Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cuts to one-parent family benefits

  • 29-05-2010 2:25pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭


    This post has been deleted.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭AntiRip




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Add in the RS cost as well. Think its about €500m.

    Some posters on the AH thread seem to think despite the high out of wedlock birth rate, a single mother with 2 kids in Dublin should still be entitled to 1100 RS and 256 per week in the hand despite having free accommodation and free medical bills. And nothing to stop her having a 3rd kid without a father contributing.
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/supplementary-welfare-schemes/rent_supplement


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    Do we know what the expected saving to the economy is in the short-term??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,934 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    This has been going all morning in the "further cuts to social welfare thread" but I agree that it should have a thread of its own. Anyway, my views;

    I believe that these cuts, and they are ones I welcome, are hopefully the first step in dismantling the welfare state. If I had my way, child benifit and single parents' allowance would be stopped altogether as I believe their absence would encourage sexual responsibility. I understand that accidents can happen but no state support would mitigate these issues and make teenagers and young adults realise that brining another life into the world is a decision that must be well thought out.

    Further, the days of 5-6 kids per family must become a thing of the past. With only one, many two children, parents could focus on raising child properly. With 5 kids, this becomes difficult and these days, there is simply too many people slacking off in their parenting duties which results in thousands of people growing up without contributing to society.

    If I ever had children, I will limit myself to one. This way, I could teach him / her proper life skills, the dangers of drink and drugs, music, art, literature and all the other great lessons my parents passed onto me. If I had 6 kids, I wouldn't have the time or the money. Time to change.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    If the government are successful with this in the medium to long term then the savings will stretch beyond the social welfare bill. If alot more mothers begin working after their youngest child is 13 then they will be paying some tax and PRSI also

    Also, If they begin to earn decent money then they will no longer qualify for medical cards, clothing and footware allowance etc which come out of the Community Welfare Allowance & HSE budget.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,806 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    How exactly will this stop scroungers? Surely they'll just have another child when the yougest is nearly 13? I mean where I live there is one "mother" who has about 7 children, youngest is about 1 and they run wild around the town and there's no father to be seen, how will this bill stop people like this who will just reproduce again?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,934 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Blay wrote: »
    How exactly will this stop scroungers? Surely they'll just have another child when the yougest is nearly 13? I mean where I live there is one "mother" who has about 7 children, youngest is about 1 and they run wild around the town and there's no father to be seen, how will this bill stop people like this who will just reproduce again?


    It won't. Which is why I am in favour of stopping allowances for children altogether.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,806 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    It won't. Which is why I am in favour of stopping allowances for children altogether.

    That's a bit far in fairness, why should a child live in poverty because their parents are ignorant about contraception? These "people" won't get out and work just because they've had a child, it's just not their mentality, the child will just suffer.

    I can see your point of view on it, but I'd be more in favour of paying till the age of 13 for one child and no payments for subsequent children, an accident can happen once but paying out for 5/6/7 children and no father paying for any of them is ludicrous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    This post has been deleted.

    Make it economically unviable.

    Post from AH:
    Demonon wrote:
    Single mother with 3 children:

    LPA = €285.40 / week
    Child benefit = €487 / month
    Early childcare supplement (say 2 of the children are under 5) = €83 / month
    Rent supplement = (1 single parent with 3 children) = max rate of €1110 / month
    Medical card = ? hard to gauge an exact value to the state but it is still money moving from the state into private doctors on behalf of the lone parent

    All that adds up to €2917 / month or a yearly salary of €35,006 which actually equates to a pre-tax "salary" for a working person of roughly €42,000.

    It is economically viable to have kids as a 'single mother' based on the above entitlements.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,806 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    This post has been deleted.

    Then why bring in legislation that will be cancelled out by people doing the exact thing it's trying to prevent ie. having children carelessly?

    This isn't going to stop people having multiple children just so they can collect the dole, it's just going to result in more children being produced in order to finance the ones already in being.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    gurramok wrote: »
    Make it economically unviable.

    Post from AH:
    Originally Posted by Demonon
    Single mother with 3 children:

    LPA = €285.40 / week
    Child benefit = €487 / month
    Early childcare supplement (say 2 of the children are under 5) = €83 / month
    Rent supplement = (1 single parent with 3 children) = max rate of €1110 / month
    Medical card = ? hard to gauge an exact value to the state but it is still money moving from the state into private doctors on behalf of the lone parent

    All that adds up to €2917 / month or a yearly salary of €35,006 which actually equates to a pre-tax "salary" for a working person of roughly €42,000.

    It is economically viable to have kids as a 'single mother' based on the above entitlements.

