# Child allowance for twins etc



## thedaras (24 Sep 2010)

I Think that parents of twins should be targeted for a reduction in this allowance.
A parent could have two kids within a very short period and just recieve the normal allowance.
I can understand triplets etc but twins??
It should at the very least be means tested.



> In addition, a special 'once-off' grant of €635 is paid on all multiple births. Further 'once-off' grants of €635 are paid when the children are 4 years of age and 12 years of age.



*I can understand this part ,due to starting school and secondary school,but most certainly not extra money every month!
*


> If you had a multiple birth you will be entitled to a special grant at the time of birth and again when the children are 4 and 12 years old. Child Benefit is paid at one and a half times the monthly rate for twins, and at double the monthly rate for triplets and other multiple births.


This is one area that should be cut back!


----------



## pixiebean22 (24 Sep 2010)

I don't understand why you think parents of multiple births shouldn't get more allowance?


----------



## fobs (24 Sep 2010)

pixiebean22 said:


> I don't understand why you think parents of multiple births shouldn't get more allowance?



Definately the third child should get less rather than more than the 1st and 2nd child as usually you would have all equpment etc...Why are they incentivising large families?


----------



## Mucker Man (24 Sep 2010)

How much will it save by cutting the allowance for twins?
I think the chance of having twins is 3% and we had about 75,000 births in Ireland last year, so that's about 2,200 set of twins. this would save our government around €4 million a year, not very much when we are borrowing €20bn a year.


----------



## thedaras (24 Sep 2010)

pixiebean22 said:


> I don't understand why you think parents of multiple births shouldn't get more allowance?



Why should they? (I do think extra money should be given to parents who have three and more,and that the extra money at ages 4 and 12 should be given also,but in the case of twins,why should the parents get approx 650e extra? If anything it should be just enough to cover the second child's books,uniform etc but not that amount! )

If a parent of twins has someone in their house for example to mind one child and then another child is born,it is never double the amount,nor is it double the amount for twins..

It doesn't make sense that someone who has two should get a lot more than someone who has two in quick succession.
So parents of twins are at a monetary advantage..why?
Whereas a parent who has two in quick succession who has the same outgoings has to manage on a lot less.

In the end they both end up spending the same amount of money!

There was talk of means testing CA,but apparently was too difficult to implement,but it wouldn't be for parents of twins if as another poster mentioned there are not that many of them.
4 million a poster said was the cost and said it wasn't much! Well there are many areas that 4 million could be used.

Means test it I say..


----------



## z107 (24 Sep 2010)

How about cutting TD's salarys?

How about not giving away all our money to support these faceless 'bondholders'?

I'd leave child allowance alone. There are far more worthy candidates for the chopping block.

€4,000,000? how about
€25,000,000,000 and counting...


----------



## micheller (24 Sep 2010)

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=140396&highlight=twins

This lovely what seems like begrudgery comes up all the time. Some practical reasons for the payment in the thread above.


----------



## micheller (24 Sep 2010)

Around 1, 100 twin/trip births in 2007.

[broken link removed]


----------



## thedaras (24 Sep 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> How about cutting TD's salarys?
> 
> How about not giving away all our money to support these faceless 'bondholders'?
> 
> ...



Em why don't you start a thread on those issues ?This is not about TDs salary's or bondholders,try stay on topic and eh,start a thread about what concerns you.

Logical conclusion to the above is,correct nothing as long as TDs salary's etc are the way they are.So yes,great idea,ignore all the silly things this government has done/given away until........... utopia..but in the meantime, I think that at the very least this extra income absolutely should be means tested.
Real Irish solution..


----------



## thedaras (24 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=140396&highlight=twins
> 
> This lovely what seems like begrudgery comes up all the time. Some practical reasons for the payment in the thread above.



Read through that thread and its mainly about getting maternity benefit,however Not every parent is working.
The car issue is just silly,anyone could have several kids 10 months apart,but I don't see a case for them getting extra to facilitate a bigger car.
And there are some who have 10/15 years between kids,based on the multiple birth reason for getting extra,then those parents should also get it,as they wont have the clothes /they wont have the school books /uniform etc.


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

A lot of it is about choice to make it simple. Twins are a happy random event which cannot be planned for- can you not see that fact? The same as Triplets really. 

Read the thread again. The maternity leaves have an impact on childcare costs. In one year my childcare alone for twins has cost about 16k. If you have two some months apart, most do not use childcare while on maternity leave for the second and you can financially plan this.

The transport issue- it's not 'silly' actually. Having loads of children 10 months apart is a choice, and most people these days plan these things around what they can afford.

