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
Unmarried Mothers
Options
Comments
-
To give you a bit of background Caseyann, the male is a poster boy for long term welfare dependency, no qualifications or desire to attain any, very poor attitude and appearance (piercings etc) and his entire direct family appear to be on welfare. I wouldn't think they need to worry about him taking up employment and lowering their entitlements LOL. She is looking for employment like I said, but would probably refuse formal work in favour of cash in hand type jobs. It is a poverty trap, but putting the necessary supports in place to help people like that is expensive and probably ineffectual when he will probably never hold down a job for longer than a week anyway. That said he is not typical of people on welfare, and i would never suggest that he is, but there will always be people who will milk the system if given a chance.Completely non working and claiming,taking on responsibility of living together and possibly having a child.
Why on earth would anyone move in with someone when they can not take care of themselves.
They have gotten into the trap that most people are forced into unwillingly,willingly.That is no life and beyond bizarre the social would entertain them without a child.
They must be claiming their benefits together.
If she is looking for a job she will lose out on the rent and they will lower their contribution.
And the reason they would move in together is that the state provide accomodation for them, neither of them are over 25 and it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to move home with their parents unless there is some reason that they can't, i'm not aware that there is.0 -
-
-
A couple gets slightly less than a couple with 1 kid. About 100 quid difference in RS for Dublin. Thats not much of a difference to NOT get that nice gaff.
Think we agree that we have to remove the incentive for welfare couples married or not to have more kids without been able to support them.
Think what I was getting at was to incentivise marriage to help stamp out the fraudsters.(the ones who have a working boyf living with them on the sly) as I believe thats widespread.
The reason the fraudsters are there is the high rates of benefits. If you cut single parent payments but give higher marriage welfare payments, you are incentivising marriage alright! They'll just get married and claim the higher benefits.
The problem isn't that they are single parents, it's that they are welfare fraudsters. Change the system, they'll follow the changes to whatever is financially better for them.gurramok wrote:It will remove the incentive to just have kids in order to get higher RS and add an incentive to work hard for that nice gaff.
As I said here recently, I as a worker had to compete with single mothers to get accommodation in Castleknock & Ballsbridge in the 1000-1200 price range, thats grossly unfair. If the RS was reduced, that single mother will have to work to afford a gaff in one of those areas hence making it more fair.
I suppose that makes sense financially. Keeps the riff raff out too!
Its quite attainable. Even easier down the country as other entitlements can make up the shortfall as rent is less expensive. Finding 130 extra between them in Dublin or 80 quid in Wexford is what they have to find.
http://www.dsfa.ie/GA/Press/PressReleases/2010/Pages/pr100610.aspx?cssFont=Contrast
A couple with one kid gets the same money in RS as a single parent with one kid. No wonder there is fraud as it pays not to declare as a couple.
It is probably based on the assumption that the man and woman need one bedroom.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Maybe we need to change the system to incentivise marriage and then change it back after a few years whilst making divorce prohibitively expensiveThe reason the fraudsters are there is the high rates of benefits. If you cut single parent payments but give higher marriage welfare payments, you are incentivising marriage alright! They'll just get married and claim the higher benefits.
The problem isn't that they are single parents, it's that they are welfare fraudsters. Change the system, they'll follow the changes to whatever is financially better for them.
A voucher system is the way to go imho. Make welfare a painful place to be and there'll be less on it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe we need to change the system to incentivise marriage and then change it back after a few years whilst making divorce prohibitively expensive
A voucher system is the way to go imho. Make welfare a painful place to be and there'll be less on it.
While our system is too generous and the welfare trap is way too high, I wouldn't like a US type system. Far too many homeless people for my liking. We have homeless here too obviously, but I think a balance is better.
Anyway, it really is simple. All these sister in laws and neighbours people know, report and keep reporting. Far too much guilt about reporting in this country. Also change the rules that if you are convicted of welfare fraud, you can't get anymore welfare.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Why would rent/food/clothing vouchers cause homelessness?While our system is too generous and the welfare trap is way too high, I wouldn't like a US type system. Far too many homeless people for my liking. We have homeless here too obviously, but I think a balance is better.
If anything it should help get people who would otherwise be happy to live on welfare forever off their arses and ensure that welfare is spent feeding, housing and clothing the family rather than being pissed away in the pub or down the bookies...
There'd be an inevitable black market of people using vouchers to buy grocery items which they'd sell on to get money for drink etc. but on the whole it would seem a better system to ensure that welfare spending is actually spent on providing the essentials for people in need rather than adding to the bottom line of Paddy Powers acounts...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Why would rent/food/clothing vouchers cause homelessness?
If anything it should help get people who would otherwise be happy to live on welfare forever off their arses and ensure that welfare is spent feeding, housing and clothing the family rather than being pissed away in the pub or down the bookies...
There'd be an inevitable black market of people using vouchers to buy grocery items which they'd sell on to get money for drink etc. but on the whole it would seem a better system to ensure that welfare spending is actually spent on providing the essentials for people in need rather than adding to the bottom line of Paddy Powers acounts...
As long as it covers rent, it shouldn't.It has been done. Its too hard to prove the man is living there.
It could easily be proved. All it takes is a few mornings stationed outside the house. I'd say not enough resources are targeted at fraud. In fairness why would they? Sure they just get docked a few quid anyway. It probably isn't worth it for the savings involved.gurramok wrote:Yes maybe. But you can see it from a scammer point of view. Why bother claim as a couple when they can claim as a single parent while the man can work while still living there illegally yet RS stays the same.
If they stayed as a couple and the man found work, they will lose the RS which means hardship.
They'll just get a job paying cash and keep everything. Instead of being single parents scamming the system, they join the ranks of the married spongers.
Again it comes back to: single parents defrauding welfare are welfare frauds first, single parents second.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Guitareaxe wrote: »You think a standard 40 hour week for the standard dole - 198 euro is fair?? thats miles less the minimum wage and remember it costs money to work. that 198 wouldnt last half the week unless the worker settled for living in abject poverty.
Most people with JA/JB are entitled to it and are out of work through no fault of their own, and in case you havent noticed there are slim pickings on the jobs market.
the few who do sponge and claim all sorts of entitlements illigally are greedy, and if the companies payed working class people a decent wage then it wouldnt be so attractive to live on welfare to them, if they are greedy enough to lie to the government and sponge they would greedily take up a decent paying job.
If they want people who sponge off the system to get out and work then the lower end jobs need to stop paying them buttons and actually make it beneficial for them to work.
anyone earning less then 17,000 a year is probably better off on the dole, at least they can get a house/flat from the gov and have a life and free health care , sure when would they ever afford all that on the buttons jobs pay them. While i'm all for being an upstanding and contributing member of society, Humans Beings will choose the best mode of survival first, when it comes down to the choice of working for nothing to help make the company owners richer, having no free time and being treated like **** by there bosses OR having a poor yet reasonable life on welfare then the choice is obvious.
There is the WWP2 scheme, (I believe thats the correct name) where people on the dole can work in order to "keep there skills fresh and current" and they dont get payed, just remain on the dole. That sounds nice, but considering its very very difficult to get by if a person is renting somewhere, paying bills, and eating, throw in the cost of commuting,lunches and working daily and it actually works out as slave labour. most of these WWP2 jobs on offer are in call centers or newsagents and deli's. Yeah really up skilling there arent they.
Its a joke
And for the record i'm not on the dole but have been before.
No i didnt say that,i meant for the rate the hours sorry,should have been clearer,and not to those who have genuine reason to be not working or on short term unemployment.
I will read the rest of what you said now
Finished reading what you said and nothing to add but i agree with you,if they feel safer on the welfare and its consistent,rather then get a job where you dont know if you can pay your rent on the minimum wage and bills.They wont be overly enthusiastic about working.
I merely said give them work like i said above,meaning part time hours so they are out doing something might encourage them and give some the self confidence and self esteem to find other work.Or if they hate what they are doing they will find something they do like.
But long term unemployed need to feel like the money is been worked for.Unmarried mothers are in alot of cases stuck in a rut with no way out.
Like if they were given flexible jobs to work in schools or other likes while their children are in school,but cant be denied days off when kids arent in school(unless ofc they get a baby sitter) And when the kids are sick whom ever they are working for can not sack them or stop them for going to their child,you would see hell of alot more single parents back out in work.
I know so many of them that are stressed beyond belief if they want to go looking for jobs and have no back ups to mind their kids.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement