And if you’ve a fiver in the bank and a farm you’re barely making money off?

Should people have to sell everything to put their kids into college?

(Basically there are two seperate questions about assets and savings and lumping them in together isn’t fair, divide and conquer)

I agree with Connor – it’s two seperate questions – saving yes – assets no!

Sorry that should be Conor not Connor!

By including savings the person who saves is being penalised while the person who is too lazy to work or squanders his income is being subsidised. Perhaps by compelling all students regardless of parents’ income to take out interest free loans to pay for their education and repay out of eventual salary would be fair. But why should a worker and saver be penalised?

I think everybody or nobody should be entitled to it. It’s unfair to expect people who worked hard to gather savings or assets all the while paying large quantities of tax on their income to pay for an education when at the other end of the scale there are some people who may have never made a contribution to society and are entitled to everything. I come from a small farm that is farmed part time. Whilst my parents also have a small business which is doing good at the moment, however that wasn’t always the case, it was a big struggle in our house for years, never been on a holiday, old cars etc.. But because they were self employed they wernt entitled to any assistance from the state for anything. They pay large amounts of tax employ 4 people, have lived frugally all their lives, but wouldn’t be entitled to a penny if the business went tits up in the morning. I’m employed full time outside of the business, paid over 18000 in tax last year, have to pay for my ongoing education myself at 4400 per year. But don’t worry citizens of Ireland, there are plenty more working middle class who contribute large portions of their income into the funds that support all your entitlements whilst having to pay through the nose for everything themselves. There is something badly wrong when you are penalized for working hard and contributing to society without any return and even worse when your made to feel ashamed for earning a reasonable income in this country.

A couple of hundred? I don;t think that is the issue.

@ Jane Jermyn:
you say -
it’s two seperate questions – saving yes – assets no!”

so it’s ok if i turn my savings into assets, – then i can get the grants ?

It costs us all a lot more when it’s “free”. Everybody should pay. Put in a grants/scholarship system for genuinely deserving cases.

And i think if self employed they work of your turnover as income not taking into account the expenses of running a business. If self employed best to only give your notice of assessment as shows your REAL income.

Exactly. Would you take a plumber’s tools into account or a carpenter’s saw? Land is a tool for farmers to make a living, not an asset to be sold.

The problems with assets is I know of numerous familys that have a insane amount of property but their kids got grants going to college, the parents could well afford it and clearly had creative accountants

Is it property or farm land? I’m not talking about property owners I’m talking about actual farmers, making a living from the land. Less land, less income, more likely to need grant aid, need to sell land to pay bills, less land, less income. There’s the problem.

Savings can be easily turned in to assets so it would have to consider both.

Yes Ciaran savings can be but land? I read yesterday the FG have already said that this is a done deal. Farm land not included but everything else is, I think.

Well why would farmers get special treatment? Consider a landlord with a number of rental properties on the go in addition to the family home. Should he be able to claim a grant to send his kids to college without these properties being assessed?

Michael Ryan, these people weren’t farmers by a long shot,

Landlords would have a fixed income from these properties yes? Certainly fixed for certain periods. I’m not saying they should have to sell houses to pay for therir kids going to college, that’d be stupid right? Because that would lower their income? But that’s effectively what they want farmers to do. I’ve no issue at all on farmers being means tested on therir income. Of course they should. But on income only. Just like a plumber, carpenter, PAYE worker.

Sorry Barry, I didn’t get that from the first comment.

Well they should have to sell one or remortgage one before looking for government assistance to send their kids to college. Likewise a PAYE worker might have a second home which in my opinion should be assessed. And these farmers you talk of have a habit of gifting their children land to their kids to build a home on. What consideration is given to loss of earnings when doing this?

Let’s just take a mechanic that works from home. He has his workshop out the back of his house with tools etc. He has a child ready for college. Should his income be used to determine whether his child gets a grant or should the fact he has a workshop and tools be taken into account also?

Who is talking about assessing a farmers tractor???

Farmers have set the precedent here. They regularly gift an acre to their kids for them to build a house on.

Ah lads are ye joking. How long do you think it would take to earn 70k on a acre. That was the average price of a site here so gifting it works out an awful lot cheaper than buying one. Do ye really expect a farmer to buy a site for their kid instead of just giving them 1 acre. Cop on, what would you do?

No I don’t expect a farmer to buy a site for there children as I don’t expect my father to buy one for me.

My point is farmers can’t claim that selling an acre would negatively effect their income while they regularly gift them to their children to build a house on. Why not gift their children an acre to build an education on?

Ciaran – you keep going on and on about this ‘gifting an acre’ of land.

