Should the upward scale of Child Benefit payments remain?

seahorse

I read in the media prior to the budget that the government intended to do away with the practice of paying parents a higher percentage for their third and subsequent children. Obviously they haven’t done that and I think that’s a mistake, both on a logical and social level. I do not believe that Child Benefit should be paid on an upward sliding scale; personally I think it should be paid on a downward sliding scale and I think there are sound reasons for that.

Firstly, the more children a person has the less expensive it is to raise each individual child. Whether you’ve one child or six it still costs the same amount to run a fridge/cooker/heater/light-bulb etc. When you’ve more than one child you save a fortune through hand-me-down clothes, school uniforms, books, cots, prams etc. Yes of course you’ve got more mouths to feed but it’s exactly for this reason you’re in a position to bulk-buy, which again makes the feeding of each individual child in this type of household less expensive than the child in the one-child-family next door. It is not logical to pay people more money for each child they have when the more kids they have the less expensive it is to raise each of them.

Then there’s the social aspect: I know a woman in her late thirties who’s never worked a day in her life and has just had her fifth child. She’s a single mother and I would like to point out right now that I hate the fact that people use women like her to tar all single mothers with the same brush; but I do believe that women like this one would be greatly discouraged by a downward sliding scale of payments here. If mothers got €150 for the first child, €135 for the second, €120 for the third etc, or some downward structure along these lines, I can guarantee there’d be a lot less women volunteering themselves for positions in what I refer to as The Baby Production Business. Personally I don’t believe that making an equal payment for all children would be sufficient to discourage women like this. I think that they would have to actually see that each child they had benefitted them financially less than the previous one.

So, should the upward scale of Child Benefit payments remain?

Ickle Magoo

seahorse wrote: »

If mothers got €150 for the first child, €135 for the second, €120 for the third etc, or some downward structure along these lines, I can guarantee there’d be a lot less women volunteering themselves for positions in what I refer to as The Baby Production Business...

I would have to assume that if you think +/-€15 per month would make such a significant difference to the running costs of keeping a child schooled, dressed, fed & watered as to make it cost effective/not financially viable, that you don't know very much about the business you are professing to make guarantees about.

Do you really think people who are dependant on benefit are going to suddenly up sticks and get a job, pay for crèches, etc, because they are getting €4 a week less? I think even if benefits were an absolute pittance you would have people who don't want to work at one end of the scale and others that want to work even when they don't have to at the other.

The sliding scale should certainly not be reduced. The children of people with lots of children shouldn't be any less financially supported by the state than their single child compatriots.

Lirael

seahorse wrote: »

I read in the media prior to the budget that the government intended to do away with the practice of paying parents a higher percentage for their third and subsequent children. Obviously they haven’t done that and I think that’s a mistake, both on a logical and social level. I do not believe that Child Benefit should be paid on an upward sliding scale; personally I think it should be paid on a downward sliding scale and I think there are sound reasons for that.

Firstly, the more children a person has the less expensive it is to raise each individual child. Whether you’ve one child or six it still costs the same amount to run a fridge/cooker/heater/light-bulb etc. When you’ve more than one child you save a fortune through hand-me-down clothes, school uniforms, books, cots, prams etc. Yes of course you’ve got more mouths to feed but it’s exactly for this reason you’re in a position to bulk-buy, which again makes the feeding of each individual child in this type of household less expensive than the child in the one-child-family next door. It is not logical to pay people more money for each child they have when the more kids they have the less expensive it is to raise each of them.

Then there’s the social aspect: I know a woman in her late thirties who’s never worked a day in her life and has just had her fifth child. She’s a single mother and I would like to point out right now that I hate the fact that people use women like her to tar all single mothers with the same brush; but I do believe that women like this one would be greatly discouraged by a downward sliding scale of payments here. If mothers got €150 for the first child, €135 for the second, €120 for the third etc, or some downward structure along these lines, I can guarantee there’d be a lot less women volunteering themselves for positions in what I refer to as The Baby Production Business. Personally I don’t believe that making an equal payment for all children would be sufficient to discourage women like this. I think that they would have to actually see that each child they had benefitted them financially less than the previous one.

So, should the upward scale of Child Benefit payments remain?

actually this is not fully true that each next child costs less, you would have to have all children of same sex to make this really true as for example in the matter of clothes

I have 2 kids - boy and girl so I cannot swap clothes between them

school things - again untrue - books - most of them you will have to buy new each year as often kids write in them, same comes for uniforms - not every child in the family has same size so sometimes they don't fit the younger one and often they are really worn off after let's say 2 years of wearing by one child ... so again - you have to buy new ones or you will make your child look like a beggar

fridge/food - not entirely true - you have to buy everything in larger amounts and even if you buy in bulk it costs more than for one kid

however - I agree that the scale should be downward sliding, I would even say that this is not fair to pay single mothers who have kids with several different guys - where the hell are they???

Lirael

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you really think people who are dependant on benefit are going to suddenly up sticks and get a job, pay for crèches, etc, because they are getting €4 a week less? I think even if benefits were an absolute pittance you would have people who don't want to work at one end of the scale and others that want to work even when they don't have to at the other.

exactly - those cost a lot more

Victor

seahorse wrote: »

Firstly, the more children a person has the less expensive it is to raise each individual child. Whether you’ve one child or six it still costs the same amount to run a fridge/cooker/heater/light-bulb etc. When you’ve more than one child you save a fortune through hand-me-down clothes, school uniforms, books, cots, prams etc. Yes of course you’ve got more mouths to feed but it’s exactly for this reason you’re in a position to bulk-buy, which again makes the feeding of each individual child in this type of household less expensive than the child in the one-child-family next door. It is not logical to pay people more money for each child they have when the more kids they have the less expensive it is to raise each of them.

