Why does the 3rd and subsequent child get €37 more than the 1st and 2nd?

[Tommythecommy]

Why does the 3rd and subsequent child get €37 more than the 1st and 2nd children in Children's allowance payments?

One would have thought that an economy of scale would apply with increasing numbers, subject to the obvious fact the parents income is fixed.

The principal cost of children for working parents is Childcare. Some one with 6 kids are much more likely to be able to afford to be a home maker than some one with two kids?

Child Benefit-Information from CitizensInformation.ie

Why are children of multiple births paid additional grants past infancy?

(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.)

 

[adrem]

'cos after 2 you've run out of hands !!

 

[consultant]

The hand-me-downs are worn out and children's fashions change regularly.

 

[Tommythecommy]

By why more for the third and subsequent child?

By why more for the third and subsequent child?

Why not the same for all

Why the additional payment for multiple births

"The rate of child benefit paid for twins will be 1.5 times the normal monthly rate for each child. Where the multiple birth involves three or more children, the rate of benefit paid is double the monthly rate, provided at least three of the children remain qualified. "

 

[orbit]

There is no justification. It's a remnant of the big celtic tiger social welfare bonanza. There was money coming out of our ears and we couldn't give it away fast enough ...

 

[adamirer]

I'd actually prefer to see 3rd etc be LESS than 1st and 2nd. Discourage large families. Stop f****g.

Replacing yourselves (ie: 2) is a choice and instinct and I can accept the State supporting it no problem. After that its really (really) personal choice that you should be paying for yourself.

State should consider free vasectomies and steralisation, to save a fortune in the long term from those willing to do it, but struggling to afford it.

 

[Bow tie]

Well we actually need to encourage people to have more children (penions crisis etc.) but that's another days issue...

I would guess that the higher payment for 3rd and subsequent is something to do with standard of living for the family. Same way the thresholds for FIS get higher with each child.

On multiples, here's some reasons for you: apart from the obvious that you can't plan that event and be financially sensible!

You have more maternity leaves with single children- with the associated periods off work that you can take other children out of childcare so more scope for savings.

You will have had breaks in between each of the three and so the childcare costs ramps up over a much longer period rather than hitting all at once for the twins.

Childcare costs for two at the same time are shocking.

The cost of living is higher- no reusing equipment and you may need bigger transport (most five seat cars will not actually accomodate more than two child seats in the back and yes it's a must if you want to get to work).

I love how people love to attack Child Benefit. Hilarious when there are such bigger fish to fry.

 

[Tommythecommy]

We could learn form the Canadians who have a child tax credit circa $3000 pa

We could learn form the Canadians who have a child tax credit circa $3000 pa

They have a child allowance also about $100 per month

Better to encourage work with tax relief than to discourage it with child allowances

 

[Bow tie]

We could learn form the Canadians who have a child tax credit circa $3000 pa

They have a child allowance also about $100 per month

Better to encourage work with tax relief than to discourage it with child allowances

Yes, tax credits for kids or childcare would be eminantly sensible to encourage at least one partner to work.

 

[laidback]

child benefit stops when the 'child' is 18 (or leaves f/t education) even though that child is fully dependent on you and cannot apply in own right for a college grant. this is inconsistent. I had three dependent children at one stage but no child benefit - one on leaving cert year plus 2 in college with no part-time jobs.

The first child is the most expensive - set up costs, buggy etc - and may lead to the loss of one income. If benefit is to be different, then it should be more for the first.

certainly no justification for more for the third.

 

[clonycavanman]

Kevin Myers gives this some attention in the Independent on 17-9-10. 'Yet in Ireland, benefits actually go up as costs go down: and aside from infantilism, the only other explaination for this must be the kind witless, sentimental populist maundering that underlies so much of public policy.'
Kevin Myers: Potty child-benefit policy has deepened the financial crisis for the State and families alike - Kevin Myers, Columnists - Independent.ie
Example:
'By the time you get to the eighth child, your monthly income form the State [I think that's from child benefit alone] , tax-free , is €1,422.' PER MONTH

Elsewhere former Taoiseach John Bruton also makes worrying comments on how modern Ireland makes decisions eg ' the government deficit was a much more serious issue than the banking crisis, and blamed a lack of "democratic dissent" for the situation.
www.independent.ie/business/irish/extaoiseach-in-warning-on-deficit

Could he mean that the concensus in the Dail is a disservice to this country; so that hundreds, of foolish uncosted policies do not get any criticism?

 

[spotty]

This is, indeed, a most inegalitarian policy, doubtless pushed through by the hated PDs when Harney was Minister for Children.

In a republic, we should cherish all the children equally. As a member of the republican party, I firmly believe that we should remove this extra money that is going to these undeserving children and use it to fund the great national restoration project that is the new Anglo Irish Bank.