My father is a farmer, yes I believe that in years to come if I wanted to build on our land he would give me some land to do that – but this will be when he is retired from farming – when his income does not depend on the land and when he is no longer responsible for running a farm and feeding, clothing and educating a family of 7.

This is completely different to if he had to sell off an acre of land every time myself and each of my siblings went to college. We struggled to get by as it was with the help of the grant for accommodation and part time jobs, there is no way my father would’ve been able to support the family without the grant and while simultaneously selling off all his land to fund us through college. He only has a small farm.

So your comment about ‘selling an acre for education’ is ridiculous. You don’t know what you’re talking about so please refrain from making that inane comment again – for what would be the fourth time on this thread.

If you’ve assets of €750,000 you only need about 1% of that value to put a child through college.
To sell or lease 1% of your assets is not unfair to ask.

My father has not gifted any of his children a site, either has any other farmers in my area. The only ones who have been given a site are those who now run the farm.

I don’t know if you you understand that not all agriculture land can be sold in sites, not all farmers have lots of road frontage and thus the land would have to be sold off as farm land, which sells for a lot less than a site for building a house so it is not one acre which must be sold but more, prob be around 10 to educate each child, so if you have four that is 40 acres which is a substantial amount off any farm. Which would reduce any income substantially.

Nessa I’m not sure you understand the term assess. I’m not calling for a black and white line that put all farmers in the same boat.

Cabk I’ve made the point several times as others have refused to address it. Depending on where the farm is one acre might have put all seven of you through college. If it was big enough that acre might not have been missed. Again that’s what the assessment would determine. Keep up.

No mater where you are living selling one acre of land as agricultural LAN would not put one child through college . It would be worth less than 10 thousand as agricultural land. I think you need to keep up with the idea that not all agricultural land can be sold as sites and this more land would need to be sold.

Definition of an Asset Noun
A useful or valuable thing, person, or quality: “quick reflexes were his chief asset”.
Property owned by a person or company, regarded as having value and available to meet debts, commitments, or legacies.

Maybe I’m mistaken but an asset is anything you own of value. So maybe the government should be asking to see everyone’s insurance policies to see if they have anything of value which could be sold including the family home, cars, jewellery, cloths etc

Why should it just be on farm land or business assets, why not on everything.

Sure we might as well go as far as asking people to supply recips for there total income to ensure that they are not wasting it on holidays etc, cause if they have anything of value it should be sold, or if they are going on holidays or to the pup they should stop that, so they can pay for there kids education.

Ciaran I am pointing out to you that just because a farmer may give their child a site at retirement when they are no longer earning an income from the land does not mean that these same farmers would have the ability to sell off their land to put children through college without this having a large and detrimental effect on their income.

I can understand how a hypothetical farmer with a massive and strategically located farm who would have the ability to sell off a portion of this to fund their child’s education but this has nothing to do with whether a farmer would give a child a site.

So maybe this is why noone is addressing your ‘point’ which you keep harping on about – because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

And you are assuming that all farmers wait til retirement to do that. This is not the case. Many farmers give up that land as their children become in need of a family home. So taking into account this and your acceptance that some farmers with large enough land parcels could possibly afford to finance their children’s education using there land then it makes sense that land as an asset should be assessed. Thank you.

What are you thanking me for? You are incredibly childish and stuck with your own blinkered black and white view on this issue. I am merely responding to your accusation that

“farmers can’t claim that selling an acre would negatively effect their income while they regularly gift them to their children to build a house on. ”

I am giving you a specific example of how while funding all his children and operating a small farm my father could not afford to sell off any portion of his land without it having a negative impact on his income – but he would have the ability to gift some land to his children when he retires.

Yes their will be farmers who gift land whenever they want, farmers who have massive farms who wouldn’t miss an acre or two to fund education – but overall your blanket statement of how any farmer who can gift a child some land can therefore sell land at any stage to fund education without it affecting their income. This is incorrect.

Savings, yes. Business assets are questionable, but there is no straightforward answer. Some farmers are experienced in getting grants from every direction, when city people would not know where to start and yet they might be more in need.

Yes you are giving a SPECIFIC example. That’s not how tax and benefit systems work. We legislate for the many and put safe guards in place for the few. That is why you assess. To find the ones that can afford to liquidate an asset and those that can’t. I’ve been anything but black and white in fact I addressed that earlier.

But its not just one acre is it. By the time you sell the land and take in the cost of selling the land, fees, and the loss of income on tha piece of land you are talking about 2 – 2.5 acres of land for each each year a child is in college so 8 -10 acres per child, if you are four children tha is 40 acres, if you have seven that is seventy acres of land, which is far grater than the one acre of land yea are saying. 40 acres could be 1/4 of a farm if not more. If this is what you want they you have to expect that all business should sell off so much of there business for every child. Or families sell there family homes and live in rented accommodation.