I'm not sure if the economies of scale are quite as you state them. For one thing, in small families, both parents are more likely to be working and have an income.

Family 1: Two parents (two working), two children
Family 2: Two parents (one working), five children
Who needs more financial support per child?

Also, when buying food or other consumables, whether you buy two loaves of bread per week or four, the price per loaf doesn't change.

I think the government made a mistake in changing it as they did. I think it should have been made taxable, indeed make all benefits taxable.

MiCr0

moving to politics

Ickle Magoo

Lirael wrote: »

exactly - those cost a lot more

Those adults cost more but it's not the child refusing to work. Child benefit is a state benefit towards child rearing costs - why should a child have proportionally less help from the state because of something his/her parents do?

Child benefit is nowhere near enough to pay for the cost of raising a child, far less make profit from. I don't know where the idea that a women with 3 or 4 kids is somehow fiddling the state coffers, if you find a way of giving a kid all the nutrition, clothing, toys, books, etc they need for less than €166 a month then please let me know, I'm clearly doing something very wrong.

Lirael

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Those adults cost more but it's not the child refusing to work. Child benefit is a state benefit towards child rearing costs - why should a child have proportionally less help from the state because of something his/her parents do?

Child benefit is nowhere near enough to pay for the cost of raising a child, far less make profit from. I don't know where the idea that a women with 3 or 4 kids is somehow fiddling the state coffers, if you find a way of giving a kid all the nutrition, clothing, toys, books, etc they need for less than €166 a month then please let me know, I'm clearly doing something very wrong.

I didn't say that kids have to make any profit, but let's be true - parents who refuse to work cost a lot more because they live on what the tax payers produce even if this is only for a child support, which actually I think is needed for the sake of those children

however I would be reluctant paying to parents who never worked and their only "production" is bringing kid after kid to life just to get those money, this I think is a bit unfair, specially that they do not have to pay for creches or nannies

I think that the only fair system would be to pay relatively to REAL costs of supporting the child, ie if both parents work and have to send a child to creche or hire a nanny to look after the child after school (and relatively smaller amount to the family with only one working spouse) should get more than those who do not work ; and of course the family income should be considered as well (wealthy again .... they should not get anything)

but maybe my way of thinking is an utopia??

I am afraid that either way the solution will never be perfect

The Corinthian

Let's look at the issue rationally.

On one side you have one single parent who works and another who is dependant on social welfare. I don't have the exact figures so I shall give rough amounts in this example - unless I am way out, please don't chew me out of it.

Working single parent: Earns, after tax, say, €2,500 p.m. However he/she needs to put the kid somewhere while working (especially when young, decreasing as the child gets older and starts school) and this will begin to set them back about €800 - €1,100 p.m. Add to this the cost of working (commuting, lunch, etc).

SW dependant single parent: Gets direct payments (LPA, child benefit, etc) of around €900. Added to this they get rent allowance / social housing, which can effectively be worth, say, €1,000.

So based on those figures, working you are at worse off by about €500 p.m. for working full-time. So affordable child care is, from an economic perspective, a major issue as it seriously damages any incentive to work, making it viable only for those who have the ability to command salaries far above the national average.

Additionally though, the Irish state seems to accept that single parents are already 'employed'. Unlike the unemployed, there is practically no attempt to encourage, let alone force, them to become self-sufficient. Where in other countries, the idea of a single parent not being self-sufficient is frowned upon, in Ireland it is considered the norm, so that by the time a child starts going to school, allowing at least part-time work, the single parent no longer has an interest in doing so.

Why is this bad? Well, other than the tax burden, it creates a poverty trap. Social welfare is not supposed to be a long term income, and so is only designed to give a subsistence, or just above substance, living - which naturally will cause problems in the development of the child(ren), far outweighing the much trumpeted advantages of a stay-at-home parent.

However the real tragedy is that it doesn't last forever. At 18 (or 23 in some cases) it ends and the single parent reverts to simply being 'unemployed'. This is why some single mothers do have more than one child - so as to 'stretch' this deadline (can't say it is the norm, but I've seen it happen).

But when it does end, it is all too often the child that will eventually become the single parent's pension. Unable to save for old age, invest in a private pension for themselves or contribute to a state pension, the adult child often ends up helping to support the parent when older.

seahorse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Child benefit is a state benefit towards child rearing costs - why should a child have proportionally less help from the state because of something his/her parents do?

That's exactly my point. Why should the children of one and two child families have proportionally less help from the state because of something his/her parents do?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Child benefit is nowhere near enough to pay for the cost of raising a child, far less make profit from. I don't know where the idea that a women with 3 or 4 kids is somehow fiddling the state coffers, if you find a way of giving a kid all the nutrition, clothing, toys, books, etc they need for less than €166 a month then please let me know, I'm clearly doing something very wrong.

