join a campaign to protect CB - check out www.childbenefit.info

D

dragonl

Registered User
Messages
18
I am middle income Public Sector worker, 4 children under 5 and got hammered (like everyone else) in the budget in April - disproportionately so, given the elimination in ECS from Jan 1st - 4k in this house.
But i will have to get over it.adjust like everyone else.
But I cant take a hit on CBenefit - be it means tested or taxed.
If you feel as I do, then join a campaign to protect CB - check out [broken link removed] for further info.

At least we can have our say.
 
Why can't you take a hit on Child benefit ?
Is it essential to the rearing of your children ?
Maybe this should have been considered before having 4 children ? Harsh I know, but there you go.
 
Have to say would agree with above pique - one thing I do think those with children should get is tax credits as opposed to state handouts...
 
One big problem we have in this country is that it is more attractive to be on social welfare than to take a low or even low to medium paid job. This is because there is little or no difference between social welfare income and income levels in these jobs. Means testing child benefit will tip the balance more in favour of not working. It is not good for society or the countries finances to have a large proportion of its potential workforce being paid to stay at home because it is not cost effective for them to take a job.

In spite of us now having 10% unemployment, visit your local convenience store, fast food outlet, cleaning/security company etc. etc. and you'll struggle to find an Irish worker. These employers still have to import foreign workers, including a large percentage of non-EU on work permits, to fill their vacancies. Madness.

For this reason, child benefit should not be means tested. In fact, there is an argument for changing it into a tax credit to encourage people to work. Afterall, if you are unemployed, you have no childcare costs.
 
Another group thinking they are entitelt to handouts from the goverment is complaining that their benefits are going to be means tested or taxed.

What a surprise.

Nobody did force you to get kids. If you deceide to have kids it’s your responsiblity to ensure that you can affort them, it’s a simple as that in my opinion. Use a condom or if that is against your "religion" than I’m afraid don’t expect me to finance your "religion".

The state is already providing more than enough benefits for your children paid by the general population and now you complain that when hard times are hitting us, that the state actualy wants the right to check if you should get handouts?

On you website you quote that it “serves an antipoverty objective” so how can you be against a means test? If you don’t need help because you don’t meet the guidelines, how can you expect that the state does not have a right to check if you need the money?

I’m all for recognising that children might be considered a public good (well beside those children in my estate) and that there should be some assistance for parents which are struggeling. But I’m all for means testing that and only giving it to people that are struggeling and not everybody.

This is not North Korea (despite sometimes I think we are not to far off), we don’t need to have the state to finance everything.

You should take personal responsiblity, if you deceide to get 4 children than you should take responsiblity for it and don’t expect the state to take up the bill.
 
Another group thinking they are entitelt to handouts from the goverment is complaining that their benefits are going to be means tested or taxed.
Click to expand...

I dont think that this is the issue. It isnt a case of whether or not people are entitled to handouts. The issue here is that the handouts are not distributed fairly or in a way that is beneficial to both the country and the recipients. Many people would have no issue with the government abolishing child benefit altogether if cuts need to be made - this is fair. What isnt fair is penalising people for working by using means testing to unevenly distribute the handout.
 
Use a condom or if that is against your "religion" than I’m afraid don’t expect me to finance your "religion".
Click to expand...

That's not even an argument so why bother bringing it up?

Nobody did force you to get kids. If you deceide to have kids it’s your responsiblity to ensure that you can affort them, it’s a simple as that in my opinion.
Click to expand...

i don't think it is quite that simple because if we all decided that we could not afford to raise kids then we would be in a bit of a pickle. There is personal responsibility of course and there is also collective responsibilty for the next generation and we should be a little more open minded. From the arguments put forward I see tax credits as a good idea, but cb shouldn't be ruled out entirely.
 
DublinTexas said:
Nobody did force you to get kids. If you deceide to have kids it’s your responsiblity to ensure that you can affort them, it’s a simple as that in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Charming DublinTexas, so only the wealthy should have kids? I'm glad you're not calling the shots! Agree with MrMan, there is merit in the tax credits idea but also think that child benefit has a place. I definitely don't agree with those that think it should be scrapped completely.
 

I also said that


I know that this is not popular because it might end in non workers having more money than workers for a while, but there has to be a balance. For example there could be a child benefit for a first year for non workers while working parents get paternity leave.