Not every farmers child wastes there grant, the same as not every non farmers child wastes there grants. May be instead of bringing in these regulations they should look to enforce the ones they do have for college attendance, for both individuals who get a grand, and those who do not, as currently the government are paying fees for every individual who attends college, and yet some are not attending lectures.

They can cheaply borrow against those assets though

Yes, I can expect that.

They’re not children, they’re young adults!!

Ever hear of local needs

Under these proposals, “John” would get the grant – they are talking about including savings and assets OVER €750,000. This is not about plumbers selling their tools or farmers ending up only having a couple of acres of land left after they have paid to send seven children to college. It’s a question of whether people who have over €750,000 worth of savings or assets should receive funding from the taxpayer to send their children to college.

Ah Tom, you beat me to it. the page hadn’t refreshed before I wrote my comment.
For a comments section that portrays itself as the epitome of social justice, no one else noticed this.

You’d imagine that family 2 would have the sense to pay into a pension plan rather than have their retirement fund in the form of savings and taken into account when assessing if their child is eligible for the grant. If they didn’t they’ll probably end up down in the pub with family 1 lamenting their stupidity.

So, you would have no sympathy for the family that saved?
Personally, I think it should be based on income. That is what the families have to live on. They shouldn’t be punished for a modest lifestyle. But, that’s just me. I’m not one of the right on brigade from the Journal comments section, that, as was said above, seem to have a strange view on social justice.

I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have sympathy with them but if the proposed assessment measures were to come in and they missed out on getting the grant on the basis of having their retirement fund in the form of savings rather than in a pension plan I wouldn’t have huge sympathy for them seen as it could have been easily avoided. Danny can you explain how I’m one of the right on brigade from the above post?

Sorry, Dick. I wasn’t implying that you were. I mightn’t have been as clear as I should have been.
But there is a strange view of social justice here on this comments section, from those that on other stories, claim to have an interest in social justice.
They seem to think that anyone with savings are “The Wealthy”.

Who’s Dick?

Sorry, Brick.
My dyslexia lets me look at the word Brick but see the word Dick.
I also swap letters, but thank God for predictive text. :-)

No probs Fanny it happens me sometimes too

Haha..! :-)

The problem with the “income” one size fits all method is that certain sections in Irish society can manipulate their income with the help of very creative accountants when necessary – PAYE workers cannot.

So lets throw the baby out with the bath water?
Punish the honest majority for the crimes of the few?
Perhaps we should stop all social welfare payments, since there are a few that commit fraud?
Or maybe you suggest simply leaving all self employed people aside? Self employed doesn’t mean wealthy.
I’m self employed and I couldn’t be considered wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

No Danny that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with exploring and examining all types of income when deciding on how best to spend this money.

I think you’re actually agreeing with me. Isn’t that exactly what a means test is?
What I’m saying is, base it on the income. Don’t punish those that have saved.
If the income is above a threshold, don’t award the grant. I can’t see how that isn’t the fairest method.

Maybe – but I believe that all property, outside of the family home, including farmland should be factored in. I do not believe savings should be factored in.

Their “farmer buddies” made over €9,250,000,000 for the country last year.

Probably best not screw them over too much.

Farm land is only the same as a block layers cement mixer, or a plumbers sockets, so do you believe that these should be taken in to account when looking at grants. Would you expect these people and farmers to sell 10 acres to send there child to college, reducing there income for the rest of there lives. And what happens if they have four kids that’s 40 acres gone. Would you expect other businesses to move to sell there bigger shop and move to a smaller shop so they can send there kids to college.

If this is the case why don’t we bring the value of the family home into the situation, plenty of people have big houses, they could sell them and down size.

Are you including all farmers in your comment? Do you really believe that all farmers are rich? That’s like saying all people who work are rich and can afford to pay for their children’s college education. How many rich farmers do you know? Do you work 365 days of the year as my father does. Don’t assume all farmers are rich.

Anyone who has business assets of 750000, do people read the article?

Farmland is not the same as a brick layers cement mixer. A tractor would be the same as a cement mixer.

Farmland produces an income e.g. The single payment scheme is based upon the amount of land a farmer owns/uses .

So Yes, land should be taken into account when assessing educational payments. Farmers want it both ways: EU income on their land holdings, but no outgoings on the same basis.

No they are both tools, if a farmer has no farm land he can no longer work. So what good is his tractor to him then.

The same as a block layer can not lay blocks with out his tools.

Many farms would be value more than the required amount, but does not make them rich by any means. Many farmers are struggling, and maybe if you stepped into the country side, and spoke to them you would see this.

