Unmarried Mothers

Tim Robbins

According to the Sunday Business Post, we are paying lone parents up to one billion a year in support. Obviously some of this is warranted but I reckon there are some scams going on. For example, couples deliberatly not getting married so they can bleed the state.

Discuss...

http://www.thepost.ie/ezineSBP/story.asp?storyid=50027

invinciblePRSTV

The article you link to concerns the DoSP chasing up absent parents to pay maintenance, there is nothing in it to suggest there are 'scams' going on. If you have statistical evidence that there are scams going on then show it, otherwise i feel this thread is just another bash the-single-mums-thread.

Btw single parents pay tax as well so the 'we' you refer to is incorrect.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And I doubt very much more than 50 of those 4,102 don't know who the father is.

Zamboni

Any government intervention in payments/taxation/legislation should encourage responsible reproduction.
In my opinion, having a system where it allows a fathers name not to appear on the birth certificate is wholly irresponsbile from a number of viewpoints. It is an incomplete record of lineage of a nation, ignores genetic lineage from a medical perspective, it assists the possibility of social welfare fraud etc.

Whilst providing support for Single Mothers, surely as a society we should be doing our best to disincentivise single motherhood in order to reduce further costs to the taxpayer?

invinciblePRSTV

Zamboni wrote: »

surely as a society we should be doing our best to disincentivise single motherhood in order to reduce further costs to the taxpayer?

Our constitution was designed with the goal of prioritising the traditional family unit and look how well thats turned out.

How do you propose to disincentivise single motherhood as a matter of interest?

Zamboni

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

How do you propose to disincentivise single motherhood as a matter of interest?

The fathers name should be mandatory on a birth certificate so that he can be pursued to assist in child maintenance or offset the single mother payments.

Nody

Zamboni wrote: »

The fathers name should be mandatory on a birth certificate so that he can be pursued to assist in child maintenance or offset the single mother payments.

I was raped/asleep/to drunk/stoned/had sex with many different men in that period to remember.

The point being; it is to damn easy to escape it if you're out to scam on it.

Zamboni

Nody wrote: »

I was raped/asleep/to drunk/stoned/had sex with many different men in that period to remember.

You should be more careful...

Nody wrote: »

The point being; it is to damn easy to escape it if you're out to scam on it.

Leaving the first (minefield) aside, there should be an onus on a prospective parent to be responsible in the first place. (It is quite sad that this has to be said these days.)
If the potential father realises he will be held liable for providing support for he may think twice about who and when he reproduces with.
If a potential mother realises the full menu of entitlements are no longer there they should also thing twice.
We live in a society where reproduction is not treated with the level of responsibility it should be. Creating a child is a serious and expensive business and you people should consider whether they are able to provide for it themselves before sticking another ball and chain around the neck of the state.
We need to remove the incentivised reproduction scheme that our Social Welfare system currently provides.

invinciblePRSTV

Zamboni wrote: »

Leaving the first (minefield) aside, there should be an onus on a prospective parent to be responsible in the first place. (It is quite sad that this has to be said these days.)

I agree, the state should mandate all schools to teach a modern sex education curriculum. The state should also consider removing VAT on birth control devices.

Zamboni wrote: »

If the potential father realises he will be held liable for providing support for he may think twice about who and when he reproduces with.

Unplanned pregnancies will always happen.

Zamboni wrote: »

If a potential mother realises the full menu of entitlements are no longer there they should also thing twice.

'Menu' of entitlements? people are entitled to state supports to help raise their kids.

Zamboni wrote: »

We live in a society where reproduction is not treated with the level of responsibility it should be. Creating a child is a serious and expensive business and you people should consider whether they are able to provide for it themselves before sticking another ball and chain around the neck of the state.

A good idea would be to legislate for the provision of Abortion services in this country. Then these kids wouldn't be a "ball and chain" to the state.

Zamboni wrote: »

We need to remove the incentivised reproduction scheme that our Social Welfare system currently provides.

We need people to have more kids so they can pay tax to pay for pensions and bank debts, so we should keep incentives to people to have kids, perhaps even expand them.

Gurgle

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I agree, the state should mandate all schools to teach a modern sex education curriculum. The state should also consider removing VAT on birth control devices.

Unplanned pregnancies will always happen.

'Menu' of entitlements? people are entitled to state supports to help raise their kids.

A good idea would be to legislate for the provision of Abortion services in this country. Then these kids wouldn't be a "ball and chain" to the state.

We need people to have more kids so they can pay tax to pay for pensions and bank debts, so we should keep incentives to people to have kids, perhaps even expand them.

Substitute the word 'adoption' for 'abortion' and I agree 100%.

belongtojazz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And I doubt very much more than 50 of those 4,102 don't know who the father is.