Well I find it confusing too Ickle Magoo, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the woman I referred to in my original post drives an expensive '08 car and took all of her five children to Disneyland Florida recently. VERY few of the working families I know could afford to do that. I've known this woman’s sister on a close personal level for the guts of twenty years, so this is not some type of urban myth I'm repeating here. It is the evidence of my own eyes.

seahorse

Lirael wrote: »

actually this is not fully true that each next child costs less, you would have to have all children of same sex to make this really true as for example in the matter of clothes

I have 2 kids - boy and girl so I cannot swap clothes between them

Well I think it's truer for some families than for others, depending on their structure.

Lirael wrote: »

however - I agree that the scale should be downward sliding, I would even say that this is not fair to pay single mothers who have kids with several different guys - where the hell are they???

Yes I've always thought this. The problem with this country is that, unlike some other countries, we just don't pursue the fathers involved aggressively enough. The women involved are always assumed to be entirely at fault and the fathers rarely get a mention, even if they have fathered kids with several different women.

seahorse

Victor wrote: »

Also, when buying food or other consumables, whether you buy two loaves of bread per week or four, the price per loaf doesn't change.

You've made some relevant points Victor but this I disagree with entirely. I couldn't possibly count the times I walked by offers for larger amounts of food, including loaves of bread (two for one/buy two get second half price, that sort of thing)

Obviously parents of larger families can feed their children for less per child. I've seen evidence of that in every supermarket I've ever walked into.

Victor

Are you saying that small families shoulder buy small boxes of cornflakes every week instead of getting the larger box every two weeks?

Now, fair enough with products that go off quickly, but they are rare assuming there is anything more than two people involved.

seahorse

Victor wrote: »

Are you saying that small families shoulder buy small boxes of cornflakes every week instead of getting the larger box every two weeks?

Now, fair enough with products that go off quickly, but they are rare assuming there is anything more than two people involved.

Most food is perishable within a relatively short time frame unless it is canned or frozen. No I'm not saying that smaller families 'should' buy smaller amounts food, I'm pointing out that they do. Most mothers of one or two kids are not going to buy enough meat to feed six kids.

Another example of how it is economically less burdensome per child to have a larger amount of kids: Several years back another girl I know had three kids within five years. She used the same cot, same pram, same blankets, same this, same that, same everything she could manage, which covered most of the kids needs. Clever girl as far as I’m concerned, but it’s still true that per child she needed less support, not more.

The Corinthian

seahorse wrote: »

Yes I've always thought this. The problem with this country is that, unlike some other countries, we just don't pursue the fathers involved aggressively enough.

That such men are not perused aggressively enough is one thing, however they are, legally at least, liable financially for every child they father. The issue being discussed is that mothers are actually rewarded by the state for the same behaviour through a system of payment that remains constant even when the marginal costs per child decreases.

The women involved are always assumed to be entirely at fault and the fathers rarely get a mention, even if they have fathered kids with several different women.

I disagree, culturally men are seen as the ones who 'seduce and abandon' women and are typically painted as the bad guys, even though (from what I have been told) where a father has custody, child payment is far less likely to be paid by a non-custodial mother.

But ultimately there's two of them in it and that includes the mother - it is very difficult to have much sympathy for single mothers when they post on forums complaining how they are pregnant again by another drug dealing scumbag who has left them high and dry.

seahorse

The Corinthian wrote: »

But ultimately there's two of them in it and that includes the mother

This is definitely true; I've no argument with that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

- it is very difficult to have much sympathy for single mothers when they post on forums complaining how they are pregnant again by another drug dealing scumbag who has left them high and dry.

I've never read a post like that but I'll take your word for it that they've appeared. I don't think many people would feel inclined or could be honestly expected to feel much sympathy reading a post like that. I would like to point out that such positions are not representative of all single mothers though.

astrofool

The upward scale should remain. We need to encourage a growing population, not a shrinking one, otherwise, there will be no pension for anyone in the future. See Japan for how this is going to blow up and cause social unrest.

The average child will also pay multiples back in tax then they take in as child benefit. More educated children will pay more tax, children from wealther backgrounds are most likely to be higher educated.

If children are not to get a child benefit, I'm sure a lot of parents would be completely fine with accepting the tax credits that a person gets for providing for a dependent person.

The Corinthian

seahorse wrote: »

I've never read a post like that but I'll take your word for it that they've appeared. I don't think many people would feel inclined or could be honestly expected to feel much sympathy reading a post like that. I would like to point out that such positions are not representative of all single mothers though.

I did not want to suggest they were, only that they occur so as to dispel this sugar and spice versus slugs and snails stereotype that surrounds the genders.

astrofool wrote: »

The average child will also pay multiples back in tax then they take in as child benefit. More educated children will pay more tax, children from wealther backgrounds are most likely to be higher educated.

However you cannot claim that the poverty trap that the present system creates is going to generate an army of tax paying ABC1's, can you? Potentially, quite the opposite.

The solution is not a simple one of cutting or not cutting benefits. It also involves creating an environment that both economically and socially encourages single parents to build up their own careers so that they can not only support themselves in the long term, but also that with increased income their children can benefit.

Ickle Magoo

seahorse wrote: »

That's exactly my point. Why should the children of one and two child families have proportionally less help from the state because of something his/her parents do?