Assets are just that assets! If you live in a 4 bed house in Dublin, should that be considered as an asset? As the value of that house is greater than same house in Mayo. If you take people’s assets into account very few people will be entitled to a grant. We are heading towards a rich get educated, less well off don’t!

No.

Cement mixer is to tractor as land to be build on is to land to be farmed on.

That is not true as a lot of builders do not own the land which they are building on, but are still self employed thus there equipment are assists which they earn a living from. Like the example above of the mechanic who has a garage, should his garage be taken into account. And if it deems him ineligible should he sell his garage? If you don’t believe he should sell it, why would you believe a farmer should sell his land.

So they can well afford to fund their children’s education.

And why should one not sell a family home to send their kids to college?

Exactly Nessa so a builder and a farmer can’t be compared in the way you are trying to. Thank you.

Farmers are struggling too.

“Their “farmer buddies” made over €9,250,000,000 for the country last year.”

Exactly the point. Duh.

Maybe if it weren’t so easy to get a grant, the university system would offer more part-time courses. There is an appalling small number of part time courses available in the Irish university system.

Ah sure, you don’t need an education to pick cotton and feed cows.

Jimbon…etc, probably best if you stay off this thread as your ignorance will quickly become an embarrassment to you. There must be a bookies open somewhere for you to go and spend your hard earned money!

Sure thing Tara. I’ll leave you to your post-doctorial dissertation on Tractorin’

Err… The family could sell the house or farm.

Why is the family home not seen as an assist? Sure they can be sold too and people can down size. Is this jot the same thing.

Really? You think everyone can downsize? What about the many people who already live in shoebox apartments? What about people in negative equity?

Sell the tractor and you still have somewhere to live.

Sure jim – sell the tractor and you’ll still have somewhere to live – you just wont have the ability to work and earn an income without one.

Since when have we grown cotton in Ireland? If you don’t need an education to produce milk why are agricultural graduates doing PhDs in that subject?

Tractorin’? Surely you mean agricultural engineering.

Sure, you can get a PHD in golf these days.

“Sure jim – sell the tractor and you’ll still have somewhere to live – you just wont have the ability to work and earn an income without one.”

Maybe it’s time to go live where the work is then. In ever other sector, with the exception of banking, unviable businesses are allowed to fail.

Jim you must be a troll if you think people should sell there ways of making there income i order to educate there kids.

Do you believe that people should sell there cars which they use to get to work, or there laptops which they use to do there work on, or fancy suits etc, Or should they sell there family homes etc?

Also Jim, the same can be said of farmers who owe money on the land they purchased. Which is now in negative money. And sure if they are living in a shoe box apartment that they own, sure they can sell it and move in to rented accommodation.

It should be all assets or none. All including family homes, jewellery, cars, etc etc.

Neasa, East of Co. Offally, we have them there buses for folks without cars.

Jim you are a very foolish individual if you believe that every job in Ireland has a bus route within walking distance. What happens if your job is in an area where there are buses, or if you work shift work where the hours are irregular, buses are not much good to you then. Out side of Dublin their are plenty of jobs which do not have a bus route near them, and plenty of towns with jobs in those towns that do not have taxis. God for bid if your working for bord na mona, which is based in the country side, not too many buses around that area. Or if your a care worker moving from home to home caring for individuals. Or your a builder who needs a van to transport equipment.

Well if people ahd the good sense to not live out in the sticks we’d all have fantastic amenities. Problem is that people choose to live in semi-hospitable remote areas and then demand to use my taxes to fund their lifestyles.

A farmer needs to live on his farm, farmers often have wives who work in towns, and children who work in towns too. So those people need to get to work thus own a car. You do realise that many people in cities own cars to get around too, and don’t just use public transport. You also realise that there are even colleges which are in the country side or out side of towns, and there are businesses which are not in towns or cities too. I know all this must baffle you that businesses are not in cities but maybe step out side your bubble an you might see that there are many businesses out side of towns, many tourist areas out side of towns and cities.

Look I’ll tell you what.

You pay for my kids to go to college, and I’ll pay for yours. Fair?

So the year before my kids go to college I spend all my money on a big house.

Good man!

If their incomes are the same, how would the farmer have cars, jeeps, and a mansion?
These things have to be bought. Bought with an income. both incomes are the same, wouldn’t the other person have the exact same opportunity to buy these things too?

Because some one is a farmer, it doesn’t make them wealthy. just the same as someone living on a council estate doesn’t mean they are poor.
you’re making very wide assumptions with your views.

The “income” comes after costs are taken out. Did you ever notice how they sell TV and washing machines in the animal feed/hardware stores? You see for some those are apparently legitimate “business costs”. That’s how they get the jeeps even though there is apparently no taxable income…