My daughters Birth Certificate has no fathers name on it, but the reason for that is nothing to do with me! He walked out on us when my daughter was 3 days old and she hasn't seen him since. As he wasn't available when I registered her I could not put his name down as we were not married. He has also not contributed a penny to her very expensive upbringing (she is a very very active child who is currently off at her kayaking club )

I will also add that although I am a single parent I have been working fulltime since she was a baby therefoe I am also one of the "we" mentioned by the OP. If worst came to the worst and I lost my job I would have to rely on the state to help me rare the next generation of tax payer.

Please do not tar all single parents with the same brush, there is quite a lot of us out there working our socks off to raise our children well and it is very frustrating and upsetting to be accused of being less of a benefit to the system than other people.

Okay rant over

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

belongtojazz

So do I! But unfortunately I have no idea where he is and his family are not interested in helping me contact him. But hey ho at least I don't have a bad father around to mess her up. She has a brilliant uncle and 2 fabulous Granddads (one of them is my stepdad before ppl get too confused:D)
To be perfectly honest I work for me as much as her, as I am not the domestic type and would go mad without the stimulus work provides me:p

mkahnisbent

Say what you want about single mothers, but you can't deny they have loads of really weird tips...

AlekSmart

InvinciblePRSTV: 'Menu' of entitlements? people are entitled to state supports to help raise their kids.

There`s that word again

I wonder if there`s an Irish direct translation for it..?

Please do not tar all single parents with the same brush, there is quite a lot of us out there working our socks off to raise our children well and it is very frustrating and upsetting to be accused of being less of a benefit to the system than other people.

I don`t believe people are generalizing when they post on the Single Parent topic.

I personally would give Belongtojazz 101% support and encouragement in her choice of Single Mother lifestyle,but I would also suggest that She is in not in the mainstream in her attitude.

The figures for Lone Parent allowance do not make for pleasant reading going forward,especially if the Tax "take" continues on it`s downward trend.

At some point the State will run out of resources to fund the LPA scheme or even worse,it will be required to make a choice between continuing it and ending some other service,perhaps geriatric care or special educational needs funding.

But unfortunately I have no idea where he is and his family are not interested in helping me contact him. But hey ho at least I don't have a bad father around to mess her up. She has a brilliant uncle and 2 fabulous Granddads (one of them is my stepdad before ppl get too confused)

This is perhaps one area where the State could actually ramp-up its spending and get bolshie about pursuing deliquent fathers.

However,to be honest I suspect the actual incidence of "Unknown" paternity will turn out to be quite small.

In the cases I am familiar with,even the most basic checks would reveal glaring gaps in the supporting stories of the benefit claimants,but these checks never appear to come and once the applicant is actually on the benefit trail it becomes substantially moe difficult to dislodge them from it.

The problems lie,not with the existance of any particular social welfare benefit,but rather in the attitude of mind which now pervades throughout the resevoir of potential claimants.

It may well develop to a point where it will take an outside influence to step in and turn off the tap and then we`ll know all about hardship !

RichardAnd

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

'Menu' of entitlements? people are entitled to state supports to help raise their kids.

I've always been of the opinion that there should be no state support for parent. It's the responsibility of the parent to care for and raise the child they have. I know that someone on 16k a year can not afford to raise a child but, and this does need to be said, if someone can not afford to raise a child then they should NOT be having children.

Bring life into the world is not a right.

belongtojazz

RichardAnd wrote: »

I've always been of the opinion that there should be no state support for parent. It's the responsibility of the parent to care for and raise the child they have. I know that someone on 16k a year can not afford to raise a child but, and this does need to be said, if someone can not afford to raise a child then they should NOT be having children.

Bring life into the world is not a right.

Well all I can say to that is that I am very very pleased you are not in a postition to make that decision on behalf of the country!

We would be a barren country if only the people who could afford to raise children had them:rolleyes:
In your world what would happen to parents in our current climate who have lost jobs and can no longer afford to clothe or feed their children without state support?

FlutterinBantam

belongtojazz wrote: »

Well all I can say to that is that I am very very pleased you are not in a postition to make that decision on behalf of the country!

We would be a barren country if only the people who could afford to raise children had them:rolleyes:
In your world what would happen to parents in our current climate who have lost jobs and can no longer afford to clothe or feed their children without state support?

What you say is perfectly correct and the system was set up to cater for people like you, and those who have genuine difficulties.

However there is a coterie out there who use the system to it's nth degree and therefore dilute the benefits to those genuinely deserving and abuse the system .

It is quite widespread and despite what the bleedin' hearts try to tell us, it's a growth industry.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zamboni

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The prospect of those statistics bearing fruit is quite worrying when you consider the ratio shift within the population from tax payers to welfare recipients in the not too distant future.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it doesn't. It leads to a different set of socially undesirable outcomes. Pro:
Less serious crime, exploitation, illiteracy, and poverty.
Con:
More non-contributing people in society.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've never been told that, or told anyone else that.
There are massive problems with the administration of our welfare system, mostly due to the state's failure to police it. The principles its based on are crucial to any country that calls itself civilized.

higher unemployment - because we don't have to choose between slavery and starvation.

lower levels of savings and investment - because we know that we won't starve if we lose our jobs

Once again, it's a downward spiral.

Whats your proposal?
Where do you draw the line?
Who would you leave to starve (aka force into a life of crime)?

Valmont

Gurgle wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It leads to a different set of socially undesirable outcomes. Pro:
Less serious crime, exploitation, illiteracy, and poverty.
Con:
More non-contributing people in society.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hope you don't mind, DF.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fantistic, you've 'found' a connection between welfare and gangland feuds. Because there's no such thing as gangs in non-welfare states...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I personally believe everyone should have to put in the hours in a 'community' role to qualify for welfare payments at all. If you're putting the hours in for the dole, then you've got an incentive to put the same hours in for minimum wage.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Without reference to 'emotive hyperbole', how would you go about providing this incentive?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've lost me... what are you suggesting?
The government shouldn't provide for any of the above?

donegalfella wrote: »

And so we can splurge all our money on overpriced houses, flashy cars, flat-screen TVs, and sun holidays. Welcome to financial planning, Irish style.

Why do you keep going back to this same crap?
Its a (mostly) free country, people can spend their earnings however they like. What has this got to do with welfare?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doc_17

During the boom there were 150000 on welfare. Maybe this a crude statement but I believe the vast majority of them did not want to work, never sought work, were not made to work and had the notion that someone else would pick up the tab.

I think people like that should be tackled. Head on. It's not simple. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

George Orwell 1982

doc_17 wrote: »

During the boom there were 150000 on welfare. Maybe this a crude statement but I believe the vast majority of them did not want to work, never sought work, were not made to work and had the notion that someone else would pick up the tab.

I think people like that should be tackled. Head on. It's not simple. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

There is always some unemployment - people between jobs. A further small percentage of the labour force is unemployable for a whole host of psyco-social reasons.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

George Orwell 1982

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They did this in the UK and the numbers on disability went way up. As I said above there is a small percentage of the labour force that can't hold down a job for a whole host of psycho-social reasons. There are three options to deal with them, as I see it: 1) You can pursue them as you have outlined and cut off their benefits and force them into homelessness and crime; 2) You can leave them as they are, letting them draw the dole and see this as a necessary evil or 3) you can expand the state to provide better supports for people with low skills, poor literacy and education, problems with alcohol, depression, behavioural problems, etc, and improve their employability.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think you have to accept the consequences of the policies you put forward. No western country has zero unemployment.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you're doing community work for ~20 hours a week, the dole would be approx minimum wage for those hours and you still have plenty of time for job seeking.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All parents receive benefits on the presumption that they are caring for dependent children, whether they are working or not.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Claiming the dole and working is still the most attractive option.
IMO fraud is a much bigger problem than lazyness.

donegalfella wrote: »

As much as possible, able-bodied adults should be providing for their and their children's needs. The should be making provision for unfortunate circumstances such as sickness or unemployment, as well as for retirement.

We are, we have, we do. The vast majority of us.
And when you live and work in a welfare state, seeing huge chunks of your salary getting knocked off for 'PAYE' and 'PRSI', then its hardly unreasonable financial planning to include the fact that when you're out of work you will get a portion of that money back.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So it should be the same whether you've been paying into the system for 6 months or 30 years?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats so naive its ridiculous.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

Right we've went into complete libertarian la-la land with some of the stuff said here.

Only people with the means to support children should procreate? great idea, are we going to have mandatory abortions for those who fail to show they have the appropriate means to support a child? Answer me that RichardAnd.

And what happens when the state pension can't be paid because there are not enough young taxpayers to pay it?. Answer me that Aleksmart.

As for some of the points made by Libertarian/FG leaning posters....

Glasgow has terrible crime and poverty because of the welfare state? nope. That's got something to do with the city being a post industrial wasteland. The evil welfare state obviously shut down all the shipyards & factories on the Clyde, yup.

The Irish Welfare state has directly led to huge increases in crime since the 1950s? complete nonsense. Seeing as the first forms of Social Welfare can be traced back to the 19th Century then the 1950s seems a rather abstract time to pick a date. Elaborate on this for us further DF besides selecting media reports and putting 2+2 together to get 5.

The government shouldn't provide services such as sickness benefit, retirement plans or education? great ideas all of them, tell me when you're going canvassing on the doorsteps i'd love to join you when you're trying to explain to mister Jones that he is a burden on the state because he receives sickness benefit or Missus Jones that her public pension shouldn't be given to her, despite her paying taxes for 47 years.

Seriously lads thumbs up to all these ideas, its as if you actually want to bring the people out onto the streets.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

George Orwell 1982

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Making people desperate for work doesn't create jobs, but it will lower the wages of those already in employment.

The time to cut benefits was when we had full employment, not when there are lots of hard working people on the dole.

The world has been through this before during the great depression when unemployment was over 25% in the US and people were literally hungry, children suffering from rickets etc. Cutting pay didn't create jobs but the New Deal did.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We should also have a hard limit as to when welfare benefits run out. If you're of sound mind and body, and you haven't found a job within two years, then sorry, that's it.

And if a recession lasts more than 2 years?
Famine ships to the good 'ole USA?

donegalfella wrote: »

Why is it naive to say that some people will get serious about finding employment only if their benefits actually expire at some point? Many people will only get serious about something when under serious pressure.

Because 'getting serious' doesn't neccessarily lead to a job, especially during a recession. Because its easier to mug a few tourists a week than to work for 40 hours.
Because you're not just being 'harsh' on the unemployed person but also their dependents, or would you remove the age restrictions for workers?
Get those little hands stitching Nikes in Ireland, let them pay their own way through primary school.

doc_17

I agree that there are some people who should receive state help, but not all of them. Lets face it. there are some out there who will happily keep picking up the dole no matter how much they cut it simple because they don't want to do anything.

These are the people who annoy hard working people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

George Orwell 1982

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Quantitative easing.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

>> Most Countries <<

If you're of sound mind and body, and you haven't found a job within two years, then sorry, that's it.

work like this?

Can you name any of those glorious countries which are shining this beacon of hope upon the upturned faces of us poor misled socialists?

user2000

Im a lone parent. I had my child when i was 17, and still in 6th year of school. I left in april to have my child, and returned to fulltime education the following sept, to complete my leaving cert. I then went on to college (3 yrs), and when i left college i gained employment within a month, and have been working ever since.
The short of it all, that only payment i got off the state was lone parents when i was in school and college. (during the summer when i was working, i gave it up, and then went back on it when i returned to college in september. not an easy task getting it back (i was 3 months into college before id get the payments back). I applied for the grant while i was in college, but was told i wasnt entitled to it as i was living at home with my parents. I survived 4 years of education, and putting my child in daycare and buying food etc...on a mere 120 pounds a week!! I didnt recieve any back to education funds (because i technically didnt leave school, i continued on!!!) I didnt get any help apart from the lone parents payment, but still i took it upon myself to better myself, for myself and my child.
It does annoy me looking back that i had to survive on the bare minimum. If i didnt go to educate myself, i would have been entitled to a house, payment, supplements.....to name just a few. Because i didnt try and screw the system, i was left to fend for myself, with very little help. So i would say to all the negative posts on here about lone parents.....not all of us are screwing the system, or have screwed the system.....some of us just play the hand we have been dealt and use the stepping stone to better the dealt hand.

invinciblePRSTV

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are not really giving any details here, can you identify what exact SW measure it is that has led to the increase in murders and crime which you wish to repeal?.

Shut down maternity hospitals?

Abolish maternity leave?

Eliminate the LPA?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've just given an excellent argument for large scale emigration into the EU, something which i'm in agreement with. You've also just provided the reasoning for why Government needs to offer incentives for people to procreate and something i've argued for previously in this thread.

Good to see we agree on things.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By tax revenue, Just like we've always done. It's a dirty word i know on the forums here but it still provides the basis for Government spending and bar a libertarian revolution (shudder!) will continue to fund our public services into the future.

And before you go off on one about how lefties are economically illiterate Yes there will be cuts, lots of cuts, but we're not dismantling the Irish welfare state. Indeed the current crisis gives us the perfect opportunity to re-shape the the Irish Welfare State to suit 21st Century demands.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Right now we're in a recession, and all the billions revenue surplus from the boom has been lost down the back of Bertie's sofa.

We'll get over it, with cuts during and debts after but we'll get there.

Wheres that list of better countries?

Spudmonkey

Gurgle wrote: »

Because you're not just being 'harsh' on the unemployed person but also their dependents, or would you remove the age restrictions for workers?
Get those little hands stitching Nikes in Ireland, let them pay their own way through primary school.

God forbid you should suggest ways of reducing welfare fraud in this country. You will only get hysterical tripe like this thrown back at you.

danbohan

doc_17 wrote: »

During the boom there were 150000 on welfare. Maybe this a crude statement but I believe the vast majority of them did not want to work, never sought work, were not made to work and had the notion that someone else would pick up the tab.

I think people like that should be tackled. Head on. It's not simple. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

but we wont try , we will just tax the living daylights out of average workers on average salary's and this 150000+ and their descendants {many] will continue leach off the workers

Permabear

This post has been deleted.