We need a paternity leave that makes sense, combined with a financial benefit for those who are having problems coping with the cost of having a child and rewarding those who work after paternity leave. A tax credit could be a good idea.

But I am against giving everyone money by the child as it does not take personal responsiblity into account. We can't just give money out to everybody just because they have a child.
 
The government has no business in the raising of kids. Why should someone who doesnt have kids be forced (via taxes) to pay for other people's kids?

The majority of people don't really need CB. What they do need is a reality check and stop spoiling your children with all the latest gizmos and gadgets.
 
UptheDeise said:
The government has no business in the raising of kids. Why should someone who doesnt have kids be forced (via taxes) to pay for other people's kids?
Click to expand...

As the song goes, the children are our future!! Seriously tho where would you stop with that line of argument? I don't want to reopen the whole stay at home parent vs two working parents argument again but there has to be some way of balancing the two being treated equally and we shouldn't simply try and steer both parents to employment and leave their kids in creches. I don't agree that the majority of people don't need CB, just my opinion tho.
 

It seems like a sound and reasonable arguement to me. The government should stay out of the family. They have no business there. People make choices for themselves and need to live with the consequences of those choices.

The problems as I see it is that people have adopted a life style that they could afford when the times were good. Now those times are over, we have to tighten the belt big time and bring down our public spending.

The government should also get rid of the rent allowance or rent supplement or whatever they call it as well.
 

I don't know where you life but if I look out of my windows in the afternoon I see loads of the little ankle-biters arround doing nothing but loitering and creating havoc.

If I look out of the windows at 2100 in the evening the same types are still out there loitering arround and up to no good and creating a noise level that is boyond acceptable.

Now explain to me why I have to pay parents which don't want to controll their offspring for ever money?

It's fair that for a period of time the goverment helps them getting started (just like they help you buying a house, setting up a company or starting to work), but once that is done it's the parents responsibility. Paternative leave for a year or so (or financial assistance during that time) but after that it's down to the parents. Maybe a tax credit (as I can get one on my bin, that's only fair). THis parallel is made in reference to the webpage of the OP where he argues the same, I'm not comparing ankle-biters to bins!

I made the decision not to have children, so can someone explain me why I have to pay other peoples children which are just a making my life harder by not respecting common good? My taxes (considerable amount each month) are already paying for a useless goverment, a health system that rivals that of Congo (even the health system of our comrades in Cuba is better), an education system (yeah right), criminal bus drivers and other useless stuff.

So if you take way the CB from people that don't need it than that is a right step.
 
Did you have children so you could get benefit or becuase you wanted them?

If you had children because you wanted them then the child benefit was just a bonus.
 

DublinTexas you sound like Victor Meldrew! I don't think whether you think they are little darlings or little crettins really comes into it does it?
 
dragonl said:
But I cant take a hit on CBenefit - be it means tested or taxed.
Click to expand...

This is key IMO.

If it is means tested and you don't meet the criteria, then according to current, reasonable, standards of living assessment, you probably can take the hit.
 
Pique318 said:
Maybe this should have been considered before having 4 children ? Harsh I know, but there you go.
Click to expand...

DublinTexas said:
You should take personal responsiblity, if you deceide to get 4 children than you should take responsiblity for it and don’t expect the state to take up the bill.
Click to expand...

Trolls
 
When it's eventually means tested / taxed the ones who don't need it ie the ones who spend it on cigarettes, go to cafés/pubs on the first Tuesday in the month will keep getting it and the better off who are more likely to spend it on their kids education will lose it imo.
 
If it's going to be taxed rather than means tested, can the Government consider it as income and use that to push tax payers into a higher income levy bracket?
 
TarfHead said:
Trolls
Click to expand...
At least we gave an opinion on the OP, tarfhead, and not posted a one word post, which is much more troll-like.

What's the matter, is it not OK to think that someone who has 4 kids and 'needs' state assistance to rear them is asking for more than they deserve ?

Assistance like this should be scrapped or at the very least, added as a tax credit. As someone said above, why pay stay-at-home parents a sum of money every month considering they have no childminder expenses ?
If you're working, paying taxes, contributing to society, they yeah, here's a little back in tax credit as a thank you for raising the next generation of tax payers who'll pay for your pension.
However, if you're a skanger who sits around all day, mooches off the govt, claims every other benefit under the sun, then tough, you ain't gettin it until you start to work (which is never because their equivalant salary would be miles out of their reach should anyone actually hire them).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register