    In the interest of fairness the figure of €1110/month for rent allowance is not received by the claimant. The claimant has to pay something like €25 a week towards the rent and the balance is paid directly by the government to the landlord.

    Therefore the yearly amount would be €21,686.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 215 ✭✭dean21


    i think it is time this was done
    When there kids are in second level school they should not be allowed to sit at home a do nothing.
    It will also be better in the longterm for them when they are back in the work force


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 711 ✭✭✭BOHSBOHS


    incorrect

    the rent allowance is paid to the claimant


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 215 ✭✭dean21


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    It won't. Which is why I am in favour of stopping allowances for children altogether.
    But we need more kids to pay for you when you are old


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Blay wrote: »
    How exactly will this stop scroungers? Surely they'll just have another child when the yougest is nearly 13? I mean where I live there is one "mother" who has about 7 children, youngest is about 1 and they run wild around the town and there's no father to be seen, how will this bill stop people like this who will just reproduce again?
    The fool me once, fool me twice principle.

    Where the father can't be identified at birth for 2nd and subsequent children, then NO payment should be made in respect of a child.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 215 ✭✭dean21


    whatisayis wrote: »
    In the interest of fairness the figure of €1110/month for rent allowance is not received by the claimant. The claimant has to pay something like €25 a week towards the rent and the balance is paid directly by the government to the landlord.

    Therefore the yearly amount would be €21,686.
    That dose not matter
    they dont have to find money for rent or mortgage so you can take the €1110 as income


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,934 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    dean21 wrote: »
    But we need more kids to pay for you when you are old


    They only pay if they work which many of the kids described in the post I replied to will never do. Also, I need no one to pay for me when I am old because I am saving for my retirement already and I'm still the right side of 30.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    gurramok wrote: »
    Make it economically unviable.

    Post from AH:


    It is economically viable to have kids as a 'single mother' based on the above entitlements.

    Single mother with 3 children:

    LPA = €285.40 / week
    Child benefit = €487 / month
    Early childcare supplement (say 2 of the children are under 5) = €83 / month
    Rent supplement = (1 single parent with 3 children) = max rate of €1110 / month
    Medical card = ? hard to gauge an exact value to the state but it is still money moving from the state into private doctors on behalf of the lone parent


    Early child care is gone already so scratch that off your list.
    one parent family with three kids in council house,rent paid every week 28:50 with out any additional money.With view to buy.
    Child benefit goes to everyone!!!!!

    Medical cards how many times a year does a kid see a doctor three if even.
    Unless they are very ill and then you would like to see them with no help at all?
    p.s FIS is not given to all single mothers or mothers who work.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    whatisayis wrote: »
    In the interest of fairness the figure of €1110/month for rent allowance is not received by the claimant. The claimant has to pay something like €25 a week towards the rent and the balance is paid directly by the government to the landlord.

    Therefore the yearly amount would be €21,686.

    What Dean said
    dean21 wrote: »
    That dose not matter
    they dont have to find money for rent or mortgage so you can take the €1110 as income

    People who don't claim rent supplement have to pay mortgages/rent. How ever this comes out of net income so even though they may earn €X net of tax a certain amount of this has to go on rent/mortgage


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    Blay wrote: »
    How exactly will this stop scroungers? Surely they'll just have another child when the yougest is nearly 13? I mean where I live there is one "mother" who has about 7 children, youngest is about 1 and they run wild around the town and there's no father to be seen, how will this bill stop people like this who will just reproduce again?


    They are in their minority,and you will find that with parents who have jobs and both in the picture.
    Don't stereo type;)
    My sister is a single parent her kids are with her all the time and they do not roam the streets one of them wants to be a solicitor and the other a fire man.
    Her kids are a credit to her and so are many of the single parents i have seen.
    Stereo typing is a horrible thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    I have a question for anyone who can answer me this please thanks.

    Does this apply to only women who are allowed to work in Ireland.
    Or will refugees who are single mothers and are not permitted to work be cut also?
    How does that work :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭DJDC


    The unproductive inefficient Catholic countries (and Greece) of Europe are totally in the sh*t due to years of corruption, misallocation of resources combined with a lack of work ethic and lax attitudes towards law enforcement. A property bubble has ruined Ireland and Spain cant hide the same problem using off-balance sheet accounting for much longer.

    The euros decline is a direct consquence of these countries inability to create a sustainable dynamic economy. Frankly, its as much the Germans faults for allowing in countries which just dont share the Anglo-Saxon work ethic.

