Unmarried Mothers

Nehaxak

Zamboni wrote: »

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

It's also not some conservative religious forum and we're mostly all adults here so feel free to upgrade your language a little, you won't hurt us.

I don't believe I indicated otherwise?

"There is very little accidental about a consensual conception."

Expand on what you meant by that then.

It is somebody's business. The taxpayer who stumps up.

What are you talking about ? Stumps up for what exactly and why ?

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.

I've lived and worked in both Latin America and Africa, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Tim Robbins

If the woman is a determined fraudster, she will have no problem in producing "witnesses" who will attest to almost anything.

It would certainly make it harder especially if there was legislation which specifically dealt with people who committed fraud on this issue.

Zamboni

Nehaxak wrote: »

It's also not some conservative religious forum and we're mostly all adults here so feel free to upgrade your language a little, you won't hurt us.

You are just being pedantic.

Nehaxak wrote: »

"There is very little accidental about a consensual conception."

Expand on what you meant by that then.

I thought it was fairly self explanatory...
Two people get together and decide to have sex.
There is a possibility that the female may become pregnant.
This is not an accidental event.

Nehaxak wrote: »

What are you talking about ? Stumps up for what exactly and why ?

I am talking about people who procreate (sorry) make babies without the resources to support the child and therefore rely on social welfare.
This is paid for by the taxpayer. Hence the 'stumping'.

Nehaxak wrote: »

I've lived and worked in both Latin America and Africa, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Where you have lived and worked bears no relation to my knowledge.

I am not sure why are you getting worked up about me suggesting that people should have some consideration to the financial repercussions of a pregnancy?
Surely that is what a responsible adult would do? Do you disagree?

Tim Robbins

Nehaxak wrote: »

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.

Marriage existed before Christianity (which I assume is the religion you are referring to) so the religion argument is pretty poor.

Unmarried couples have more finacial advantages but it was stupid of me to say they are "bleeding" the state as the vast majority wasn't. We all say stupid things from time to time. What I meant was you shouldn't be finacially punished for getting married. For example, if you are married and one of you
loose your job you don't get the same benefits you'd get if you weren't married.

And you're right the state needs to move to make it that way.

Gurgle

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For example, if you are married and one of you loose your job you don't get the same benefits you'd get if you weren't married.

No, you get different benefits.
Transferance of tax free allowance, rather than social welfare.

Nehaxak

Zamboni wrote: »

You are just being pedantic.

Realistic would be the word I'd use.

I thought it was fairly self explanatory...
Two people get together and decide to have sex.
There is a possibility that the female may become pregnant.
This is not an accidental event.

We *really* need a facepalm smiley on boards !
You have heard of condoms ? No ?
Regardless, it's still bloody rediculous to say "consensual conception" - it's like something from a Harry Enfield or Fast Show sketch.
Are you a hundred years old or something ?

I am talking about people who procreate (sorry) make babies without the resources to support the child and therefore rely on social welfare. This is paid for by the taxpayer. Hence the 'stumping'.

That's complete crap. I refuse to believe what you've stated in any way whatsoever unless you have actual hard facts to say otherwise rather than opinionated drivel. I've already given and stated in here an example of a widespread, countrywide and classes example of a known tax scam that I'm sure far far outweighs anything that is being lost to the very low minority of parents who might be even attempting to do as you say.

Where you have lived and worked bears no relation to my knowledge.

Yes it bloody does. I have firsthand working knowledge and experience from both living and working in countries on the continents mentioned, with some of the poorest of people in the world, whereas as you have what ? Articles by Kevin Myers to base your opinions from ?
Breaking news to you maybe but not all couples around the world base their ability to have children around their actual wealth or apparent lack of.
What you've said reminds me of old Protestant attitude espoused against Cathlolics in Ireland, from a time long long gone by at this stage, thankfully.

I am not sure why are you getting worked up about me suggesting that people should have some consideration to the financial repercussions of a pregnancy?

...because I can. You gave your opinion and I'm giving mine in return, it's a forum and opinions posted are open for debate - it's not a blog where you can post whatever you want and never be bothered about someone pulling you up over it.

People should just live their own lives and be happy. If you can't or don't want kids then fine, wait until you're a millionaire/billionaire if you wish but don't knock other parents just because you have a personal problem with people just having children because they have a desire to raise and love children of their own, regardless of their perceived wealth.
Ireland happens to be, thankfully, one of the few countries in the world where you can if you really want to, drag yourself to the very top from the lowest of the lowest bottom you could ever be, through hard work and intelligence (and a bit of helpful encouragement where required) - regardless of your upbringing or childhood.
One of the things that will always stick with me was one of my managers and old friend in my previous job, a well paid and fairly wealthy guy, telling me he'd give up everything he owned and everything he had if only him and his wife could have a child of their own.
How you measure perceived wealth in life is not the same as how others do, some of us actually put more emphasis on life and human nature by itself (assuming you're normal) requiring the need to bare children of your own and do your very best to raise them as best you possibly can, regardless of your circumstances.

Surely that is what a responsible adult would do? Do you disagree?

Not the way you've said it nor expressed your opinions, no, I don't agree with you.

Nehaxak

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Marriage existed before Christianity (which I assume is the religion you are referring to) so the religion argument is pretty poor.

Unmarried couples have more finacial advantages but it was stupid of me to say they are "bleeding" the state as the vast majority wasn't. We all say stupid things from time to time. What I meant was you shouldn't be finacially punished for getting married. For example, if you are married and one of you
loose your job you don't get the same benefits you'd get if you weren't married.

And you're right the state needs to move to make it that way.

Cool dude, but some of what you've said here in your reply is also wrong, or at least what I can pick up from what you've said is wrong, or at least just uninformed (I mean that in a helpful way, not being argumentative )
The Social welfare do not differentiate or give any extra benefits to couples who are married or just co-habiting. If one of you are unemployed, you're means tested against and including all your partners income or savings (to a degree, there's a limit of savings allowed between you which is decent enough really).
On the other hand, if you're an unmarried couple and one of you are unemployed, your partner cannot claim your tax credits or gain any other possible benefits as the Revenue do have prejudice against unmarried/co-habiting couples.
If you are married and you are unemployed, your partner can claim credits for you and even if you are both employed, if it's still the case that is (maybe someone more adept can clarify) you can both pool your tax credits together regardless and end up both of you coming out better off tax wise.
There are actually more benefits to be gained from being married than there are to being unmarried, at least from a revenue/tax perspective.

Tim Robbins

Gurgle wrote: »

No, you get different benefits.
Transferance of tax free allowance, rather than social welfare.

Tax free allowances don't exist any more.
You have a tax credit which you can transfer but it counts for very little.
McCreevy changed things with individualisation.

If one of you is out of a job you'll get your job seekers benefit which isn't mean tested but this this only lasts a year. Then you'll be means tested but you husband / wifes earnings are included in your means testing which entitles you to a lot less.

If you want to get a medical card when one of you is on job seekers the other one salary will be taken into account if you are married and won't be if you are not.

There are other examples, for example if one person owns the apartment where you live the other person can claim rent relief if you are not married but you can't claim this if you are married.

There's several more if anyone wants to join in...

Tim Robbins

Nehaxak wrote: »

There are actually more benefits to be gained from being married than there are to being unmarried, at least from a revenue/tax perspective.

We should take this in separate thread as it's certainly a very interesting discussion that confuses a lot of people. Do we have any sharp accountants who'd be prepared to set us straight?

Zamboni

Nehaxak wrote: »

Realistic would be the word I'd use.



We *really* need a facepalm smiley on boards !
You have heard of condoms ? No ?
Regardless, it's still bloody rediculous to say "consensual conception" - it's like something from a Harry Enfield or Fast Show sketch.
Are you a hundred years old or something ?



That's complete crap. I refuse to believe what you've stated in any way whatsoever unless you have actual hard facts to say otherwise rather than opinionated drivel. I've already given and stated in here an example of a widespread, countrywide and classes example of a known tax scam that I'm sure far far outweighs anything that is being lost to the very low minority of parents who might be even attempting to do as you say.



Yes it bloody does. I have firsthand working knowledge and experience from both living and working in countries on the continents mentioned, with some of the poorest of people in the world, whereas as you have what ? Articles by Kevin Myers to base your opinions from ?
Breaking news to you maybe but not all couples around the world base their ability to have children around their actual wealth or apparent lack of.
What you've said reminds me of old Protestant attitude espoused against Cathlolics in Ireland, from a time long long gone by at this stage, thankfully.



...because I can. You gave your opinion and I'm giving mine in return, it's a forum and opinions posted are open for debate - it's not a blog where you can post whatever you want and never be bothered about someone pulling you up over it.

People should just live their own lives and be happy. If you can't or don't want kids then fine, wait until you're a millionaire/billionaire if you wish but don't knock other parents just because you have a personal problem with people just having children because they have a desire to raise and love children of their own, regardless of their perceived wealth.
Ireland happens to be, thankfully, one of the few countries in the world where you can if you really want to, drag yourself to the very top from the lowest of the lowest bottom you could ever be, through hard work and intelligence (and a bit of helpful encouragement where required) - regardless of your upbringing or childhood.
One of the things that will always stick with me was one of my managers and old friend in my previous job, a well paid and fairly wealthy guy, telling me he'd give up everything he owned and everything he had if only him and his wife could have a child of their own.
How you measure perceived wealth in life is not the same as how others do, some of us actually put more emphasis on life and human nature by itself (assuming you're normal) requiring the need to bare children of your own and do your very best to raise them as best you possibly can, regardless of your circumstances.



Not the way you've said it nor expressed your opinions, no, I don't agree with you.

So to summarise, I am 100 years old, I speak crap and opinionated drivel and read Kevin Myers.
Super.
Now when you are finished ranting feel free to explain why the taxpayers should subsidise irresponsible breeding.

Nehaxak

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We should take this in separate thread as it's certainly a very interesting discussion that confuses a lot of people. Do we have any sharp accountants who'd be prepared to set us straight?

We should for sure yeah, but I don't have any sharp accountants handy though no

Chuchoter

Nehaxak you are totally missing the point. The taxpayer should not have to pay for children who were born to people who could not pay for them by themselves and who knew they would not be able to support the child. I don't even understand what you mean about condoms and things not being accidents or something...but you have unprotected sex, theres a high chance a baby might be involved. If the man got pregnant or they got pregnant holding hands, now theres an accident, but otherwise you knew you could end up with a baby. Why should we have to pay for other peoples irresponsibility?

You also said that it was completely crap we were stumping up the cash. If you rely on the LPA, then you are not able to support the child on your own merit. Where do you think the social welfare money comes from for these people? The social welfare fairies?

Liam Byrne

gallaigirl wrote: »

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??????

You tell us.....I mean, why did you choose to have sex with someone like that ?

K-9

crayolastereo wrote: »

Nehaxak you are totally missing the point. The taxpayer should not have to pay for children who were born to people who could not pay for them by themselves and who knew they would not be able to support the child. I don't even understand what you mean about condoms and things not being accidents or something...but you have unprotected sex, theres a high chance a baby might be involved. If the man got pregnant or they got pregnant holding hands, now theres an accident, but otherwise you knew you could end up with a baby. Why should we have to pay for other peoples irresponsibility?

You also said that it was completely crap we were stumping up the cash. If you rely on the LPA, then you are not able to support the child on your own merit. Where do you think the social welfare money comes from for these people? The social welfare fairies?

Well the child dependent part of LPA is €29 so they could lose that and just claim the Dole instead. Solves part of the problem but we still need the fairies.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You tell us.....I mean, why did you choose to have sex with someone like that ?

What a stupid question and it is asked so many times in threads like this. I'm sure the poster will answer it.

Spudmonkey

K-9 wrote: »

What a stupid question and it is asked so many times in threads like this. I'm sure the poster will answer it.

Is that really a stupid question or is it just you don't consider it politically correct?

Why should Johnny taxpayer be asked to stump up for this girls inability to choose a responsible partner? Was he always a deadbeat or did he change after the baby was born? :rolleyes:

Chuchoter

K-9 wrote: »

Well the child dependent part of LPA is €29 so they could lose that and just claim the Dole instead. Solves part of the problem but we still need the fairies.

Well first of all that wasn't what the person I was talking to said. They said the taxpayer somehow was not paying the LPA. Otherwise, if they were working and claiming the LPA, they can't just quit their job and claim dole. If you quit your job by choice you can't sign on, you have to wait like a year or so.

K-9

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Is that really a stupid question or is it just you don't consider it politically correct?

Why should Johnny taxpayer be asked to stump up for this girls inability to choose a responsible partner? Was he always a deadbeat or did he change after the baby was born? :rolleyes:

Nope, it is just a stupid question. As I said, I'll let the poster he was responding to, reply.

crayolastereo wrote: »

Well first of all that wasn't what the person I was talking to said. They said the taxpayer somehow was not paying the LPA. Otherwise, if they were working and claiming the LPA, they can't just quit their job and claim dole. If you quit your job by choice you can't sign on, you have to wait like a year or so.

Well the person you were speaking too was obviously talking through their arse.

RichardAnd

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, it is just a stupid question. As I said, I'll let the poster he was responding to, reply.

It's not a stupid question. A woman has the right to choose who she wishes to sleep with so if she chooses to exercise that right and bed a waster then that is her choice. Should the union result in a pregnancy, then she is as responsible for the creation of that child as much as her father. If a girl chooses to have sex and gets pregnant then its the same as me choosing to back all my money on a horse and loosing.

K-9

RichardAnd wrote: »

It's not a stupid question. A woman has the right to choose who she wishes to sleep with so if she chooses to exercise that right and bed a waster then that is her choice. Should the union result in a pregnancy, then she is as responsible for the creation of that child as much as her father. If a girl chooses to have sex and gets pregnant then its the same as me choosing to back all my money on a horse and loosing.

So, what is your solution?

RichardAnd

K-9 wrote: »

So, what is your solution?

Well proper sex education would be a start. Removal of child benefit would be another way to force some responsibility into people.

K-9

RichardAnd wrote: »

Well proper sex education would be a start. Removal of child benefit would be another way to force some responsibility into people.

True. Interesting that nearly 60% of Single Parents are over 30, from the link I posted above. I find, it isn't necessarily the young wans who are ignorant of sexual education, which is a common misconception. The lack of awareness of sexual diseases here, regardless of age, is worrying.

Unfortunately, you can have all the best sexual education in the world, you'll still have single parents. What happens then?

I'd agree on Child Benefit. Indeed, rather than target single parents, we should target all parents.

gallaigirl

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You tell us.....I mean, why did you choose to have sex with someone like that ?

in reply to ur post liam byrne probably the same reason people would think u were ok until u open ur mouth!
if u dont understand the term people change then there is no hope for u at all! when i met my childs father and for the 5 years after that he was what i thought a decent guy, but people change! maybe if u changed ur attitude u wouldnt be so heartless! u havent the faintest idea what it is like to be in a situation like that so dont bother commenting on it and go back to slagging single mothers who bother to raise our children when men like u and alot others do nothing but slag them off for at least being there for their children regardless of what or why there are in the situation they are in!

Sponge Bob

You may even have an argument in that post but I am not wading through willfully unpunctuated textspeak to find out what that argument actually is.

gallaigirl

its amazing YOU men just make each look look better and better dont you.

RichardAnd

gallaigirl wrote: »

its amazing YOU men just make each look look better and better dont you.

I think you have an issue with misandry.

AlekSmart

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?

If u dont understand the term people change then there is no hope for u at all! when i met my childs father and for the 5 years after that he was what i thought a decent guy, but people change!

People do change Gallaigirl,but to go from being a "decent guy" to a man who attempts to stab an infant may well be considered a change too far ?

Many posters here would probably enquire if the change process which enveloped your partner was a sudden one or whether there may have been warning signs there but which were not seen by all concerned ?

Whats coming from this thread is the reality that we as a culture have problems with this entire Relationship business.

Instead,a sizeable chunk of our society have embarked on a Jim Jones style mass conversion process after which we come to believe that getting the Allowance,and associated services as well as the holy-grail,a local authority "Place of one`s Own" will thereafter ensure contented and trouble-free existence.....and guess what...it does`nt !

What`s at issue here is our societal failure to understand or attempt to understand the process of forming relationships on foundations other than getting together and "havin a baby" which sadly is the preferred route for waaay too many.

While it`s good to hear from the likes of Gallaigirl who have the interest to look beyond it,the reality is that far too many see the entire system as a nice little earner,thank you very much.

its amazing YOU men just make each look look better and better dont you.

There was an interesting debate opening up here,but I rather fear this remark may have ended that opportunity.

Spudmonkey

K-9 wrote: »

True. Interesting that nearly 60% of Single Parents are over 30, from the link I posted above. I find, it isn't necessarily the young wans who are ignorant of sexual education, which is a common misconception. The lack of awareness of sexual diseases here, regardless of age, is worrying.

Unfortunately, you can have all the best sexual education in the world, you'll still have single parents. What happens then?

I'd agree on Child Benefit. Indeed, rather than target single parents, we should target all parents.

Bar the few genuine cases where there was a death of a spouse or partner, there are a lot of people of there who are ignorant to the consequences of their actions, wouldn't you agree?

Are you saying that because they are over a certain age they should be exempt from such education because, ah shur they are old enough, they should know by now?

Sex education should be more than just how to do it, cause lets face it, there are many out there with no problems in that department. It should also inform them of the potential outcome of their actions. Not just personally but socially.

Max Power1

RichardAnd wrote: »

Well proper sex education would be a start. Removal of child benefit would be another way to force some responsibility into people.

+1

They should first of all remove all the other ludicrous financial incentives to pop out sprog after sprog, like lone parents allowance etc.

You should only be allowed recieve one "payment" from the state, eg if you are in receipt of the qualified child payment of €35 odd per week from the jobseekers allowance then you shouldnt get the child benefit in addition to this.

monkeypants

Birth certs; what's the point? Nowadays you can just hop back in time and change your registered birth of a boy to a girl or vice versa. It's now a malleable document of record, whatever value that has.

Nehaxak

crayolastereo wrote: »

Nehaxak you are totally missing the point.

I'm not missing any point because nobody has actually made a proper point backed up with facts to support that point, what's been posted here are all just personal opinions with some prejudice thrown in for good measure, and in some cases just absolute drivel.

The taxpayer should not have to pay for children who were born to people who could not pay for them by themselves and who knew they would not be able to support the child.

What are you talking about ? The state provides that children be cared and provided for and provides that the state help those who need it, not only those that are unemployed but those that are working too, regardless.
If you're a married couple together, both working, you can claim tax credit for your children between you both and offset that against tax you pay as that is what the state provides for you as a taxpayer to take advantage of by law.
Unfortunately the Revenue are not as forward thinking, professional and up-to-date with the times as the department of social welfare in that they (the revenue) hold prejudice against unmarried couples whereas the social welfare do not and treat all couples the same.
As such, unmarried couples, at least one or both, take advantage of this and one (or both) have a tendancy to claim the single parent tax credit - and until the revenue laws are updated and brought more in line with the more professionally administered social welfare laws, it will probably remain that way for a long time.

Or does it only matter to you and others that a person would claim the exact same benefits (actually an awful lot less of a burden on the tax payer as it's only €29, whoop de doo, breaking the taxpayers back with €29 per week) when one or other of the parents are unemployed ?

In my last job I was claiming the one parent additional tax credit for around 2 years before I moved in with my partner and our kids, I was coming out with more in my monthly pay packet (at around 41k a year) than others I worked with that were coming out with just over 55k a year. What I was doing was perfectly legal, absolutely what I was entitled too and is done by thousands in Ireland.

...but I wasn't unemployed so nobody cared how much extra "burden" I was putting on the poor taxpayer, even though I got 100% extra tax credit than most others, again, perfectly legally and within the law.

If a couple with let's say 2 children, both unemployed and living together, and one of them claims (as they are entitled too under law) for themselves, their partner and their 2 children - they would get a flat payment of (if I'm correct in this) around €385 per week from the social welfare.

However, if one of the couple is working then that payment is means tested against the other working parents income. All perfectly fine and above board.

Now, if you were a single parent with the same two children you will get exactly the same as the above and nothing more, but minus the payment for the qualified adult you might otherwise claim for if you were still together - so around €250 per week.

If both parents are still together, but saying they're not for the benefit of "scamming" the system - they're only scamming it for around €66 per week.
That €66 is the extra that the other parent would get from claiming JSA on their own as a single person at the full rate of €196 and whatever few cents which otherwise would be €130 if down as a qualified adult if claimed as a couple/complete family on JSA.

Hardly a back breaking burden on the poor taxpayer even if it was being done when you consider I was coming out with around €350 extra every week as a working taxpayer while claiming the one parent credit.
Those on much more money than I was on and doing exactly the same, would of course come out with a lot more extra that otherwise would have went to Revenue. Perfectly fine, legal within the law. Yet still their persists the stupid notion that it's always unemployed single parents that burden the poor taxpayer with their extra €29 per week they get for their child, which they'd get anyway as an unemployed couple.
Rather than what should be the issue of the taxpaying single parent him/herself doing the same and as such doubling their tax credits and coming out, as I was, with around €350 extra per week.

I don't even understand what you mean about condoms and things not being accidents or something...but you have unprotected sex, theres a high chance a baby might be involved.

Of course there is, it'd be stupid to think otherwise but there was a wide sweeping generalising made about, and I quote "concensual conception" of which no such thing will ever exist as even invitrofertilisation (sic?) could never be considered 100% sure as to conceiving a child. Hence there is no such thing as consensual conception. That and most hetrosexual people have been educated enough to use protection these days, the drop in prevalance of AIDS in the hetrosexual population of Ireland seems to backup that notion too - hence the mention of condoms as not all hetrosexual couples practice unprotected sex.
Even at that though and even given the risk of unprotected casual sex and the woman becoming pregnant - I refuse to believe any woman (or man) would go out and have unprotected casual sex with the sole notion of having a child at the end of it all - but you could bet that even if they did, if they wanted a child that bad, they wouldn't be doing it for an extra €29 from the social welfare ffs.

There's this thing called "love" ye know, look it up, I'm sure even wikipedia has an article on it all.

Old friend of mine from a well off family in Sandyford, living with his parents (still ffs!) in their beautiful house and surrounding gardens got everything he ever wanted in regards money, education, cars etc., lalala., but he told me his mother and father never once in his childhood, never even a single time, said that they loved him, and he's a basket case because of that, even if he's loaded. Done a great job as parents they did.

Why should we have to pay for other peoples irresponsibility?

Well now, there's a plethora of things I could list off that you're paying through the nose for in regards other peoples irresponsibility that puts the extra €29 a week a parent might get for a child from social welfare paling into comparison. NAMA being one of them, you're paying the price as a taxpayer for the irreponsibility of developers, bankers, government itself etc.,
Again though, easy to single out unemployed parents and them bleeding the state dry with their extra €29 per child isn't it ? Takes the heat of other things doesn't it ?
Got to ask yourself therefore who is perpetuating the notion it's unemployed parents at fault and why, rather than the heat being kept on the real perpetrators and breaks given to those that are destroying this country.

You also said that it was completely crap we were stumping up the cash. If you rely on the LPA, then you are not able to support the child on your own merit. Where do you think the social welfare money comes from for these people? The social welfare fairies?

So the price of a box of nappies and a couple packets of baby wipes extra a week for an an unemployed parent is more important that than say, oh I dunno, let's say a load of corrupt, incompetant bankers, developers and government employee's who have bled the state dry for year after year and have now bailed themselves out with your tax funds ?

Sure no wonder the country is in such a state...