So pay the same for every child then, you are proposing making some children worse off because their parents have propagated more often - how is that any better than the the current system? And you do realise that CB is paid to all parents, even those who are millionaires and don't need it at exactly the same rate? I never understand people wanting to start snipping benefits from those who are most vulnerable while completely ignoring the majority of people who don't need it get this benefit regardless of their income...

seahorse wrote: »

Well I find it confusing too Ickle Magoo, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the woman I referred to in my original post drives an expensive '08 car and took all of her five children to Disneyland Florida recently. VERY few of the working families I know could afford to do that. I've known this woman's sister on a close personal level for the guts of twenty years, so this is not some type of urban myth I'm repeating here. It is the evidence of my own eyes.

Good for her, what's it got to do with you though? All this noseying at the neighbours and bahumbugging about what they can afford. I don't know her personal circumstances, I can assure you she didn't buy an 08 car and a trip to Disneyland, Florida with her child benefit money - unless she was saving for 10 years or something, so I'm not following what your point is - other than a classic case of the green eyed monster. I've more of an opinion on someone bitching about their sister, however....

Ickle Magoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

.... - it is very difficult to have much sympathy for single mothers when they post on forums complaining how they are pregnant again by another drug dealing scumbag who has left them high and dry.

That I must see the linkee's for, lol.

AlekSmart

A reading from Corinthian`s.....

But when it does end, it is all too often the child that will eventually become the single parent's pension. Unable to save for old age, invest in a private pension for themselves or contribute to a state pension, the adult child often ends up helping to support the parent when older.

Well said that man......This fact is the single largest pink elephant squatting in the middle of the average Irish flat.

I would contend that it`s now becoming noticeable on the streets....just take a look at the age profiles of whats in the buggy vs whats pushing the buggy.

There is a huge yawning chasm out here,one which strikes sheer terror into the hearts of anybody familiar with the principles of Insurance.

We have constructed a totally unsustainable version of Utopia....just ask any passing Actuary....:mad:

seahorse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So pay the same for every child then, you are proposing making some children worse off because their parents have propagated more often - how is that any better than the the current system? And you do realise that CB is paid to all parents, even those who are millionaires and don't need it at exactly the same rate? I never understand people wanting to start snipping benefits from those who are most vulnerable while completely ignoring the majority of people who don't need it get this benefit regardless of their income...

Of course people who are very wealthy don't need this money in the way that much less well off people do. I didn't point that out because I assumed it went without saying.

As to paying the same rate for every child, that would certainly be fairer than the current situation of paying more per child when in fact it's cheaper to raise each individual child in a large family. A house costs the same to heat whether you've one child or a tribe of them. I don't know ANY family with same gender children who don't pass clothes from one child to the next. The current situation, in my opinion, rewards people for having as many children as possible and pays ludicrously lavish bonuses for anyone who happens to give birth to twins, triplets, quadruplets etc. This is from citizensinformation.ie:

"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.

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."

One of my arguments would be that in this current climate we just cannot afford to pay the parents of twins the rate for three children and the parents of triplets the rate for six! Does nobody else think this is at least a bit nuts?!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Good for her, what's it got to do with you though? All this noseying at the neighbours and bahumbugging about what they can afford. I don't know her personal circumstances, I can assure you she didn't buy an 08 car and a trip to Disneyland, Florida with her child benefit money - unless she was saving for 10 years or something, so I'm not following what your point is - other than a classic case of the green eyed monster. I've more of an opinion on someone bitching about their sister, however....

Since you don’t know the personal circumstances of the woman I’ve referred to, while I do, I have to say you’re not in a position to assure me of anything. You said you’re not following my point. I have a few points; the one that would most relate to what you've said above would be this: Women who earn their living in the baby production business give a very bad name to genuine single mothers; that is women who find themselves in the circumstance of having to rely on the state and work their way out of it through education, rather than deliberately place themselves in that circumstance, over and over, by pushing out another baby every couple of years.

As for “the green eyed monster” sorry but LOL to that! I actually can’t imagine any group of women I’d be LESS likely to feel jealous of than those who have no higher aspirations in life than to spend it pushing out child after child in order to stay on social welfare. Unfortunately these women are commonly taken (for some reason not known to me) as an example of single mothers generally, and I really do resent that.

All of this is getting somewhat off the point; my question to you Ickle Magoo would be, do you think it’s fair that children who happen to have two or more siblings or be the child of a multiple birth should be supported to a greater financial degree than those who are only children or have just one sibling?

miec

Hi Seahorse

I think that those who have multiple births do need more cash purely because at the time of birth those parents have to buy two, three or more of everything at once, which is probably why the government gives them that extra money.

However, I do agree that if you have three or more children of different ages, certain costs per child do come down. You are right that it costs the same to heat the house irrespective of the number, although on deeper consideration electricity would be up a certain amount because of extra washing, etc. I think overall bulk buying does bring prices down but then you have to buy more to feed more mouths. Its true also about hand me downs if you have all or mostly of the same gender but Christmas and each school year is more expensive. I don't think child benefit should be higher as you have more children but maybe €166 for each child irrespective of the number, or you could introduce a tax benefit for those who use creche facilities and a downward scale for those who stay at home.

The difficulty here, and this is to answer Corinthian's point about why mothers are "rewarded" for staying at home, is that Ireland traditionally and historically celebrates the stay at home mother irrespective of the circumstances and it forms part of the 1937 constitution under Article 41.2.1:

"the state recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved".

