Sir, – Prof Anthony Staines (October 8th) cites child benefit to argue that "universality protects the benefit". In fact the Irish experience proves exactly the opposite. In the financial crisis, the Government reduced child benefit for all families, even the poorest, instead of protecting payments to low-income families by cutting benefits to high-income groups.
The main opposition to universal benefits applies only to cash payments. Prof Staines does not distinguish between cash payments, where there is no certainty that the child benefits at all, and services such as education, health and subsidised travel delivered directly to children (though unlike Joan Burton, who repeatedly refers to child benefit as the only universal payment, he does acknowledge that these universal benefits exist).
There is very little opposition to the state delivering universal non-cash benefits; for example Daniel O’Sullivan (October 5th) cites children’s benefits, delivered as cash, in his letter. Furthermore very high income groups will probably use private suppliers of these services by choice and so at no cost to the taxpayer.
Besides the obvious social injustice in transferring money from lower income groups to high income groups via child benefit, there is simply no guarantee that the cash is properly spent.
However, non-cash services are guaranteed to benefit the child and are the best safeguard against poverty. – Yours, etc,
DONAL McGRATH,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.