree,
Every product you buy or service you use is taxed, some twice, put a car on the road and see how much tax you pay, parts, vrt, motor tax, tax on insurance and petrol/diesel.

The trouble with this is it breaks the seal so to speak, where does it stop? As another poster pointed out in subsequent budgets will that ceiling be lowered, look at the plastic bag levy.

Child benefit was originally introduced to pay the mother as once married, women were not allowed to work and did not always receive part of a husbands wage. It was to stop child poverty.
I'm not sure if its a good idea to means test it.

Colonel Claptrap

How about a sliding scale with diminishing returns?

1 kid = full benefit
2 kids = full benefit
3 kids = 90% benefit

9 kids? You're taking the p1ss.

Why are we rewarding the long term unemployed by having more kids?

Wheeliebin30

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

How about a sliding scale with diminishing returns?

1 kid = full benefit
2 kids = full benefit
3 kids = 90% benefit

9 kids? You're taking the p1ss.

Why are we rewarding the long term unemployed by having more kids?

Because the country has turned left thanks to the media and all the do goodies who wants to give free houses to anyone who rocks up “homeless”

Wheeliebin30

The headline and op are wrong.

It’s been ruled out, time to change the title.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Punishing people for doing well. I never heard such whinging. People born into lower socio-economic groups suffer from poorer health, lower quality education, far higher stress and less chance succeed in life. Yet the people doing well are being punished with a higher tax. Despite the fact that VAT disproportionately hits those on lower incomes.

Tax is never going to be 100% fair. We can share the tax burden so it doesn't focus exclusively on the top half and doesn't increase the already huge financial burden on lower income families and individuals.

I have to end by saying that as someone from a really poor family, a passion for what I do and real ambition in life a higher tax band doesn't and didn't act as a disincentive to me working hard.

If I actually heard someone being put off education, hard work or being ambitious because of a higher tax band I'd say they were a waste of space anyway.

Tell me should the minimum wage act as a disincentive to hard work?

Yes being punished for doing well is exactly what it is. For every 1000 euro more I earn I get less than 500 into my hand, how can that not be seen as totally wrong. Its daylight robbery. You should be getting at least 70% of your gross wage into your hand regardless of your salary.

Earning more should have bigger rewards than losing over 50% of it in taxes. Instead those scratching their arse drinking cans in a house funded by the tax payer are the biggest winners when a middle income earner gets a pay rise.

sexmag

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

I'm in this boat; our mortgage is €22k a year, two kids in crèche is €25k a year, out of our net salary.

seamus wrote: »

That is, a two-income household earning 100k with two kids will have childcare costs of about €18k. That's 36k of their gross income.

Theres an 11k difference there between childcare costs for the both of you which is quite substantial

erica74

vandriver wrote: »

It's more kids we need.Who else is going to pay your state pension?

My suggestion is that people should have as many children as they can afford. Surely you're not suggesting that this culture of "sure someone else will foot the bill" should continue? It's hardly serving us well now, is it?
What suggestion do you have for society having to support people having children they can't afford?

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

Theres an 11k difference there between childcare costs for the both of you which is quite substantial

7k it looks like

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

sexmag wrote: »

Theres an 11k difference there between childcare costs for the both of you which is quite substantial

I pulled the figure out of my arse to be fair. We're in the fortunate position of having no childcare costs, so I just assumed €1,500/month x 12 months.

Diemos

vandriver wrote: »

It's more kids we need.Who else is going to pay your state pension?

Then who's blood pension am I paying for now?

somefeen

That study includes VAT in the estimation.
100 a week on VAT is going to be a greater percentage of your income if you earn 500 than if you earn 5000.

In a way what it actually says is that the amount people spend on goods and services doesn't increase directly with income.
Which is very interesting

CeilingFly

Tefral wrote: »

My missus is the manager of a shop and she was telling me theres a marked increase in spending on cigarettes and general ****e on childrens allowance days.

She has a friend that works in a betting office and its the same there.

So its not only higher incomes this is wasted on its most certainly not used correctly by all..

I used to think that way too - until I saw from two part-time staff of mine who have children (they work 9.30am-1pm) at how they struggle and do without little extras themselves for most of the month to ensure their children are looked after.

Then when the children's allowance comes in, it gives the opportunity for a little treat for themselves.

Remember. children's allowance is paid once a month - children have needs every day.

super_furry

A household in Dublin with an income of €100k is not wealthy household and this would just be more punishment of the average working family.

It’d be political suicide to try and “take food out the mouths of children” and that’s exactly how every other political party would frame it.

CeilingFly

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

How about a sliding scale with diminishing returns?

1 kid = full benefit
2 kids = full benefit
3 kids = 90% benefit

9 kids? You're taking the p1ss.

Why are we rewarding the long term unemployed by having more kids?

Unemployment is 5%, even unemployment in areas of poor education is under 20% now, so 9 kids = at least 7 future workers contributing to the economy and with people living longer and having less kids, we'll need those workers.

Hopefully we don't get like Germany with so few young people that whole villages are empty and they NEED about 1 million immigrants a year to fill jobs. A lot of these come from Poland, but even that source is drying up.

Always look long term

Diemos

CeilingFly wrote: »

Unemployment is 5%, even unemployment in areas of poor education is under 20% now, so 9 kids = at least 7 future workers contributing to the economy and with people living longer and having less kids, we'll need those workers.

It's not that simple.
Our best and brighest are the one we need having more children.

sexmag

bluewolf wrote: »

7k it looks like

Sebastian dangerfield said 2 kids in creche for 25k per year

Seamus said 2 kids at childcare cost of 18k which is 36k of their gross income

11k difference between 25k and 36k

but he has admitted he made it up

seamus wrote: »

I pulled the figure out of my arse to be fair. We're in the fortunate position of having no childcare costs, so I just assumed €1,500/month x 12 months.

Which is the point of the article to reduce the cost of childcare across the board

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

Sebastian dangerfield said 2 kids in creche for 25k per year

Seamus said 2 kids at childcare cost of 18k which is 36k of their gross income

11k difference between 25k and 36k

but he has admitted he made it up

25 was net 36 was gross
But yeah no matter

Sebastian Dangerfield

seamus wrote: »

I pulled the figure out of my arse to be fair. We're in the fortunate position of having no childcare costs, so I just assumed €1,500/month x 12 months.

Creche for my first child costs €1,083 per month. We're in the process of putting the second in at a 5% discount for her, which I make out as €25,342.20 in total.

My wife absolutely hates leaving them to go to work but she brings in around €3k net each month, and unfortunately things are too tight to forego the difference. Which is why being deemed above the threshold for the allowance would have been difficult to swallow.

Edit - actually the government subsidy of €80 per month per child brings it closer to €23.5k. But from other people I've spoken to, that subsidy will probably be absorbed by price increases within a few months; some crèches already have done it.

suicide_circus

Maybe just give the money to pay for an abortion. Save a fortune in the long run.

com1

Diemos wrote: »

Then who's blood pension am I paying for now?

The current batch. They don't save it up for you, you know (the state that is)

sexmag

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Creche for my first child costs €1,083 per month. We're in the process of putting the second in at a 5% discount for her, which I make out as €25,342.20 in total.

My wife absolutely hates leaving them to go to work but she brings in around €3k net each month, and unfortunately things are too tight to forego the difference. Which is why being deemed above the threshold for the allowance would have been difficult to swallow.

Edit - actually the government subsidy of €80 per month per child brings it closer to €23.5k. But from other people I've spoken to, that subsidy will probably be absorbed by price increases within a few months; some crèches already have done it.

but would you not be happy then with the suggestion of reducing childcare costs?

VinLieger

Enough of this populist class dividing crap if they want to help people with childcare make it tax deductable, its not rocket science

seamus

sexmag wrote: »

Which is the point of the article to reduce the cost of childcare across the board

Even if that means forcing people out of work though?

Couple on €100k, €50k each, paying €27,054 a year in income tax, USC, etc.

Their net income is €72,946. Take away €25k in childcare costs and your net is now 47,946.

If one spouse decides to quit and stay at home, their net income is now €41,198

So it "costs" them €6,800 a year, but one person gets to stay at home full time, which has millions of other benefits and cost savings. And if we say, for the sake of example, that their child benefit gets halved because they earn €100k, then that "cost" is only €5,120.

They will pay €8,802 in income tax - a loss of €18,252 to the exchequer.

Ironically under any means test regime their reduced income could also entitle them to higher child benefits.

This would be the problem with taxing the "wealthy" to make childcare cheaper for everyone else. Rather than increasing the funds available to the exchequer, you could reduce them as people decide the cost of working is too high.

RoboRat

€100k is not a lot of money for a family as already stated (if we're talking about pre-tax which generally is the case when the government are talking about incomes).

If you're paying a mortgage, pension (which being honest, is needed if you don't intend on working until the day you die), childcare, healthcare, food, esb/ gas, running a car (or 2 which may be required), clothing... you don't have a lot of change after that.

Sebastian Dangerfield

sexmag wrote: »

but would you not be happy then with the suggestion of reducing childcare costs?

If I had any faith that it would happen, then yes - absolutely. But I don't.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but would many people here class a couple earning 100k per year between them as 'wealthy'?

I wouldn't.

VinLieger

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but would many people here class a couple earning 100k per year between them as 'wealthy'?

I wouldn't.

Me either unless they somehow had no mortgage and didn't have any children.

James Brown

If it's means tested properly we won't have any tax payer money for child allowance going to [insert anecdote about the poor] or wasteful unnecessary items. It's about who needs it and who doesn't. Mind you I'm reminded of poor P. Flynn and all bills due to all his houses....
Welfare recipients pay tax, which is a waste of time, I mean it's just passing the money from Billy to Jack and back to Billy ffs.

I think after two kids there should be absolutely no children's allowance for a third.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but would many people here class a couple earning 100k per year between them as 'wealthy'?

I wouldn't.

It's no where near wealthy, its just a normal enough middle income family. Even without kids its mediocre money never mind if you have kids you would be having to very closely manage your money.

lawred2

araic88 wrote: »

I don't live in Dublin but two parents there earning 50k gross each wouldn't be uncommon I'd imagine? Yet most seem squeezed enough as it is.
I'd just hope it doesn't end up in private childcare becoming even *more* expensive.

Well owner's of our kids creche has upped prices year on year since introduction of ECCE.

Didn't see that coming...

Couldn't have that money sitting in customer's pockets now

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

Well owner's of our kids creche has upped prices year on year since introduction of ECCE.

Didn't see that coming...

Was recently looking for a creche and one of the owners was very forthcoming about the ecce, they did the maths and with the amount of work hours required to register, update and request the payment they generally either break even or lose money for any parent applying for it. IE the time it takes to apply and run them down to actually receive it is more costly than the money they eventually get back.

Also if you look into it the costs are the reason for the prices, creche owners arent raking it in like some would like to believe.

Blame the 5 different state institutions who oversee and continuously adjust and add on new ridiculous regulations in an attempt to keep outdoing each other and make themselves seem more relevant.

As I said above making it tax deductible is the best and simplest option

sbsquarepants

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but would many people here class a couple earning 100k per year between them as 'wealthy'?

I wouldn't.

They aren't going to drive his and hers Ferraris or berth their yacht in Monaco, but it's still 2 grand a week. It's hardly poor!

Yes they might have (probably do have) a big mortgage that's eating up a lot of their earnings, but they're buying an expensive asset which they then own. The money isn't just been burned in barrel, they are accruing "wealth" with it.

But day to day, absolutely things could well be tight.
But cash strapped is a better description than poor I think. The option is always there to sell the house and move down the sticks or something - if the asset wasn't there that wouldn't even be an option. That's an important difference between strapped for cash and actually poor.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

super_furry

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They aren't going to drive his and hers Ferraris or berth their yacht in Monaco, but it's still 2 grand a week. It's hardly poor!

.

Which goes down to €1280 a week after tax, and living in Dublin with a couple of kids, half of that is gone each week between mortgage/rent and child care.

I don’t think I’d have a massive problem with something like child benefit being means tested by you’d have to be looking at double the current mooted numbers – households earning €200k – or thereabouts.

CeilingFly

This is IBEC and SIPTU suggesting the cut.

Do they realise that a family with joint income of 100k pay about €25,000 a year in direct taxes! and its its the years they are raising their children that they are paying their mortgage, additional school costs, and all the other costs.

Maybe its because the head of siptu and ibec earn circa €150,000+++ a year salary package and it many years since they received any form of children;'s allowances.

Geuze

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Small bit of childrens allowance trivia -

A mate of mine just had twins.

You get paid for 3 kids if you have twins. Not sure why?

Twins = 3x CB payments

I suggest give them a grant at birth to cover extra costs instead.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/273_Child-Benefit.aspx

Multiple births
If you have twins, you get one and a half times the normal monthly rate for each child. For triplets and other multiple births, Child Benefit is paid at double the normal monthly rate for each child, provided at least three of the children remain qualified.

Geuze

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but would many people here class a couple earning 100k per year between them as 'wealthy'?

I wouldn't.

As average earnings for FT workers are 45k, then no, they are not wealthy.