This is an aspect of Irish life that our politicians and soceity struggles to break free from. I see no reward in poverty and living in a hand me out state, I would much rather live in a hand up state. I agree that the social welfare encourages dependency and poverty and is demoralising for anyone who has to use it. We need a proper tax system that encourages and facilitates a woman in the workplace, a proper and efficient childcare system and a deconstruction of the belief that only those children who are raised by stay at mothers receive the best care. I feel in this country mothers are put in a double bind because they are treated as spongers if they rely on state benefits and neglectful of their children if they pursue a career. I agree Corinthian that both genders are responsible for this mess, I can only hope that our archaic political system will be revoluntionsed at some point but I am doubtful.

seaniscool

hi guys i have a problem here.please reply

since i have no job im getting jobseeker allowance and one of me kids are 18 so in the new budget 2010 no child benefit for him.

he is still doing his leaving certificate and in full time education.

how can i get a child benefit or any claims of welfare for him.

all im getting is 30 per week for him and thats it.

Ickle Magoo

seahorse wrote: »

Of course people who are very wealthy don't need this money in the way that much less well off people do. I didn't point that out because I assumed it went without saying.

It goes without saying? By that token shouldn't it also go without saying that anyone defrauding the benefits system shouldn't be getting benefits?

seahorse wrote: »

As to paying the same rate for every child, that would certainly be fairer than the current situation of paying more per child when in fact it's cheaper to raise each individual child in a large family. A house costs the same to heat whether you've one child or a tribe of them. I don't know ANY family with same gender children who don't pass clothes from one child to the next. The current situation, in my opinion, rewards people for having as many children as possible and pays ludicrously lavish bonuses for anyone who happens to give birth to twins, triplets, quadruplets etc. This is from citizensinformation.ie:

"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.

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."

One of my arguments would be that in this current climate we just cannot afford to pay the parents of twins the rate for three children and the parents of triplets the rate for six! Does nobody else think this is at least a bit nuts?!

How many kids have you raised? Seriously. Whether we can afford benefits like CB is an argument that carries some merit. Suggesting multiple births - which parents don't tend to have a say in - aren't potentially financially crippling for parents & declaring it a lavish bonus is a bit nuts.

seahorse wrote: »

Since you don’t know the personal circumstances of the woman I’ve referred to, while I do, I have to say you’re not in a position to assure me of anything. You said you’re not following my point. I have a few points; the one that would most relate to what you've said above would be this: Women who earn their living in the baby production business give a very bad name to genuine single mothers; that is women who find themselves in the circumstance of having to rely on the state and work their way out of it through education, rather than deliberately place themselves in that circumstance, over and over, by pushing out another baby every couple of years.

Basic maths and common sense should tell you that the extra child benefit she received for having 5 children rather than 1 didn't pay for her car & holiday; which begs the question why you thought it relevant. If you think she is defrauding the system in some way then surely it goes without saying that her benefit should be cut?

seahorse wrote: »

As for “the green eyed monster” sorry but LOL to that! I actually can’t imagine any group of women I’d be LESS likely to feel jealous of than those who have no higher aspirations in life than to spend it pushing out child after child in order to stay on social welfare. Unfortunately these women are commonly taken (for some reason not known to me) as an example of single mothers generally, and I really do resent that.

Even though they are driving 08 cars & holidaying in Disneyland? You sound bitter. It sounds like you perceive someone that you think should be less well off than you has more than you in some way & you want to redress that.

seahorse wrote: »

All of this is getting somewhat off the point; my question to you Ickle Magoo would be, do you think it’s fair that children who happen to have two or more siblings or be the child of a multiple birth should be supported to a greater financial degree than those who are only children or have just one sibling?

It's a pittance, seriously, I really couldn't give a monkeys. A few hundred a year is an absolutely drop in the ocean in general child rearing costs. If you have to buy three car seats, three cots, three high chairs, the costs would be astronomical. If you have more kids, you have more clothes, more food, more washes of clothes, more pairs of shoes, more school books, more of everything - it's just bloody common sense that if there is a benefit given to help out with these costs that larger families get more; no amount of family boxes of Cornflakes or passing on socks & t-shirts will get around that.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about single mothers on welfare and then throw in an argument about child benefit increments to legitimise your rant - which is a benefit everyone gets from multimillionaires to families on the bread line - and you keep jumping between the two, I think that is what is confusing me.

JohnMc1

seahorse wrote: »

I read in the media prior to the budget that the government intended to do away with the practice of paying parents a higher percentage for their third and subsequent children.

This should happen. If a family [or single Mother] signs up with 1 or 2 children they should only get support for that amount of children. Anymore and its their responsibility to feed those children not the taxpayers.

Welfare in the US has been drained because of Welfare Mothers. They have baby making down to a science. Each child is exactly 9 months apart. Plus taxpayers pay their rent and the Govt moves them into a bigger apartment [or house]

Ickle Magoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

This should happen. If a family [or single Mother] signs up with 1 or 2 children they should only get support for that amount of children. Anymore and its their responsibility to feed those children not the taxpayers.

Do you mean if they sign up on the dole? And the tax payer is paying to feed them through social welfare, then they shouldn't get child benefit for any more children because it's not the responsibility of the taxpayer to feed them? Even though the tax payer would be feeding them through their welfare? I'm not sure I'm following you.

What about people who have worked and paid a lot of money into the state coffers then lose their job, do they get a voucher for extra children or do they have to ensure that they don't get pregnant until one or both is employed? What if someone does have lots of children and looses their job, or has lots of children anyway, do we just let them slide into destitution?

JohnMc1

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you mean if they sign up on the dole? And the tax payer is paying to feed them through social welfare, then they shouldn't get child benefit for any more children because it's not the responsibility of the taxpayer to feed them? Even though the tax payer would be feeding them through their welfare? I'm not sure I'm following you.

Basically as well as just getting whatever the Welfare rate in the States is you also get an extra $1,000 per child [I think you can already spot the problem already] and they get their rent, and utilities paid for [thanks to tax dollars] and if they have enough kids then they will be moved to a bigger location [again thanks to tax dollars] as you can see that needs to be done away with. Especially in this economic time.

What about people who have worked and paid a lot of money into the state coffers then lose their job, do they get a voucher for extra children or do they have to ensure that they don't get pregnant until one or both is employed? What if someone does have lots of children and looses their job, or has lots of children anyway, do we just let them slide into destitution?

In the States Welfare and Unemployment are 2 completely different things. You lose your job you can apply for Unemployment [you have to work for atleast a year IIRC] Usually people that work are alot more responsible with children than the welfare moms. If they can't afford more than 2[for example] they will not have more than 2.

Ickle Magoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Basically as well as just getting whatever the Welfare rate in the States is you also get an extra $1,000 per child [I think you can already spot the problem already] and they get their rent, and utilities paid for [thanks to tax dollars] and if they have enough kids then they will be moved to a bigger location [again thanks to tax dollars] as you can see that needs to be done away with. Especially in this economic time.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to the US.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

In the States Welfare and Unemployment are 2 completely different things. You lose your job you can apply for Unemployment [you have to work for atleast a year IIRC] Usually people that work are alot more responsible with children than the welfare moms. If they can't afford more than 2[for example] they will not have more than 2.

Well, I'd say that's par for the course in most countries. I'm really all for getting people off welfare and into the work place in theory, where all these suggestions of cuts fall down is if you try to put it into practice. Of course, as a society we can do away with benefits altogether and have the children of these families live in absolute squalor, refuse to provide housing or healthcare and claim it's their own fault for having babies they can't afford or not working hard enough - but is that really the kind of society we want?

I think there are better ways of trying to ensure living on benefits is not a desirable lifestyle (and there are very few who would say it is, let's face it!) than dropping some of the most vulnerable members of our society even further into poverty as a way of punishing the minority that abuse the system.

JohnMc1

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to the US.

Sorry for not being clearer. I was wasing the US [since I'm originally from there] as an example of why the Govt can't/shouldn't keep giving money to Welfare breeders.

Well, I'd say that's par for the course in most countries. I'm really all for getting people off welfare and into the work place in theory, where all these suggestions of cuts fall down is if you try to put it into practice. Of course, as a society we can do away with benefits altogether and have the children of these families live in absolute squalor, refuse to provide housing or healthcare and claim it's their own fault for having babies they can't afford or not working hard enough - but is that really the kind of society we want?

Really the only way to permanently cure their dependancy on welfare and the Govt is too make them so completely uncomfortable in their poverty that they finally decide to get a job and get off welfare. Like the old 60s song You have to be cruel to be kind. Nobody likes to envision starving children but that will happen if welfare goes completely bust [here or there]

I think there are better ways of trying to ensure living on benefits is not a desirable lifestyle (and there are very few who would say it is, let's face it!) than dropping some of the most vulnerable members of our society even further into poverty as a way of punishing the minority that abuse the system.

Years ago you did not brag about being on welfare. You didn't leave a job unless you already had another one. Welfare should be a privelege not an entitlement. As I previously stated nonbody wants to see children starving in the streets but that will happen if welfare goes completely bankrupt and the parents still don't have a work ethic to go and get work to support their children.

Shea O'Meara

Can anyone confirm or deny?
I was talking to an eighteen or nineteen your old guy a few years back, (on a course together). He was telling me about how he was off to the States for a few months, get this; because his parents had never claimed childrens allowance, they could claim a lump sum. It was this that was financing his little holiday. At the time I thought it was crazy and I've not heard a similar tale since, however the guy had no reason to bulls***.
Anyone heard of this? I've seen similar regarding children's tax allowance.

The Corinthian

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Really the only way to permanently cure their dependancy on welfare and the Govt is too make them so completely uncomfortable in their poverty that they finally decide to get a job and get off welfare.

I disagree - more correctly, I think what you propose in itself is insufficient and would likely cause more harm than good.

There are two other things that should also be done in conjunction with any move to make it less financially attractive to adopt such a lifestyle. The first is you need to make the alternative (that single parents are financially self-sufficient) more attractive. Addressing the issue of affordable child care is a major obstacle to this in Ireland.

And secondly, you need to make the culture where you can "brag about being on welfare" unacceptable. This does not simply apply to single parents, but to an entire subculture in Irish society, and until you can socially stigmatize it or foster a sense of social responsibility - a work ethic - within society, it will continue.

seahorse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about single mothers on welfare and then throw in an argument about child benefit increments to legitimise your rant - which is a benefit everyone gets from multimillionaires to families on the bread line - and you keep jumping between the two, I think that is what is confusing me.

To be honest much of what you said to me in your last post is not worth responding to, such as the first section of the quote above. It's not something that, if you knew me personally, you would even have dreamt of posting.

The term you’ve bandied about here more than once: “The most vulnerable in society” is a term you couldn’t possibly have any personal experience of (as I do, having been a lone parent & welfare recipient while I educated myself between the years ’98 & ’05) because if you did you’d recognise the difference between those who are genuinely vulnerable and working their way out of it and those who are deliberately and casually riding the system.

