Unmarried Mothers

Sleepy

Aug2009 wrote: »

Married friend of mine was told by Social Welfare officer that the worst thing she did was get married.:eek:

Wedding day cost her the best part of 20k and she will be paying for it for the rest of her life if she doesnt go back to work. That is just not fair. Married people could get tax relief on their expenses as it would encourage people to get married. There is an idea Brian Cowen. It would save a fortune on benefit and they should be thanked for putting money back into the economy rather than penalised.:mad:

If she's married and out of work, her husband is entitled to claim tax benefits on her behalf.

Married or not, once they're co-habiting she's not entitled to welfare anyway so the institution of marriage is already subsidised by the state.

Or, are you seriously suggesting that your friend should get tax relief because she threw a big party that she could be the centre of attention at? An argument that parties thrown by businesses to motivate staff could be worthy of consideration but considering the fact that a wedding can be held in a registry office for €150 or so I don't see why your friend's choice to have a big wedding is something my tax should be paying....

RichardAnd

Aug2009 wrote: »

Married friend of mine was told by Social Welfare officer that the worst thing she did was get married.:eek:

Wedding day cost her the best part of 20k and she will be paying for it for the rest of her life if she doesnt go back to work. That is just not fair. Married people could get tax relief on their expenses as it would encourage people to get married. There is an idea Brian Cowen. It would save a fortune on benefit and they should be thanked for putting money back into the economy rather than penalised.:mad:

20k on a wedding!! Sorry to say this but it is entirely fair that she pays for her wedding. She made the decision to spend money she didn't have on one day so it is her responsibility to pay it back.

There should be absolutely no tax-break for weddings. A wedding is a luxury so if someone wants to spend that money then they can pay their taxes just like I do if I want to buy something.

Seriously though, 20k on a wedding is insanity. A wedding is supposed to be two people making a commitment to one another, not a spending splurge to make the bride's maids envious.

cson

Wedding is not the same thing as Marriage.

20k is insanity.

Sand

Not really, she'll make it back on the divorce surely?

BeardyFunzo

Aug2009 wrote: »

Married friend of mine was told by Social Welfare officer that the worst thing she did was get married.:eek:

Wedding day cost her the best part of 20k and she will be paying for it for the rest of her life if she doesnt go back to work. That is just not fair. Married people could get tax relief on their expenses as it would encourage people to get married. There is an idea Brian Cowen. It would save a fortune on benefit and they should be thanked for putting money back into the economy rather than penalised.:mad:

wow. she didn't have to spend 20k. that's her look out. I don't like the idea of tax relief on ice sculptures and white bleeding doves.

Gurgle

Aug2009 wrote: »

Married people could get tax relief on their expenses as it would encourage people to get married. There is an idea Brian Cowen.

Sure, 20% tax credits on the €100 (or whatever it is now) registry office fee.

What you spend on the party is your own choice, and nothing to do with getting hitched.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Riskymove

reminds of the US debate over marriage incentives proposed by BUsh

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/wickham/2002-09-17-wickham_x.htm

Tim Robbins

Nody wrote: »

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.

The state has a responsibility:

1. To ensure a child knows who its biological parents are
2. Keep a historical track of who is related to who

If you don't know who the father is, you should have to give as much information as possible about date, time, venue and the case shoudl be investigated.

You should also have to provide witnesses who will swear you are not in a relationship at the time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cavehill Red

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Denial of benefits?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perjury is a criminal offence. Make the witnesses testify under oath.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cavehill Red

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This same argument is used to prevent punishing mothers who breach access orders permitting their children to see their fathers. It's BS and wrong.
The mother is already hurting the child by denying them the right to know their other parent and their own heritage.
It's standard practice in Scandinavia to insist on both names on the birth cert, and there are consequences for failing to do so.
So socially backward, those Scandinavians, wouldn't you agree?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Less and less because the department investigates and prosecutes a lot more these days.

Nehaxak

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For example, couples deliberatly not getting married so they can bleed the state.

Yes, all of us long term couples with kids who aren't married are all scammers.

Of course it's not worthy to mention that society itself is just progressing as it always will with people no longer caring about stupid religions, adhering to supposed or expected norms of past generations or dare I say it, just not really being bothered about getting married at all.

The state itself needs to keep up with the changes in society rather than bury it's head in the sand and hope couples will just get married as that's the thing to do, because, well, just because right, yeah.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gallaigirl

WOW... this thread really should be re-named WOMEN HATERS! rather than unmarried mothers! where in all ur rubbish rantings are the so called fathers that left these women single and raising children on their own?????? id say most here dont bother with their kids and are just here to slam into the women who actually do look after their own children! in all fairness there are both men and women who defraud the state nearly everyone who will get away with it will do it, but who gives u lot the right to say what u say and u havent a clue how hard it is raising children or even one child alone with no finacial or emotional support from a father, my childs father is a dead beat dad who tried to knife our baby boy--- is he good enough to be a dad now or am i better off with him rotting in prison?????? at the end of the day just because u have a fear that children or unmarried mothers will be the downfall of ireland ( and really if u think that then u need to sort urselves out! ) id say at least half of u here posting about unwed mothers is in fact a dead beat dad who doesnt pay a penny towards their own child but is quick enough to leave the mother to do all the work!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuchoter

I think single parent benefit should only apply to divorced people. The ones who had kids knowing they had no other means of support but themselves and that that was not enought to raise a child were irresponsible. However, you can get only get rid of the single parent benefit when you either make it much easier to give a child up for adoption/ legalize abortion.

gallaigirl

so a person whose marriage fails... there child deserves to live but someone who isnt stupid enough to get married there child deserves to die.... yessss coz that makes sense!

doc_17

The problem is welfare fraud. people who claim that they are single mothers in order to get benefits but all the while have their partner living with them are defrauding the State. That is what people are unhappy about.

This is not a women bashing thread. It is a welfarefraud bashing thread

edellc

IMO the system needs to change there are alot of lone parents out there and one needs to ask where are the fathers are they
1. just cant be bothered
or
2. living with the women and child and not married so women is claiming lone parents

the latter needs to be stopped granted but what about the fathers who cant be bothered there are loads of them out there the system needs to find a way of deducting money from these fathers pay cheques or dole cheques and actually pay for the life which they helped create this is they only way that the welfare bill will be decreased and the fairest way to do it

a woman should not be allowed to put unknown father on a birth cert even if she is unsure of who he is ie jermey kyle scenario 2 or 3 ppl, then a dna test needs to be done and the courts need to get involved to order this

I am not married to my partner but never would i claim lone parents are he is just as financially responsible as i am

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Divorce was brought in around 1995 too.

AlekSmart

Where in all ur rubbish rantings are the so called fathers that left these women single and raising children on their own?

I don`t believe there is much mystery about the whereabouts of the "so-called" fathers.

The original ethos of the "Unmarried Mothers" allowance was to address a socio-religious problem which was then looming,as the modern world and it`s practices encroached on 1970`s Ireland.

The notion that teenage unmarried mothers would be cast out of their family homes by enraged Parents (Usually The Da) and left to the mercies of the street,was a powerful one.

The UMA was devised to give that young girl some income in order for her to keep her child and perhaps provide some stability in her independent life.

Many people are unaware that the concept of the Unmarried Mother as a benefit recipient is long since gone and with O Leary in his grave.

It`s not for nothing that the modern version is called the Lone Parent Benefit which can encompass BOTH halves of the Parenting spectrum.

Unfortunately in an era when Official Ireland did`nt bother much with checks`n balances we witnessed the Lone Parent allowance and it`s ancilliaries grow like topsy.

Again,it may be unpalatable for some to contemplate,but there exists a sizeable sector of modern Irish society which views the allowance as a form of licence to engage in free,widespread and unprotected sexual activity as the LPA acts as the universal insurance policy.

Forget about asking too many moral-high-ground questions because the € speaks loudest as does the prospect of securing a "Place of me own" in one`s early 20`s without having to get involved in all that oul Mortgage stuff.

There is absolutely nothing in the LPA system which gets too involved in the quality of parenting,with the entire focus on ensuring that the qualifying recipient gets all of their "entitlement".

To see long-term unemployed substance abusers pushing and dragging their infant and toddler offspring along Dublins Boardwalk and central streets whilst arguing over their next hit is beyond parody.

I have little doubt but the situation is similar throughout the State and at a level which merits immediate action,as in NOW.

These children,and they are numerous,must be taken from their addled parents because to leave them in the care of these people is just wrong and probably unconstitutional if anybody really believes all that oul Constitutional Speak about the rights of the child.

One of the areas rarely touched upon in this debate is the area of Adoption.
It is the taboo situation,which in our collective desire to be seen as free and modern thinking we have airbrushed from our consciousness.

From experience I know that throughout the State there are large numbers of couples who are awaiting an adoptive child.

To secure approval for adoption,a couple have to satisfy the most rigourous and challenging criteria over an extended period with input from every branch of the States services.

At the end of it all,we have couples who are as near as can be found to perfect in terms of Parenting Skills.

I have met and sat with couples who have endured adoption placement situations only to have it collapse at the 11 th hour after the birth mother (rarely a father) changed their mind about the process.

The adoptive loving,dedicated parents are counselled to live with the ever-present fear of the knock on the door which will end their involvement with the child whereas the delinquent,inconsiderate and often abusive,natural Parent never has to worry about "their" child (and the allowance it merits) being taken from them.

One thing is clear to me,and that is the existance of alternatives to Lone Parents allowances and many other of the so-called Child Centred programmes and payments.

However to consider these alternatives,such as Adoption,means we have to surrender this fixation which modern Ireland has with individual entitlements and instead to start accepting the need to look far beyond our restricted selfish little parishes and consider the future of our entire Society for the greater good.

Can`t see it happening this side of Christmas though.....:)

K-9

AlekSmart wrote: »

I don`t believe there is much mystery about the whereabouts of the "so-called" fathers.

There are plenty of "so called" fathers who cannot be traced. Even ones that can, find ways and loopholes to avoid their responsibilities, hence the new bill.

AlekSmart wrote:

The original ethos of the "Unmarried Mothers" allowance was to address a socio-religious problem which was then looming,as the modern world and it`s practices encroached on 1970`s Ireland.

The notion that teenage unmarried mothers would be cast out of their family homes by enraged Parents (Usually The Da) and left to the mercies of the street,was a powerful one.

The UMA was devised to give that young girl some income in order for her to keep her child and perhaps provide some stability in her independent life.

Many people are unaware that the concept of the Unmarried Mother as a benefit recipient is long since gone and with O Leary in his grave.

Indeed. Problem is, as with any Welfare payment, it was always going to be abused eventually.

AlekSmart wrote:

It`s not for nothing that the modern version is called the Lone Parent Benefit which can encompass BOTH halves of the Parenting spectrum.

Indeed, the change came in since Divorce was introduced. 14% of Single Parent families are headed by a male.

AlekSmart wrote:

Unfortunately in an era when Official Ireland did`nt bother much with checks`n balances we witnessed the Lone Parent allowance and it`s ancilliaries grow like topsy.

Again,it may be unpalatable for some to contemplate,but there exists a sizeable sector of modern Irish society which views the allowance as a form of licence to engage in free,widespread and unprotected sexual activity as the LPA acts as the universal insurance policy.

Forget about asking too many moral-high-ground questions because the € speaks loudest as does the prospect of securing a "Place of me own" in one`s early 20`s without having to get involved in all that oul Mortgage stuff.

There is absolutely nothing in the LPA system which gets too involved in the quality of parenting,with the entire focus on ensuring that the qualifying recipient gets all of their "entitlement".

People will always take the piss shocker again.

AlekSmart wrote:

To see long-term unemployed substance abusers pushing and dragging their infant and toddler offspring along Dublins Boardwalk and central streets whilst arguing over their next hit is beyond parody.

I have little doubt but the situation is similar throughout the State and at a level which merits immediate action,as in NOW.

These children,and they are numerous,must be taken from their addled parents because to leave them in the care of these people is just wrong and probably unconstitutional if anybody really believes all that oul Constitutional Speak about the rights of the child.

Contrary to common perception, the majority of single parent families receiving payments have one child, 60% and 27% have two.

Media Statistics | One Family

How many of these are druggies or whatever I'd say are tiny, again contrary to common perception. I agree something needs to be done and hopefully the new childrens rights bill may help.

AlekSmart wrote:

One of the areas rarely touched upon in this debate is the area of Adoption.
It is the taboo situation,which in our collective desire to be seen as free and modern thinking we have airbrushed from our consciousness.

From experience I know that throughout the State there are large numbers of couples who are awaiting an adoptive child.

To secure approval for adoption,a couple have to satisfy the most rigourous and challenging criteria over an extended period with input from every branch of the States services.

At the end of it all,we have couples who are as near as can be found to perfect in terms of Parenting Skills.

I have met and sat with couples who have endured adoption placement situations only to have it collapse at the 11 th hour after the birth mother (rarely a father) changed their mind about the process.

The adoptive loving,dedicated parents are counselled to live with the ever-present fear of the knock on the door which will end their involvement with the child whereas the delinquent,inconsiderate and often abusive,natural Parent never has to worry about "their" child (and the allowance it merits) being taken from them.

True, I have experience of the adoptive system too. It seems abortion has taken over from adoption as an option if you don't want a child and a stigma is now attached to adoption. I would point out though that a mother who changes her mind in circumstances like that, is hardly doing it for the Social Welfare! I take your over all point though.

AlekSmart wrote:

However to consider these alternatives,such as Adoption,means we have to surrender this fixation which modern Ireland has with individual entitlements and instead to start accepting the need to look far beyond our restricted selfish little parishes and consider the future of our entire Society for the greater good.

Can`t see it happening this side of Christmas though.....:)

I think the debate about Adoption has other bigger issues than just SW and if SW is to be discussed, I'd include married parents whose children should be taken of them too.

Nehaxak

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree, but I replied to his initial post of which he said, and I quote...

"For example, couples deliberatly not getting married so they can bleed the state."

Which is just plain wrong.

The whole cohabitation thing needs to be sorted out too as I think the department of social welfare have it right but the tax office do not as the revenue do not class cohabiting couples in the same way that they class and give benefits to married couples.
Whereas the Social Welfare make no such distinctions, hold no prejudice either way and make no extra or additional benefits available to married couples over those who are just cohabiting happily.

You get nothing extra from the tax office as a couple unless you are married, which is complete bullshít. There's where it's rife countrywide in regards couples taking advantage of the one parent tax credit allowance and you wouldn't blame them either as if they declare themselves cohabiting, they get no such benefit - which they wouldn't have to do if the Revenue service stopped being prejudiced against them just because they're unmarried.

There were at least 12 people in my last job that I knew of personally taking advantage of the one parent tax credit allowance and had been for a number of years, both them and their partner. If they'd been given the same rights as married couples they probably wouldn't have bothered.
Between each couple, they got the benefit of tax credits equivalant (sic) of four people, instead of just the two of them individually.
Oh and as to getting the credit itself, apparently you just phone up Revenue and say you have a child, which you care for a few days/night a week. They ask the name of the child and that's it, no PPSN asked for, nothing about who the partner is, it's all sorted there and then for you in five minutes.
You're not supposed to be living with the partner of your child if claiming this additional tax credit/benefit but there are no checks in place, no questions asked and no follow-ups done to determine if this is indeed the case.
In fact, I'd say even if you didn't have a child you could probably pull it off and get the credit anyway.

So there's more than just some couples or single mothers at fault here that *might* be scamming the system, it goes far, far wider than that, to many the person who is actually working and doing similar if not worse and have been for years by one or both partners claiming additional one parent tax credits for themselves. One of Irelands best kept tax evasion secrets I reckon, open to one and all to take advantage of.

K-9

Nehaxak wrote: »

I agree, but I replied to his initial post of which he said, and I quote...

"For example, couples deliberatly not getting married so they can bleed the state."

Which is just plain wrong.

The whole cohabitation thing needs to be sorted out too as I think the department of social welfare have it right but the tax office do not as the revenue do not class cohabiting couples in the same way that they class and give benefits to married couples.
Whereas the Social Welfare make no such distinctions, hold no prejudice either way and make no extra or additional benefits available to married couples over those who are just cohabiting happily.

You get nothing extra from the tax office as a couple unless you are married, which is complete bullshít. There's where it's rife countrywide in regards couples taking advantage of the one parent tax credit allowance and you wouldn't blame them either as if they declare themselves cohabiting, they get no such benefit - which they wouldn't have to do if the Revenue service stopped being prejudiced against them just because they're unmarried.

There were at least 12 people in my last job that I knew of personally taking advantage of the one parent tax credit allowance and had been for a number of years, both them and their partner. If they'd been given the same rights as married couples they probably wouldn't have bothered.
Between each couple, they got the benefit of tax credits equivalant (sic) of four people, instead of just the two of them individually.
Oh and as to getting the credit itself, apparently you just phone up Revenue and say you have a child, which you care for a few days/night a week. They ask the name of the child and that's it, no PPSN asked for, nothing about who the partner is, it's all sorted there and then for you in five minutes.
You're not supposed to be living with the partner of your child if claiming this additional tax credit/benefit but there are no checks in place, no questions asked and no follow-ups done to determine if this is indeed the case.
In fact, I'd say even if you didn't have a child you could probably pull it off and get the credit anyway.

So there's more than just some couples or single mothers at fault here that *might* be scamming the system, it goes far, far wider than that, to many the person who is actually working and doing similar if not worse and have been for years by one or both partners claiming additional one parent tax credits for themselves. One of Irelands best kept tax evasion secrets I reckon, open to one and all to take advantage of.

Comes back to lack of checks again.

Once you go into tax, how many people don't tell "white lies" on their tax return. It isn't just a ROI thing either, I've seen this in NI too. People pretending the wife works so they could claim an extra tax credit.

Zamboni

Aside from the main social welfare fraud point what is the extent of social responsibility of a person (male and female) reproducing in the full knowledge that they do not have the current support to finance a child?

I personally find it unacceptable.
There is very little accidental about a consensual conception.
Drink, drugs etcera are absolutely no excuse anymore than they would be for a crime.
We live in a sexually liberal time which is fair enough but people should at least be willing to bear the consequences of their own individual actions.

Nehaxak

Zamboni wrote: »

Aside from the main social welfare fraud point what is the extent of social responsibility of a person (male and female) reproducing in the full knowledge that they do not have the current support to finance a child?

I personally find it unacceptable.
There is very little accidental about a consensual conception.
Drink, drugs etcera are absolutely no excuse anymore than they would be for a crime.
We live in a sexually liberal time which is fair enough but people should at least be willing to bear the consequences of their own individual actions.

What the hell has that got to do with anything here ?
..and, "reproducing" I mean come on, who the hell calls sex "reproducing" ?
...and a "concentual conception" ? Seriously like ?...

Who the hell uses language like that to explain sex, casual, loving or otherwise, between two people.
I also dunno where you've learned the facts of life but your not automatically guaranteed the conception of a child after you've had sex either.

I mean, Jesus Christ man, this is the year 2010, not the 16th century.

Some couples also, believe or not, have the only and utmost goal in life as having children of their own, whether they can "afford" them or not in your view is nobodies' business and that doesn't take away from the fact that there are people who scam the system regardless, no matter their background. For as few as there might be scamming the system, there's an infinite other amount of couples who wouldn't even think about it.

Zamboni

Nehaxak wrote: »

What the hell has that got to do with anything here ?
..and, "reproducing" I mean come on, who the hell calls sex "reproducing" ?
...and a "concentual conception" ? Seriously like ?...

Who the hell uses language like that to explain sex, casual, loving or otherwise, between two people.

I thought the language may be more appropriate as this thread is in the Politics/Economy forum as opposed to AH.

Nehaxak wrote: »

I also dunno where you've learned the facts of life but your not automatically guaranteed the conception of a child after you've had sex either.

I don't believe I indicated otherwise?

Nehaxak wrote: »

I mean, Jesus Christ man, this is the year 2010, not the 16th century.

Quality observation.

Nehaxak wrote: »

Some couples also, believe or not, have the only and utmost goal in life as having children of their own, whether they can "afford" them or not in your view is nobodies' business and that doesn't take away from the fact that there are people who scam the system regardless, no matter their background. For as few as there might be scamming the system, there's an infinite other amount of couples who wouldn't even think about it.

It is somebody's business. The taxpayer who stumps up.
Do you know what happens in a combination of reckless reproduction and scarce resources?
I would suggest you look at several countries in Latin America and Africa for some extreme examples.