You've been very dismissive of the reasons put forward so far which would make me disinclined to get into much further discussion. I don't understand why this is in let off steam anyway- why have you got such a bee in your bonnet about this? Why such annoyance and anger when as someone else pointed out it's a drop in the ocean compared to other issues? Why such annoyance at one small group compared to, for example, welfare fraud which I think is a subject more much deserving of venom.


----------



## orka (25 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> A lot of it is about choice to make it simple. Twins are a happy random event which cannot be planned for- ... The same as Triplets really. ...
> 
> most people these days plan these things around what they can afford.


Multiple births are no longer always random events - there has been a huge increase in multiple births since IVF has been available - surely this is a choice which comes with an accompanying risk of multiple birth whose affordability should be planned for?


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

Well I wouldn't know anything about IVF twins Orka, sorry.
I'd reckon that the % IVF multiples is an even smaller subgroup.
And you can't really ask how they were conceived on the Child benefit form, can you?


----------



## MandaC (25 Sep 2010)

I don't really think it is a huge issue and don't begrudge these people the bit of extra money.  

It is a bigger issue in my opinion that we are paying child benefit to children not even living in this country.  There would be more savings to be made there.  This may not be relevant to this thread but is something I do not agree with.


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

Would we get Child allowance for our kids if we lived in those same countries?
I understand that if we move within Europe we also get child allowance.


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> > A lot of it is about choice to make it simple.
> 
> 
> *A lot of what exactly is about choice?*
> ...



*Well start your own thread on it,or contribute to the existing ones on welfare fraud.
**Where is the "anger" where is the "venom". I resent your implication of both and ask you to withdraw those remarks!*

I have not seen any poster including myself ,showing anger or venom about this issue.We are here to post on a subject ,you have an opposing view,it is rather silly to go down the route of slagging off the poster,if you don't like what you read you are entitled to post yourself .!


----------



## Bazoo (25 Sep 2010)

orka said:


> Multiple births are no longer always random events - there has been a huge increase in multiple births since IVF has been available - *surely this is a choice *which comes with an accompanying risk of multiple birth whose affordability should be planned for?



An extremely costly last resort which couples in this country generally bear the cost of in its entirety would be a better description than a choice.


----------



## Bazoo (25 Sep 2010)

thedaras said:


> Would we get Child allowance for our kids if we lived in those same countries?
> I understand that if we move within Europe we also get child allowance.



And your point is...?


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

Bazoo said:


> And your point is...?


Would have thought the point was obvious,however I will make it clearer for you.
People from other countries get child allowance in Ireland,However,we also get child allowance when we are in their country..


----------



## orka (25 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> Well I wouldn't know anything about IVF twins Orka, sorry.


[broken link removed]


> The natural rate of multiple births is around 1%, however where a pregnancy results from assisted reproduction, the rate rises to 20-40%.


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

I'm not going to repeat myself in the arguements I've made already- I don't see the point in repeating myself. 

Your language like twin parents should be 'targeted' in the opening line and calling me 'silly' twice now, I take as agressive. Won't be withdrawing my opinion on that thanks. 

Just interested as to why it seems so personal to you. Actually you know what, scrap that, I'm not


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

So, you have a 1% chance of multiples randomly and 20-40% if using IVF?
So, yes the chances are higher IF you use IVF.
But of people with multiples, those having used IVF would be a tiny subgroup. I don't really see the relevance?

Anyway I've put the counter arguements out there. They are valid for parents of multiples but if others don't want to see/ understand, that's fair enough too...each to their own and all that.


----------



## Complainer (25 Sep 2010)

orka said:


> Multiple births are no longer always random events - there has been a huge increase in multiple births since IVF has been available - surely this is a choice which comes with an accompanying risk of multiple birth whose affordability should be planned for?



So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich? 

IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?
> 
> IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.



It's true, and fertility rates are generally in decline so this will become a more widespread issue one would think. It's sad that a lot of this thread seems to show such lack of empathy to others.


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

> micheller; Your language like twin parents should be 'targeted' in the opening line and calling me 'silly' twice now, I take as agressive. Won't be withdrawing my opinion on that thanks.micheller



_Where exactly did I call you silly twice? Get your facts right! And what would you suggest I say rather than targeted? Softly approached perhaps?

I in fact wrote " the idea is silly, and IT is rather silly;though for some reason you seem to think I am speaking about you personally!!_



> micheller; Just interested as to why it seems so personal to you. Actually you know what, scrap that, I'm not micheller;





_Well that's pretty obvious!!

