Eradicating child poverty a priority

[micheller]

This thread. What's being left out of IQEQ debate in this chat is ambition. Ambition can be a driving force in anyone. If either opportunity, wealth or IQEQ are not available, ambition can head in other directions.
If ambition, IQEQ are available, and the conditions are right, then opportunity can be opened up in a good direction.

 

[Howth Head]

Clearly it's pre-budget submission time - but articles like this make me think "child-poverty" is here to stay, as long as its measured in terms of comparisons with two-parent families.

It would make absolute sense for Government policy to encourage and support marriage, or at least the co-habitation of both parents of children. But there's zero chance of that. In fact there'd be outrage, with accusations of "victim blaming," and imposition of traditional family norms, patriarchal society etc. I can already hear the shrill voices from the social justice warriors in the media.

Child poverty: One-parent families are acting as shock absorbers for failed policies

One-parent families have the highest consistent poverty rate of all households, writes One Family CEO Karen Kiernan.

www.thejournal.ie

Most of Ireland’s poorest children live in one-parent families. We all share a moral responsibility to prevent poverty reaching unprecedented levels and ensure everybody in Ireland has a decent standard of living.

 

[misemoi]

least the co-habitation of both parents of children. But there's zero chance of that. In fact there'd be outrage, with accusations of "victim blaming," and imposition of traditional family norms, patriarchal society etc. I can already hear the shrill voices from the social justice warriors in the media.

There is usually an excellent reason why people are not living together. State encouragement to be in a couple will not solve other problems that separate couples or stop them becoming one in the first place.

 

[Purple]

There is usually an excellent reason why people are not living together.

Yea, the social welfare system.

Many of the one parent families aren't in fact one parent families. The are one parent for the purposes of access to welfare and social housing but both parents cohabit and both contribute to the raising of their children. For that reason I think that levels of relative income poverty are grossly overstated in this country.

Of the 14 men I work with who live in social housing 12 are theoretically not living with or contributing financially to the household in which their children live. In reality only 3 are not living with their children and all of them contribute financially.
A colleague is getting married later this year having lived with his partner for almost 20 years. They have 3 children. She got a 4 bedroom council house earlier this year, one they have been trying to get for years. That means that they can now get married.
He's a great Dad, volunteers with a local charity, is involved in the local football club and is an all-round good guy. He and his partner are incentivised to the tune of nearly three quarters of aa million Euro in housing and around $30,000 a year in Welfare payments to lie to the State. It's very hard to blame them.

 

[Protocol]

The proposal from the ESRI to increase the means-tested second-tier child payment from €50 per week per child to €220 per week per child will, in my opinion, act as a very strong incentive for parents to not work, and stay on welfare.

The current QCI rates per child are:

under 12 = €50 per week
Aged 12 and over = €62 per week.

Bear in mind that the universal Child Benefit has been fixed for years at €140 per month / €32.20 per week. It's value has fallen in real terms.

Whereas the targeted QCI has been increased over the past decade.


The proposal is to replace the QCI with a suggested payment of €222.60 per week per child.

This would reduce child poverty, yes.

But it makes non-working much more attractive.

Let's take the example of a lone parent with two children


Now: 244 + 50 + 50 = 344 per week
Proposal; 244 + 222.60 + 222.60 = 690 per week

This would double the welfare income.

I see see this acting as a strong pull factor for EU migrants.

 

[Annieindublin]

Ambition can indeed help lift a family out of poverty. But the saying « she can’t be it if she can’t see it » applies to all really.

If you don’t see role models, from wherever you find them, it’s hard to see that work and education lead anywhere. It applies a lot to girls but equally to many kids and adults who aren’t coached to see and grasp opportunities and invest in themselves for a few years,
Many families don’t see the benefit from extended education. Their doctors teachers etc are all from a different area and a different economic class.

I don’t know if the change in law in the Uk regarding education until 18 has had any impact. A few families I know were furious about it as their 16 year olds were now expected to be apprentices, with time off to study and attend courses, rather than just getting jobs. And these were not all families where they needed 16 year olds to be contributing to the household. The era when you started as a shop assistant and progressed to manager are gone, and it was never guaranteed, the graduates are joining further up the chain and progressing faster.

Enabling families to keep kids in school etc is key IMO.

 

[Howth Head]

Here we go again.

It's the same report over and over - with the only solution offered being more welfare increases.

Lone parent families at 'highest risk of poverty' - ESRI

Lone parent families, large families and households with a working-age disabled adult face the highest risks of persistent at risk of poverty and deprivation, according to the ESRI.

www.rte.ie

The ESRI has suggested the implementation of targeted policy measures to support lone parents, large families, and households with a person with disabilities is essential to address their high risk of poverty.