I feel that an upward sliding scale of Child Benefit payments is a bad idea for several reasons which I have already outlined. Some of those points are separate and do not relate to each other directly; if you're confused on any of them the posts are still there so feel free to re-read them.

You seem horrified at the thought of the children of larger families being paid less per child but see nothing wrong with the current situation whereby the children of smaller families have been in that situation for years. I wont even bother trying to wrap my mind around your reasoning here because there is no possibility of logic in it that I can see.

Good day to you Ickle Magoo. I was interested in having a discussion here; not being on the receiving end of an argument loaded with derogatory and misdirected insults.

Ickle Magoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Sorry for not being clearer. I was wasing the US [since I'm originally from there] as an example of why the Govt can't/shouldn't keep giving money to Welfare breeders.

But these people are in the minority. Child benefit is paid to everyone, it doesn't just impact people on social welfare, cuts in child benefit impact on all parents, even those who are doing their very best to work even when they barely make more than they could get chucking in work and claiming welfare, those that rely on the extra pennies so they can afford to go back to school or university, I'm not getting your logic.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Really the only way to permanently cure their dependancy on welfare and the Govt is too make them so completely uncomfortable in their poverty that they finally decide to get a job and get off welfare.....

That's simply not true, you also have to make it possible. I think you have it the wrong way round, I think you have to provide reasonable costing childcare, housing, education, etc - you have to have enough desirable and attainable alternatives as to make welfare unnecessary.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Years ago you did not brag about being on welfare. You didn't leave a job unless you already had another one. Welfare should be a privelege not an entitlement. As I previously stated nonbody wants to see children starving in the streets but that will happen if welfare goes completely bankrupt and the parents still don't have a work ethic to go and get work to support their children.

There are always going to be people who try and cheat the system, people who claim long term sick when they could work, etc, etc. I don't think plunging everyone who is on the breadline into ghettos and crime addled destitution in the vain hope some miraculously get the jobs or qualifications that would allow them to get off benefits is going to work or be a great help to society.

Ickle Magoo

seahorse wrote: »

To be honest much of what you said to me in your last post is not worth responding to, such as the first section of the quote above. It's not something that, if you knew me personally, you would even have dreamt of posting.

The term you’ve bandied about here more than once: “The most vulnerable in society” is a term you couldn’t possibly have any personal experience of (as I do, having been a lone parent & welfare recipient while I educated myself between the years ’98 & ’05) because if you did you’d recognise the difference between those who are genuinely vulnerable and working their way out of it and those who are deliberately and casually riding the system.

Good grief! *palms head* Do you really think the only people that are in receipt of child benefit are women trying to have as many babies as they can? There are lots of parents who are not very well off doing their absolute damnedest to keep their heads above water & they get some small help from child benefit or people on disability or people with children with disabilities, why punish them? If you wish to do something about people who stay indefinitely on benefit and make no effort to get back to work then I would be the first in the line to support you. To suggest cutting a universal benefit for parents of multiple children is the best method of doing anything about people who get by far of the majority of their income from a completely different welfare source just doesn't make sense.

seahorse wrote: »

I feel that an upward sliding scale of Child Benefit payments is a bad idea for several reasons which I have already outlined. Some of those points are separate and do not relate to each other directly; if you're confused on any of them the posts are still there so feel free to re-read them.

You seem horrified at the thought of the children of larger families being paid less per child but see nothing wrong with the current situation whereby the children of smaller families have been in that situation for years. I wont even bother trying to wrap my mind around your reasoning here because there is no possibility of logic in it that I can see.

Good day to you Ickle Magoo. I was interested in having a discussion here; not being on the receiving end of an argument loaded with derogatory and misdirected insults.

Horrified? I'm not horrified, I just think it's a silly argument for all the reasons I've outlined above.

That's fine, you seem to want to wilfully ignore any opposition to your "reasoning" and claim you are getting derogatory and misdirected insults when your posts are full of "women like that" and "pushing out child after child" and "baby production business". LOL. :rolleyes:

JohnMc1

The Corinthian wrote: »

I disagree - more correctly, I think what you propose in itself is insufficient and would likely cause more harm than good.

There is no other means to get these lifetime welfares off the system than to make it so they end up taking themselves off it and go to work. Obviously they should not do that in this economic times but if Ireland ever comes out if this recession they should make some cuts to entice people off it.

There are two other things that should also be done in conjunction with any move to make it less financially attractive to adopt such a lifestyle. The first is you need to make the alternative (that single parents are financially self-sufficient) more attractive. Addressing the issue of affordable child care is a major obstacle to this in Ireland.

You don't think Back to Education, VEC and free education isn't already enough incentive for them?

And secondly, you need to make the culture where you can "brag about being on welfare" unacceptable. This does not simply apply to single parents, but to an entire subculture in Irish society, and until you can socially stigmatize it or foster a sense of social responsibility - a work ethic - within society, it will continue.

Sadly due to Politcal Correctness gone absurd that will never happen.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

That's simply not true, you also have to make it possible. I think you have it the wrong way round

As I asked Corinthian I'll ask you. You don't think Back to ED, VEC and free education [God only knows for how much longer though] is not enough? If they are underskilled they can go back and learn new skills and get a better job.

I think you have to provide reasonable costing childcare, housing, education, etc - you have to have enough desirable and attainable alternatives as to make welfare unnecessary.