People who are not interested in others views ,now that's a new one!
If someone thinks that when a poster suggests something is silly,is being aggressive yet will mention " venom ",  annoyance, anger in the same breath ,well the mind boggles!_


----------



## Protocol (25 Sep 2010)

Giving 3 payments for twins is too generous.

They do not incur 3x the cost of one child.

Giving a once-off extra payment of maybe 500-800 is fine, maybe again at another age.


We are too generous in this country, I'm sorry but we can't afford it.

Same goes for med cards to couple with one person over 70, even though they earn 1400 pw.  Madness.

Same goes for not cutting public service pension.


----------



## orka (25 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> So, you have a 1% chance of multiples randomly and 20-40% if using IVF?
> So, yes the chances are higher IF you use IVF.
> But of people with multiples, those having used IVF would be a tiny subgroup. I don't really see the relevance?


Not a tiny subgroup at all (so therefore very relevant). From a quick search for available data, I reckon 20% to 25% is a conservative estimate of the percentage of multiple births that are due to IVF treatment. 



Complainer said:


> So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?
> 
> IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.


Of course it's a choice - plenty of people choose not to go down the IVF route. And I really don't believe that couples choosing IVF even look at post-birth costs or benefits when deciding whether to go for another cycle - if they have the money now and the desire to try again, they will.


micheller said:


> It's sad that a lot of this thread seems to show such lack of empathy to others.


I have plenty for empathy for others, it's just that we, as a country, can't afford all the 'nice to have' benefits anymore - we are broke.


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

I think people are trying to hold on to what they have been given by an Zombie government who should never have allowed this situation to develop in the  first place.That is understandable.

People then ,obviously become dependent on the state to subsidise their lives,and a threat to that is without doubt worrying.
I think the moral of the story is that the "generosity/silly decisions etc of the government ,has now come back to haunt us!
People are trying to hold onto something which we cannot afford and is not justifiable,because they may need two cots,a double buggy and car seats.The extra childcare is understandable as paying for two in a crèche may be hard to take on at the time,however those who have kids a year apart still end up paying the same amount...


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

Calling someones arguements 'silly' is essentially calling them silly, that's not difficult to get. And now underlining your whole response- is again a little agressive. Calm down, please!

As I said, I've given my points and if you don't care to see the other side, that's your own perogative. Maybe they should remove Child Benefit and give tax credits like the UK instead?


----------



## Complainer (25 Sep 2010)

thedaras said:


> _Where exactly did I call you silly twice? Get your facts right! And what would you suggest I say rather than targeted? Softly approached perhaps?
> 
> I in fact wrote " the idea is silly, and IT is rather silly;though for some reason you seem to think I am speaking about you personally!!_


Just FYI, italics and underlines generally make text harder to read than plain text.


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

thedaras said:


> The extra childcare is understandable as paying for two in a crèche may be hard to take on at the time,however those who have kids a year apart still end up paying the same amount...



No they don't.

For example- have your first child, and if you're working say you go back to work for a few months when pregnant and are then off again for a second child and take both out of childcare therefor paying 0 creche fees for the second leave. Then the older child hits the ECCE scheme and school a full year earlier thus reducing costs.Versus..

Have twins, and take a double hit on childcare costs all at once after returning to work from one maternity leave, and you may not be able to afford another child in close succession. As in my example there could be 16k in the difference of twin creche costs for one year. 

Really, try to see the other side here. You may not agree but the arguements are quite clear!


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

orka said:


> I have plenty for empathy for others, it's just that we, as a country, can't afford all the 'nice to have' benefits anymore - we are broke.



Grand, fair enough.
Scrap the 'nice to have' CB and use tax credits instead- like others I pay plenty of tax and will be paying plenty more soon enough, a fact which I am resigned to.


----------



## micheller (25 Sep 2010)

orka said:


> Not a tiny subgroup at all (so therefore very relevant). From a quick search for available data, I reckon 20% to 25% is a conservative estimate of the percentage of multiple births that are due to IVF treatment.



Interested in how you arrived at this figure?


----------



## z107 (25 Sep 2010)

> Em why don't you start a thread on those issues ?This is not about TDs salary's or bondholders,try stay on topic and eh,start a thread about what concerns you.


Why should I when my post is extremely relevant to this thread? How can you not understand this?

If it wasn't for TDs Salaries and faceless bondholders etc, we wouldn't have to make any cuts.

Can you not see the connection there?