 

[clonycavanman]

... by the hated PDs when Harney was Minister for Children.

Trotsky in drag. (I'm on message!)

 

[olamp]

I'd actually prefer to see 3rd etc be LESS than 1st and 2nd. Discourage large families. Stop f****g.

Replacing yourselves (ie: 2) is a choice and instinct and I can accept the State supporting it no problem. After that its really (really) personal choice that you should be paying for yourself.

State should consider free vasectomies and steralisation, to save a fortune in the long term from those willing to do it, but struggling to afford it.

Children are the future of any country and a country`s greatest investment

 

[Aindriu]

i'd actually prefer to see 3rd etc be less than 1st and 2nd. Discourage large families. Stop f****g.

Replacing yourselves (ie: 2) is a choice and instinct and i can accept the state supporting it no problem. After that its really (really) personal choice that you should be paying for yourself.

State should consider free vasectomies and steralisation, to save a fortune in the long term from those willing to do it, but struggling to afford it.

+1000

 

[dotski_w_]

child benefit stops when the 'child' is 18 (or leaves f/t education) even though that child is fully dependent on you and cannot apply in own right for a college grant. this is inconsistent. I had three dependent children at one stage but no child benefit - one on leaving cert year plus 2 in college with no part-time jobs.

The first child is the most expensive - set up costs, buggy etc - and may lead to the loss of one income. If benefit is to be different, then it should be more for the first.

certainly no justification for more for the third.

Actually it's the 2nd or 3rd child that generally forces the mother to give up work. A friend of mine has 4 kids, one school age, and 3 younger, including twins who I think are about 12 months. Reading this thread you'd think that they are really well off because of the Child Benefit, but his wife has had to give up work for 5 years, as childcare costs would be about twice what she would bring home in salary (and there's no amount of tax credits could change that).

So, having a young family (as they would) they have a 2006 mortgage on a family home in Dublin, and having had 15% salary cut for him and 100% salary cut for her, they are having to run a much larger car (they no longer fit in their old car), they can't afford a proper holiday (visiting the in-laws instead), they have higher total costs per week ... need I go on?

Even with the CB, their weekly expenditure is greater than their income, and they are eating into their savings. He says they were financially comfortable before the twins came along, but now they're really stretched, and finding money for activities for the eldest child is really difficult.

Still, I'm sure things were much worse for you.

And Tommythecommy. I'd say he's a very active parent in real life, and understands these issues better than most of us.....

 

[dotski_w_]

I'd actually prefer to see 3rd etc be LESS than 1st and 2nd. Discourage large families. Stop f****g.

those kids are need to pay our pensions, you idiot! Low replacement rates (the last 4 years here notwithstanding) is one of the biggest problems facing Europe today.

Replacing yourselves (ie: 2) is a choice and instinct and I can accept the State supporting it no problem. After that its really (really) personal choice that you should be paying for yourself.

State should consider free vasectomies and steralisation, to save a fortune in the long term from those willing to do it, but struggling to afford it.

well, there's some on this site who possible should be paid to avail of it - before they breed if possible.....

 

[Vega1447]

Tragically, those most likely to have large or very large families are the long term / generationally unemployed.

These people, again tragically, will not raise children who will contribute to society and for certain their children will not "pay our pensions".

The extreme case are (for the third time) tragically traveler families that have large numbers of children that drop out of education early and marry young.

If you think that they will work to pay your pension, dream
on...

those kids are need to pay our pensions, you idiot! Low replacement rates (the last 4 years here notwithstanding) is one of the biggest problems facing Europe today.


well, there's some on this site who possible should be paid to avail of it - before they breed if possible.....

 

[spidermom]

Tragically, those most likely to have large or very large families are the long term / generationally unemployed.

These people, again tragically, will not raise children who will contribute to society and for certain their children will not "pay our pensions".

The extreme case are (for the third time) tragically traveler families that have large numbers of children that drop out of education early and marry young.

If you think that they will work to pay your pension, dream
on...

Yeah...like Miriam O'Callaghan...Brenda Power...and me of course...
Generalisations are never good!!

 

[dotski_w_]

Tragically, those most likely to have large or very large families are the long term / generationally unemployed.

These people, again tragically, will not raise children who will contribute to society and for certain their children will not "pay our pensions".

he and his wife are university graduates. CB isn't means-tested. Most of Europe is very concerned about families like this not having enough children - even if you had a passing knowledge of policy in this area you'd know that.

The extreme case are (for the third time) tragically traveler families that have large numbers of children that drop out of education early and marry young.

If you think that they will work to pay your pension, dream
on...

ehh.... and what percentage of children do you think travellers make up (probably 50% in your imagination!)