February 24, 2009 at 5:44 pm #3831nickysinglemumMember
i know its a very touchy subject but plese leave your opinion and your voteFebruary 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm #70343libby1Participant
I honestly don’t think it should be means tested
– if we were getting free education from 3 yrs up
free health care – medical / dental etc…
Yes than maybe……
How many people saves this money? For second and third level education…..
The Childrens allowance comes towards our hols …. i save €25 per child a month in the credit union for each of my children – just started this about 2 yrs ago…February 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm #70344AnonymousInactive
I dont think that it should be means tested, it is something that made only a slight dent in our monthly creche fees. Unfortunately i think with thecountry in the shit, i do think that we can say goodbye to it being granted as it, by next next it will be means tested or dramatically reduced 😥 😥February 24, 2009 at 7:21 pm #70347nickysinglemumMember
i think it should be it but only a small amount some people get more than others. cause it does help alot of people i think it was unfair to cut the ecs why cant they do something about the people who sit on the bums all day who have been on the dole for years and have no kids.February 24, 2009 at 9:05 pm #70349MUMMY5Member
I think it should be means tested but with very realistic limits so that most people will qualify for the full amount and those on really big incomes will be on a sliding scale.
But again, different people use children’s allowance differently. For some it is the mortgage money to keep a roof over the family, for some its the esb, gas bill money…..for some its holiday money, others its used for childcare, saved for childrens future education.
Some will argue that why should people on a big income not get children’s allowance as their children have no income…..true.
And just as true is that for people on a lower income the childrens allowance can be the little bit extra that keeps everything ticking along….and using or saving it solely for the children is just not an option.February 25, 2009 at 7:58 am #70352scole1Member
i’m in 2 minds about this one, yeah i think those like earning 2 million should no way be entitled to the children’s allowance think it’s a joke, but on the other hand everyone is entitled to the fair share and that means everyone…..
some don’t use it for what it’s intended for which is a shame, to be quite honest i do use mine for if need to pay bills, but mostly i buy ds clothes or a toy but have savings for him, in 4 seperate accounts so he’s actually got more in savings than i do which is a bummer but then on the other hand will be good for him to have whether it’s for college, secondary school or if for when he wants it when he’s older…….
but not everyone can use their children’s allowance for what it’s menat to be for they have to use for food, bills, etc….but what i don’t agree with is those who use it for getting drunk or shooting up with or spend it solely on themselves, and we all know the type, i think there’s a name for it.. yeah i know you got it for having kids but it’s to help raise them not splurge it on yourselves….
anyway that’s my rant over…..February 25, 2009 at 2:55 pm #70385DinomumMember
I agree with the previous comments re: means testing but with realistic limits, I mean if people like the heads of the banks, millionaire developers, bono etc are getting it then it does make a bit of a joke out of it. If the very wealthy didnt get it then maybye people on a lower income could be given a bit extra i think that would make it a fairer situation for all concerned. I try to save 100 of mine in a savings account but only since this yea, before that it was always used for bills etc !
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.