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> No they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Why should I when my post is extremely relevant to this thread? How can you not understand this?
> 
> If it wasn't for TDs Salaries and faceless bondholders etc, we wouldn't have to make any cuts.
> 
> Can you not see the connection there?



We would be paralysed and unable to do anything about ridiculous decisions the government made,if we just keep saying ,no matter what is wrong in this country we will just let it go as longs as TDs are getting their undeserved salaries...how can you not understand this?
There is no doubt about the fact that we shouldn't have to make cuts,but because of Tds and faceless bondholders,we have too.its not right its not fair,it shouldn't have to happen,but we know the reason why we have too and it still means cuts have to be made,knowing the reason doesn't make it any easier.
Its about where the cuts are going to be made that is relevant here.Its not fair but its a fact.


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> Just FYI, italics and underlines generally make text harder to read than plain text.



Agreed; I was just trying to figure a way of showing what was my post and what was another posters,think Ive sorted it now,cheers...


----------



## thedaras (25 Sep 2010)

micheller said:


> Calling someones arguements 'silly' is essentially calling them silly, that's not difficult to get. And now underlining your whole response- is again a little agressive. Calm down, please!
> 
> As I said, I've given my points and if you don't care to see the other side, that's your own perogative. Maybe they should remove Child Benefit and give tax credits like the UK instead?



So silly is aggressive but Using the words like "venom /Anger  isn't..
The underlining was done to separate the two posts,however I have sorted that one out.
I could always say that you don't care to see the other side,I have if you read the posts, said there are cases where an extra amount is necessary ,I have also said that at the age of 4 and 12 the grant should be given,however you seem to have glossed over that fact and are failing to recognise your own inability to do as you say...


----------



## thesimpsons (25 Sep 2010)

Mucker Man said:


> this would save our government around €4 million a year, not very much when we are borrowing €20bn a year.


 

but everything little helps.   4m saved here, another 4m saved from another scheme and suddenly you've now got 8m.  remember the old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves"... its still a true one.  

 I've got 3 kids in close age - I still need to buy 3 sets of uniforms, 3 sets of shoes, 3 sets of xxxx.  Its not begrugery that I don't extra allowances but I do think its just one of many payments that needs to be addressed.


----------



## z107 (25 Sep 2010)

Borrowing €20billion a year was quoted in this thread.



> but everything little helps. 4m saved here, another 4m saved from another scheme and suddenly you've now got 8m. remember the old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves"... its still a true one.


So, we just have to find 4999 similar things to also cut.


----------



## thedaras (26 Sep 2010)

thesimpsons said:


> but everything little helps.   4m saved here, another 4m saved from another scheme and suddenly you've now got 8m.  remember the old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves"... its still a true one.
> 
> I've got 3 kids in close age - I still need to buy 3 sets of uniforms, 3 sets of shoes, 3 sets of xxxx.  Its not begrugery that I don't extra allowances but I do think its just one of many payments that needs to be addressed.



Exactly... Couldn't agree with you more...


----------



## micheller (26 Sep 2010)

We would save a lot by implementing tax credits for working parents for childcare, and upping FIS where families/ parents who don't work require it to maintain a minimum standard of living. 

This wouldn't incur a penny in costs for additional means testing (only the existing FIS process) and scrap CB in it's current form altogether. 
I wonder how much that would save? A lot more than targetting one small group of CB beneficiaries I'd guess.


----------



## thesimpsons (26 Sep 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> So, we just have to find 4999 similar things to also cut.


 
another 5m euro in savings when the HSE recoups the overpayments they made to staff in error  .....


----------



## thedaras (26 Sep 2010)

thesimpsons; Tell us more??


----------



## z107 (26 Sep 2010)

> another 5m euro in savings when the HSE recoups the overpayments they made to staff in error .


Actually, the scary thing is that we may easily find 4999 more things....


----------



## micheller (26 Sep 2010)

And 100m on state bodies since 2008, when they were earmarked for closure. See todays ST.


----------



## thesimpsons (26 Sep 2010)

thedaras said:


> thesimpsons; Tell us more??


 

I've seen/heard it a few times in various newspapers and a radio programme and just remembered it this morning - its on front page of today's Sunday Times.  Apparently HSE has overpaid some current and former employees totalling 4.92m euro.  Some have repaid the money but others have ignored the correspondence from HSE requesting  repayments.   There are 10 payroll systems within the HSE and if an employee moves from one area to another using a different payroll system they are having problems trying to track individuals.  This is still ongoing.  

I know if I did something like that at work they'd be very quick to forward me some correspondence - a P45 !


----------