This is where you are completely wrong. You are confusing a privelege for an entitlement. If you can barely take care of yourself and your partner you have absolutely no right bringing children into this world and then expecting the tax payers to foot the bill for you. Personal Responsibility like Common Sense is so rare now its almost a real life Super power.

The Corinthian

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There is no other means to get these lifetime welfares off the system than to make it so they end up taking themselves off it and go to work.

I do not disagree that disincentivising those who are 'comfortable' in long-term social welfare, should not be done; only that only doing so is not enough.

You don't think Back to Education, VEC and free education isn't already enough incentive for them?

Depends. Incentives like Back to Education, etc. may be sufficient to those who need to both up-skill, after a prolonged period out of work, and who have children over five, but you cannot lump them all in as one group. For example, if the children are young, this means they will require care when the single parent is studying or working. Even when older, they will require some level of care (school and business hours, let alone holidays, are not in sync), so you have to address this barrier. If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see that I gave a rough example that illustrates how things like childcare can kill off any incentive to get a job.

Additionally, going on a course is all very well, but really it just reclassifies you as one type of unemployed person to another. It's not a job and after it ends, there is no guarantee that it will translate to one.

For me single parents who rely on welfare are simply unemployed, single people, with kids. It might mean that they have different or even greater obstacles to getting employment, but there is no reason to see them as anything other than that.

Part of the problem is that even classifying them as 'single parents' somehow sets them apart. Almost as if the rules that apply to everyone else who is unemployed should not apply to them. This is a far greater impediment than the levels of benefits that they get, because there is, AFAIK, no effort whatsoever made to get them to look for a job. Do they even have to 'sign on' once a month, for example?

Certainly there is need for reform in benefits for single parents - some of the payouts that have been mooted here sound insane. However, it is simplistic to think that this alone will work and other measures need to be employed to encourage it - the stick generally works better in conjunction with the carrot.

But most of all, we need to change our mindset and stop considering them as something other than a group of job-seekers. If we don't do that, what hope is there that they will?

Ickle Magoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

As I asked Corinthian I'll ask you. You don't think Back to ED, VEC and free education [God only knows for how much longer though] is not enough? If they are underskilled they can go back and learn new skills and get a better job.

That really depends where you are, what is actually available & who "they" are. Stating ALL people in receipt of benefits are in a position to do a free course which will lead to a better job is oversimplifying the issues some people face.

I tutor some people on welfare that are completely illiterate, I don't think an ECDL is going to do them much good. I know another woman with four children on her own after her husband died, she has absolutely no local support or transport - how do you suggest she gets to & from classes & who looks after her kids while she does?

It's called a poverty trap for a reason, some people need a little help to get on their feet, rather than have the little money they do have cut until they have no hope of improving their situation. I don't think the solution is to assume everyone on benefits or with multiple children is lazy & cheating the system and treat them like a scourge on society.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

This is where you are completely wrong. You are confusing a privelege for an entitlement. If you can barely take care of yourself and your partner you have absolutely no right bringing children into this world and then expecting the tax payers to foot the bill for you. Personal Responsibility like Common Sense is so rare now its almost a real life Super power.

Again, you are only thinking about one kind of welfare recipient. There are people who lose their partner, there are people whose partners walks out on them, there are people illiterate because the education system failed them, people who have paid into the countries tax coffers for years and now find themselves out of work, etc, etc, etc. It seems compassion is another superpower.

The Corinthian

From today's Irish Times:

MINISTER FOR Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin has signalled the possibility of an additional social welfare cut by saying the lone-parents allowance should be phased out when children reach the age of 13.

Long overdue, IMHO.

The logic behind LPA continuing until 18 (or 22 if in full-time education) is to support a child that cannot support itself. What I find bizarre is the assumption that the single parent cannot support themselves, let alone the child.

Naturally there are problems with being a working parent - inadequate, and exorbitant, child care being one I raised earlier, but by the time a child is 13 this is no longer an issue. They are in school most of the day and even if not at 13 they no longer need a babysitter.

Why do we think it makes sense to maintain single parents of 20 year old college students? More correctly why do we think it makes sense to classify them at that stage as anything more than a jobseeker?

johnnyskeleton

The Corinthian wrote: »

From today's Irish Times:

Long overdue, IMHO.

The logic behind LPA continuing until 18 (or 22 if in full-time education) is to support a child that cannot support itself. What I find bizarre is the assumption that the single parent cannot support themselves, let alone the child.

Naturally there are problems with being a working parent - inadequate, and exorbitant, child care being one I raised earlier, but by the time a child is 13 this is no longer an issue. They are in school most of the day and even if not at 13 they no longer need a babysitter.

Surely then when the child starts going to school then both parents can resume full time work?

Better yet, why don't we move to school being 8am-4pm for all school kids, with afterschool activities from 4-6 e.g. sports, art, music etc which would keep the kids occupied coursey of the state while freeing up both parents for the 9-5 slog. The additional costs would be fairly low as we could require the existing teachers to either work these longer hours or else give up their holiday pay and use it to pay for subs.

Also there should be a lot more done to encourage flexi time working. A lot of single parents even if they can't work a full day, could work 10-2 and still have enough time to take care of their kids. However, such jobs as can be worked between 10-2 (e.g. bank, supermarket, callcentre) would probably be at the lower end of the payscale, and probably lower than the SW payments made if the person doesn't work.