    A direct consquence of all this is that serious pressure is being put on these failed states by the Germans and the French as a last ditch attempt at recovering their debt. A person from the ECB will quite simply look at the Irish govt books and laugh/cry at the ridicilous wages paid to civil servants and entitlements paid out in job allowances, child welfare payments etc etc. They will not tolerate the Irish, Italians et al. ruining the Eurozone with their massive budgetary imbalances.

    They are all going to be cut, this is just the start.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    One parent family payment should be eliminated when the youngest child reaches 5.

    Single parents under 30 should live at home with their parents


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    One parent family payment should be eliminated when the youngest child reaches 5.

    Single parents under 30 should live at home with their parents
    Riiight... do their parents get a say in this?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,806 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    caseyann wrote: »
    They are in their minority,and you will find that with parents who have jobs and both in the picture.
    Don't stereo type;)
    My sister is a single parent her kids are with her all the time and they do not roam the streets one of them wants to be a solicitor and the other a fire man.
    Her kids are a credit to her and so are many of the single parents i have seen.
    Stereo typing is a horrible thing.


    I'm not stereotyping at all, I've no grievance against genuine people like your sister at all, more power to her, her sons and their dreams:).

    But I live in a town where the other spectrum of this situation live, people who abuse the system openly as I've outlined, people who the governmant are trying to target with this legislation when really all they have to do is have more children(making the problem worse essentially) and carry on claiming social welfare, living with the father but not declaring it and letting their children run riot with no control because they don't care about them or what they do.

    That's what I'm trying to draw attention to^, not people who are genuinely on Lone Parents Allowance and don't abuse it as above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Riiight... do their parents get a say in this?

    Its a lot more effective than giving single parents subsidized housing where there is little or no incentive to go out and work.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    It won't. Which is why I am in favour of stopping allowances for children altogether.


    In a way i tend to agree with you. There is some who are making a fortune out of the different allowances. In saying that, there is some that are in need of them. Maybe a balance could be found.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    BOHSBOHS wrote: »
    incorrect

    the rent allowance is paid to the claimant

    Yes, you're right. My brother is on unemployment assistance and I picked him up wrong about the rent allowance. I stand corrected!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,806 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Its a lot more effective than giving single parents subsidized housing where there is little or no incentive to go out and work.

    What if their parents are dead?
    Dont want any part in it?
    Have no space?

    Your plan is laughable, you would condemn a child to poverty because their parents made a mistake? Sure they could get a job...ah but there are no jobs."Cut the payment at age 5 and live with your parents" sure the government would have done that if it was so easy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Blay wrote: »
    What if their parents are dead?
    Dont want any part in it?
    Have no space?

    Your plan is laughable, you would condemn a child to poverty because their parents made a mistake? Sure they could get a job...ah but there are no jobs."Cut the payment at age 5 and live with your parents" sure the government would have done that if it was so easy.

    No legislation is perfect but It would certainly stop a lot of teenage- young women in their early 20's from working class areas from becoming pregnant simply to get a subsidized house, they have similar policies and they don't have the number of single parent families relative to the population as compared to Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,806 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    No legislation is perfect but It would certainly stop a lot of teenage- young women in their early 20's from working class areas from becoming pregnant simply to get a subsidized house, they have similar policies and they don't have the number of single parent families relative to the population as compared to Ireland.

    Indeed it would do that, but what about a genuine case from one mistake where the goal isn't subsidised housing etc, would you have the payment cut to a genuine case like that just because elsewhere others abuse it?

    I think the idea of paying the allowance for one child till adulthood but for no subsequent children allows for one mistake but makes the person learn from it to not be so careless and stops abusers of it having multiple kids for the payments and not caring about the children.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Blay wrote: »
    Indeed it would do that, but what about a genuine case from one mistake where the goal isn't subsidised housing etc, would you have the payment cut to a genuine case like that just because elsewhere others abuse it?

    I think the idea of paying the allowance for one child till adulthood but for no subsequent children allows for one mistake but makes the person learn from it to not be so careless and stops abusers of it having multiple kids for the payments and not caring about the children.

    Everyone makes mistakes, unplanned pregnancies do happen I recognise that but to ensure that a single parent doen't live a life of drudgery off the state the best option is to legally oblige parents under 30 to live at home with their parents, in that way they are more likely to go out and work and therefore better themslves. I'm not anti single parents, I'm anti permanent welfare dependency, welfare should not be a form of permanent addiction, it should be a safety net for people who have lost their jobs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The reality of the situation is as a country we lived way past our means and comparing to the UK of around £60 per week jobseekers illustrates by how much our dole and lone parents is out of control




    From The Sunday Times

    December 3, 2006


    Britain's high dole money 'pushing families to break up'






    Roger Dobson and Tom Baird


    Recommend?








    div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;} BRITAIN’S generous unemployment benefits may be pushing families towards break-up, a new study has suggested. High dole payments and the relative ease of qualifying for them mean unemployed people in the UK are far less dependent on the family than elsewhere.
    The academics who compiled the research found benefit levels were higher and family cohesiveness lower in Britain than in any of the other countries studied — America, Italy and Spain.
    “One possibility is that those [family] networks may have been weakened by the generosity of the welfare state in Britain,” said Samuel Bentolila, professor of economics at the Centre for Monetary and Financial Studies in Madrid, who led the research.
    The new study adds to a growing body of research linking benefit payments to family break–up. A 14-country study earlier this year based on European Union figures found Britain had the highest rates of benefits for single mothers and the highest rate of lone-parent families in Europe, and argued that benefits provided an incentive for women to bring up a child alone.







    The study found curbs on benefits in the other countries did not increase poverty. Intead, unemployed people in the other countries had incomes just as high as those on the dole in Britain, who are paid £57.45 a week in jobseeker’s allowance if they are 25 or over.
    This suggests that in many cases unemployment benefits simply replace a “safety net” that the family is quite capable of providing. “Strong family networks are vital for a healthy society but are increasingly vulnerable in Britain,” said Anastasia de Waal, head of family research at the social affairs think tank Civitas. “These findings suggest lower benefits abroad have not resulted in greater deprivation.”
    The study shows people in Britain are the least likely to live near relatives, share a home with family members or have older children living at home. Families in Spain are three times more likely to have a son or daughter over 25 living at home than in Britain.
    Some of the most striking contrasts are with Italy, where unemployed people are nine times more likely to be helped by their relations than in Britain where only one in 100 receives family assistance.
    Even in America, often assumed to have a social structure closer to that of Britain than that of Mediterranean countries, three times as many people are helped by their families as in this country.
    Researchers also found three times as many people who are unemployed get state benefit in Britain compared with Italy.
    Although the most recent data that are fully comparable come from the late 1990s, the researchers argue that the situation has hardly changed since then.
    They found that 9% of unemployed Italian breadwinners received financial help from relatives living elsewhere, compared with 5% in Spain, 3% in America and just 1% in Britain.
    Proportions of the unemployed getting benefits are also much lower in Italy and Spain than in the UK. Here, 79% get benefits compared with 27% in Italy, 57% in Spain, and 66% in America.
    However, Chris Pond, chief executive of the National Council for One Parent Families, warned that the study should not be used as an argument to cut benefits.
    “If we look at family make-up, the argument is often that lone parenthood is the result of generous benefits. But you then have to explain why the number of lone parents increased so sharply in the 1980s and early 1990s when welfare benefits were being restricted





    .

    Single parent benefit in other countries get distributed via childcare provision.

    There is a huge recession on and those who got used to relying on the state are in for a shock.

    It is in the past and because of the economic mess will never ever be like that again.

    Any politician or union representative or pressure group suggesting that it can be is lying


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    This post has been deleted.

    AFAIK - this clause has very rarely been invoked when decided constituational resource based cases.
    I could argue that a firm religious based sense of responsiblity might not beamiss, but that is probably being off-topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The state has addressed the problem with generous welfare provisions over the years.

    What has happened is that the state is now in discussions with the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund,

    The general concensus is that as a country we have paid owerselves too well over time with nothing to back it up.

    In other words in terms of resourses and capital as a country we are quite poor.

    So when you see something like the Croke Park agreement failing - the phrase cloud cuckoo land comes to mind.

    When we joined the Euro we lost a lot of freedom to dampen the downsides to our economy thru our monetary policy. Those days are gone and we are now a part of the EU monetary union.

    That wasnt there when Dev drafted the constitution and the rules of the game have changed.

    Sorry Donegalfella but that is the reality. anyone who says different is lying. This is being imposed on us.

    EDIT i saw OLwyn Enright TD on the news earlier spouting and she is an intelligent woman and I just thought how crass.A guy from SIPTU the same. And these are the opposition. God help us.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    But I live in a town where the other spectrum of this situation live, people who abuse the system openly as I've outlined, people who the governmant are trying to target with this legislation when really all they have to do is have more children(making the problem worse essentially) and carry on claiming social welfare, living with the father but not declaring it and letting their children run riot with no control because they don't care about them or what they do.

    I`m not so sure Blay that the Government are trying to target this group at all.

    The latest mod is but a tinkering at the edge of a truly massive ongoing drain on the funds of what is effectively a bankrupt state.

    What it does however,is stand in stark contrast to the Governments rapid and complete imposition of the Tax and PRSI levy on EVERY person working in the state.

    Then we see the decidedly unfair imposition of Value Added Tax on top of the new Carbon Tax which of course will be paid in the main by,yet again,the levied classes.

    It very much appears to me as if the Government recognise the social timebomb which their vote-buying bungs have set in motion and therefore have decided to continue with the maintenance dose of payments at or above (If inflation/deflation is factored in ) the amounts payable 12 months ago.

    I would suggest that the information available to Government from its many and varied sources is that serious mainstream welfare programme cuts WILL result in major public order problems throughout the country.

    That domesday scenario is exactly what the Government wants to avoid precipitating,however in order to continue funding the social schemes it has little option but to squeeze ever more from the indignant but largely compliant working classes,whose bark has been consistently far worse than their bite.

    Lower standards of living are what we are going to have to become familiar with if we are to survive as an independent state,however I believe that we may well see a return to actual widespread poverty if some Politicians do not act soon.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    CDfm wrote: »
    When we joined the Euro we lost a lot of freedom to dampen the downsides to our economy thru our monetary policy.

    Erm

    printing money to devalue currency, does more harm than good

    it makes everyone poorer equally

    Take someone on 50k and someone on 20K who you think suffers more in a 20-30% devaluation scenario (as happened in UK)? especially when basics that need to be imported such as fuel and anything reliant on fuel go up sharply

    you only need to look at UK or Iceland to see how hard it hit people


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 772 ✭✭✭creeper1


    This post has been deleted.

    Overall it would take an absolute sea change in opinion and responsiblity to overcome the problem of single parenthood. I think the problem isn't going away and it's something that we will have much more in the future with negative consequences for our society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    The problem we have created in this country is that for many people it is just more profitable to stay on the dole than work in a low paid job.

    And that can't go on. Whether you're a single parent, unemployed, someone who makes a career out of the dole...it just can't. You will always have a small percentage of the population on the dole, but there shouldn't be a proportion of society who can make a living out of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭_michelle_


    firstly i think we need to remember that it is not only women who are entitled to this allowance. so a woman gets pregnant the man has been cheating on her they were due to be married but it is called off and she kicks him out, then after the birth she has prolapsed womb and is then diagnosed with post natel depression and you are trying to say she doesnt deserve assistance off the state?? i would have no problem assisting in this situation and many others. there are so many sterotypes floating about we have lost the run of ourselves. the above situation happened by best friend and she didnt just have her legs open for any tom dick or harry she thought she was in a committed long term relationship. the majority of people on lp are struggling and do well to get by week to week. have we really sinked so low that in times of need we turn our backs on the vunrable in society?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,934 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    _michelle_ wrote: »
    firstly i think we need to remember that it is not only women who are entitled to this allowance. so a woman gets pregnant the man has been cheating on her they were due to be married but it is called off and she kicks him out, then after the birth she has prolapsed womb and is then diagnosed with post natel depression and you are trying to say she doesnt deserve assistance off the state?? i would have no problem assisting in this situation and many others. there are so many sterotypes floating about we have lost the run of ourselves. the above situation happened by best friend and she didnt just have her legs open for any tom dick or harry she thought she was in a committed long term relationship. the majority of people on lp are struggling and do well to get by week to week. have we really sinked so low that in times of need we turn our backs on the vunrable in society?


    You make a very good point and I agree, you can't paint everyone with the one brush. However, the line I have bolded is what I would like to draw attention to.

    Too often these days, we hear just that being touted by activists who, whilst some are well meaning, are often very sheltered people with no grasp on economic realities. I don't want to see women who are treated like crap by some scumbag given the hard shoulder but there are places the woman you described could go for support such as non profit organisations that exist to help people like her.

    The state can't be responsible for every facet and iota of people's lives.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    _michelle_ wrote: »
    the majority of people on lp are struggling and do well to get by week to week. have we really sinked so low that in times of need we turn our backs on the vunrable in society?

    It has to be remembered that there are 10's of thousands of people in this country working fulltime and still struggling to get by... with mortgage costs, childcare, travel costs to work etc. They are not costing the state anything in fact they are contributing.

    We can't expect the state to provide a comfortable existance for people on welfare when there are thousands out working who are possibly struggling as much if not more. It should be a little bit difficult on welfare and should therefore be an incentive to get of it. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in ireland and that is where we are failing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    This post has been deleted.

    Very well said, Irish people need to get rid of the bleeding heart, do gooder mentality that exists towards welfare in this country.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement