Noel Whelan on child benefit

[michael1965]

Noel Whelan argues in today's Irish Times that child benefit is the most socially regressive payment in our system and should not be given to "wealthy" households.

As a taxpayer with three children, I have a slight problem with Noel's viewpoint. It can be summarised very simply. Child benefit is worth over €500 per month to me, and is simply too large a sum, from the family budget, to just allow to disappear because of the way Noel characterises the people who receive child benefit and what they do with it.

Noel makes the common mistake of equating wealth with income. However, families with high incomes often (and in these times, increasingly) have high outgoings (eg. mortgages), and often are not wealthy, especially in the present situation of declining property values.

The second mistake is to divide the recipients of child benefit into four groups, starting with the most deserving, who queue outside the post office each week (to spend it immediately), and the least deserving, who leave it unclaimed for three months, and apparently don't need it because of that.

This is wrong because Noel can't possibly know how families organise their finances. For example, it may make sense to leave child benefit accumulate, in order to pay large bills, such as car or house insurance premiums. It seems strange in any case to single out people, whose tendency is to save money rather than spend it immediately anyway.

Child benefit is certainly a generous payment, but it is justified because society has an interest in the raising of happy, well-adjusted children, who will eventually be net-contributors themselves (like their parents).

[Kev408]

Noel Whelan argues in today's Irish Times that child benefit is the most socially regressive payment in our system and should not be given to "wealthy" households.

As a taxpayer with three children, I have a slight problem with Noel's viewpoint. It can be summarised very simply. Child benefit is worth over €500 per month to me, and is simply too large a sum, from the family budget, to just allow to disappear because of the way Noel characterises the people who receive child benefit and what they do with it.

Noel makes the common mistake of equating wealth with income. However, families with high incomes often (and in these times, increasingly) have high outgoings (eg. mortgages), and often are not wealthy, especially in the present situation of declining property values.

The second mistake is to divide the recipients of child benefit into four groups, starting with the most deserving, who queue outside the post office each week (to spend it immediately), and the least deserving, who leave it unclaimed for three months, and apparently don't need it because of that.

This is wrong because Noel can't possibly know how families organise their finances. For example, it may make sense to leave child benefit accumulate, in order to pay large bills, such as car or house insurance premiums. It seems strange in any case to single out people, whose tendency is to save money rather than spend it immediately anyway.

Child benefit is certainly a generous payment, but it is justified because society has an interest in the raising of happy, well-adjusted children, who will eventually be net-contributors themselves (like their parents).

Bud, if you only have a slight problem you really don't need it. Whisht now.

[Wigmore]

My youngest is 22 today. I think the whole scam should abolished immediately.

[michael1965]

Bud, if you only have a slight problem you really don't need it. Whisht now.

That's just a turn of phrase. I have a big f**king problem with it. Ok ?

[Kev408]

That's just a turn of phrase. I have a big f**king problem with it. Ok ?

Thought you might, given that you're a sixties baby and your kids make you eligible. Maybe you should have said that. Strangely, it's now clarified.

[Ronanr]

Surely it would be far simpler for the government to increase the higher rate of tax for everybody liable (administration cost: almost zero) than trying to implement a tax clawback on child benefit that would presumably mean a new calculation for the Revenue Commissioners on the P60s of millions of taxpayers?

I am guessing that Noel Whelan is rich and childless.

[spidermom]

mam of 4 here and every penny(oops cent) is used.Could probably get by without it for sure but of course it would make things pretty tight.The early childcare allowance however(only one child qualifies) I think should be means tested so those most deserving of a help out could get it.Means I'd loose out on this probably but it never went anywhere close to the cost of any childcare.I would find it hard to manage without the benefit though.

[michael1965]

Thought you might, given that you're a sixties baby and your kids make you eligible. Maybe you should have said that. Strangely, it's now clarified.

Kev. If you read the post, you'd see I declared exactly how much we get from it. What else would there be to say ?

[kerrynorth]

The problem with taxing the child benefit is that it would require a whole new layer of administration and form filling that would eat into the saving for the exchequer. I would be happy if they just abolished the nonsenseical Early Childcare Supplement for the under 6's. Never has a payment conceived as one thing end up as something else entirely. Originally conceived as a payment to working parents towards the cost of childcare they ended up making it a universal payment and rendered absolutely pointless as a result. This payment is budgeted at €506million this year. I would be happy if this payment bit the bullet in the budget.

[Kev408]

Kev. If you read the post, you'd see I declared exactly how much we get from it. What else would there be to say ?

Calm down or you'll have a heart attack? I'm on your side, Michael. I know it's a major problem. I just found your initial post boring. I played on your alleged 'slight' problem to highlight the thread. 'Twas arrogant of me to think I could highlight the thread but there you go.