Child Benefit why not Over 6's?

[Rivershannon]

If the new payment of €1000 has now been classified as a Child Benefit payment why is it not now payable to Children over 6?
The Social Welfare regulations concerning Child Benefit regulations define a 'qualified child' as one up to age 16 unless in full time education when it extends up to 18 years of age.
The Government , it appears , can make regulations discriminating against children over 6 but cant control the geographic jurisdiction of the payments.
Where is the constitutional promise to treat all the children of the nation equally?

[green]

Where is the constitutional promise to treat all the children of the nation equally?

I'm not sure if you're referring to the guarantee of equality in 40.1 of the Constitution that "All citizens sall, as human persons, be held equal before the law" (which the courts are notoriousy slow to enforce with regard to monetary and commercial rights, which I imagine would include the right to claim child benefit) or to the aspiration contained in the non-legally binding 1916 Proclamation to "cherish all the children of the nation equally" but either way I doubt it'll arise as a substantive issue in this case.

[Pidge]

Isn't the new payment to cover childcare costs? ie To encourage parents to stay in the workforce.

Children over the age of 6 don't need the same level of childcare as they're in school.

Am I missing the point here?

[Rivershannon]

Pidge
Maybe I am missing the point. As I understood it the payment was indeed introduced to cover childcare costs and to encourage parents to stay in the workforce.
In introducing it the Minister said 'This will be an additional new payment separate from the existing Child Benefit scheme'
However following the ri ra agus ruaile buala in the Dail it now appears that the payment has been reclassified as Child Benefit. It is on this basis that it is payable to non resident children of non nationals and it is on this basis that it should be payable to children over 6 as well.

[FutureTaoiseach]

If they are going to change it then that's not the only change they should make...

[Pidge]

If they are going to change it then that's not the only change they should make...

Shhh

[rockofcashel]

Isn't the new payment to cover childcare costs? ie To encourage parents to stay in the workforce.

Children over the age of 6 don't need the same level of childcare as they're in school.

Am I missing the point here?

No pidge, it is not simply to cover childcare costs, as it will also be paid to parents of children who take care of the children themselves (mothers/fathers in the home), and who therefore do not incur third party childcare costs.

I also wonder why you think a child over six may not need some level of childcare support because they are in school.

How many parents finish work at 3 pm every day to begin taking care of their children ? Or where do you think they go to after school until up to 7 o clock before their parents get home.

After school childcare costs in the region of at least €5 per hour, and can cost up to 250-300 per month (on top of infant childcare) for a couple of children.

So therefore, its seems yes, you were missing the point

[Pidge]

No pidge, it is not simply to cover childcare costs, as it will also be paid to parents of children who take care of the children themselves (mothers/fathers in the home), and who therefore do not incur third party childcare costs.

The government presented it as a way to cover third-party childcare costs. The fact that they don't discriminate against parents who don't use third-party childcare doesn't really change that.

I also wonder why you think a child over six may not need some level of childcare support because they are in school.

How many parents finish work at 3 pm every day to begin taking care of their children ? Or where do you think they go to after school until up to 7 o clock before their parents get home.

After school childcare costs in the region of at least €5 per hour, and can cost up to 250-300 per month (on top of infant childcare) for a couple of children.

Did you even read my post? I wrote "Children over the age of 6 don't need the same level of childcare as they're in school." Of course children need after-school care, especially if their parents are working.

But the cost of that care isn't (like I said) the same, since they spend much of the day in school.

[rockofcashel]

No pidge, it is not simply to cover childcare costs, as it will also be paid to parents of children who take care of the children themselves (mothers/fathers in the home), and who therefore do not incur third party childcare costs.

The government presented it as a way to cover third-party childcare costs. The fact that they don't discriminate against parents who don't use third-party childcare doesn't really change that.

Whatever way they presented it is immaterial. As I've said on another thread, FF spun this nicely in their favour in the presentation, and good luck to them on that.

What the debate centres around now, is that people have a difficulty with this being paid to parents of non-resident children who do not incur childcare costs (In Ireland), when the reality is, that it is also being paid to parents of resident children who do not incur childcare costs (in the strictest third party sense, they still incur actual childcare costs)

Now people should get real and get honest. Is this child benefit, in which case it should apply equally across the range of eligible children, or is it "childcare" benefit, which may take a little more thought on how best to distribute the benefit

I also wonder why you think a child over six may not need some level of childcare support because they are in school.

How many parents finish work at 3 pm every day to begin taking care of their children ? Or where do you think they go to after school until up to 7 o clock before their parents get home.

After school childcare costs in the region of at least €5 per hour, and can cost up to 250-300 per month (on top of infant childcare) for a couple of children.

[quote:33dwapv9]
Did you even read my post? I wrote "Children over the age of 6 don't need the same level of childcare as they're in school." Of course children need after-school care, especially if their parents are working.

But the cost of that care isn't (like I said) the same, since they spend much of the day in school.

[/quote:33dwapv9]

Yes Pidge, and I also asked why you didn't think they needed "some" help, acknowledging that the costs incurred are not the same as they would be if you were talkign about infants.

Its also nice to know that you regard schools as not just having an education function by the way, but also as a babysitting service.

[Pidge]

Now people should get real and get honest. Is this child benefit, in which case it should apply equally across the range of eligible children, or is it "childcare" benefit, which may take a little more thought on how best to distribute the benefit

Perhaps it's a recognition that caring for a child is more expensive when you have to do it full-time (as opposed to them being in school for some of the day).

Yes Pidge, and I also asked why you didn't think they needed "some" help, acknowledging that the costs incurred are not the same as they would be if you were talkign about infants.

But they are getting "some help" - it's the standard child benefit. The extra amount paid is a recognition that the cost of caring for a pre-school infant can be greater than caring for someone in school.

Its also nice to know that you regard schools as not just having an education function by the way, but also as a babysitting service.

What's your point? Should I deny that schools (as a byproduct of their educational role) also take children off their parents' hands?