It added that "timely adjustments" to social welfare payments, including pensions, "are critical" to protect vulnerable groups from inflation and economic disruptions.

 

[Protocol]

Lone parents have higher rates of AROP and deprivation.

One way to reduce the amount of AROP and deprivation, therefore, is to reduce the number of lone parents.

One way to do this is to reform OPFP, which discourages partnerships.

I suggest abolishing OPFP and replacing it with other supports for families that do not discourage partnerships.

 

[Dr Strangelove]

Policy should not force miserable people to stay cohabiting for financial gain either. There is a balance to be struck here.

Failure of child benefit (a universal payment) to keep up with inflation has been a policy error I think.

 

[Purple]

Policy should not force miserable people to stay cohabiting for financial gain either. There is a balance to be struck here.

Failure of child benefit (a universal payment) to keep up with inflation has been a policy error I think.

The issue is that the current welfare system rewards the overstating of the number of lone parents and the corresponding understating of their household income.

I don't believe that the data the ERSI is using is anywhere near accurate. If you have a few kids and say you are a loan parent then you have access to housing supports and welfare payments that you don't get if your partners income and cohabiting status is declared. Therefore, obviously, the partners cohabiting status is not declared.

 

[ClubMan]

Harris says he's a 'signed-up believer' to introducing a second tier of child benefit

The estimated cost is around €772 million, according to the ESRI.

www.thejournal.ie

TÁNAISTE SIMON Harris has said he is a “signed-up believer” to introducing a second tier of child benefit, but added that it would be a multi-annual project and requires constructive work with government colleagues “to get there”.

His comments come as a new report by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) finds that a second tier of child benefit targeting low income households “could lift more than 50,000 children out of poverty”.

 

[Purple]

I’m in favour of targeted child benefit, or at least I’m not in favour of universal child benefit. It’s just the State taking money from me in taxes and then returning it less their administration expenses. I don’t like welfare going to people who don’t need it.
I find the ERSI increasingly ideologically driven in recent years, probably since John Fitzgerald retired. I’m also not a fan of relative poverty as a measure or the ERSI’s habit of asserting causation where there is only correlation; they state the link between relative poverty and educational outcomes as if relative poverty was the root cause whereas it’s much more complicated than that and suggesting causation where there is none smacks of ideologically based reasoning.

 

[Sarah Ryan]

I’m in favour of targeted child benefit, or at least I’m not in favour of universal child benefit. It’s just the State taking money from me in taxes and then returning it less their administration expenses. I don’t like welfare going to people who don’t need it.

Agreed, I would also like to see credit directed to people who contribute when the benefit for is paid to somebody else.
Example, father pays maintenance and part of the agreement is to cover all school costs. The BTSA is paid to the mother.
Makes no sense, the tax credit should be split between parents at best or refunded back to the person who supplies the receipts for the school costs paid.

 

[Annieindublin]

That sounds like a horrendous paper trail although I agree in principle. BTSA is already means tested, adding a need to process receipts as well would cost a fortune.

 

[ClubMan]

The BTSA is paid to the mother.
Makes no sense, the tax credit should be split

I presume you mean Back To School Clothing And Footwear Allowance? That's a social welfare payment, not a tax credit. It will be paid to the parent who is primary carer or sole custodian if applicable.

 

[Sarah Ryan]

It will be paid to the parent who is primary carer or sole custodian if applicable.

I understand, but that means welfare is being paid to benefit somebody, when somebody else is paying for it. The primary caregiver might not always be the person paying for one particular thing, in this instance all school fees and books if allocated out to somebody else - re the father.

I know it will never change, but just highlighting based on the point Purple made about welfare being paid to people who don't need it.
If a Dad is taking out a loan to pay for a €750 tablet but the mother is getting money towards it and not passing it on that's rather unfair.

 

[Purple]

It will be paid to the parent who is primary carer or sole custodian if applicable.

It's paid to the mother unless voluntarily surrendered by her otherwise directed by the Court. That doesn't mean she's the primary care giver.

 

[ClubMan]

It's paid to the mother unless voluntarily surrendered by her otherwise directed by the Court.

Not my experience. Once I was awarded sole custody I had no problems getting DSP to pay the CB to me. The judicial separation didn't specifically deal with this.

 

[ClubMan]

If a Dad is taking out a loan to pay for a €750 tablet but the mother is getting money towards it and not passing it on that's rather unfair.

Maybe their maintenance arrangements should make allowances for such payments?

 

[Purple]

Not my experience. Once I was awarded sole custody I had no problems getting DSP to pay the CB to me. The judicial separation didn't specifically deal with this.

Apologies, I mean that sole custody had to be awarded by the court.