11 Kids Under 12

Gannicus

We were looking at TV and that 11 Kids Under 12 is on. I honestly couldn't believe that someone could have that many kids in that almost as many years. I then remembered that this one across the road is due her sixth kid. All of them under 18, the eldest 15 years old.

The Girlfriends mate turns to the room and says that me neighbour and I quote
"should be cut off from the childrens allowance she's taking the piss having all these kids and neither of them (parents) working"


Now I'm not fond of population control at all but would it be a bad thing if the children's allowance was capped at a certain amount for example 2 or 3 kids. Should we really be of the opinion that if you can't afford the kids yourself the state (taxpayers) shouldn't foot the bill because you were careless with your amorous activity.

Mint Sauce

It should simply be means tested. Theres no way that someone on 200k a year should be getting the same as someone on 20k.

Captain_Generic

Lets all move to China

hondasam

lets cancel children's allowance all together. If you can't afford them.don't have them.

Gannicus

hondasam wrote: »

lets cancel children's allowance all together. If you can't afford them.don't have them.

That's what the girlfriends mate says.

Mushy

Gonna need to strengthen the squad if they dont want to be relegated!

policarp

irish-stew wrote: »

It should simply be means tested. Theres no way that someone on 200k a year should be getting the same as someone on 20k.

That should be the case IMO, but there is something in the constitution that says all the children of the nation should be cherished equally AFAIK.

Abi

irish-stew wrote: »

It should simply be means tested. Theres no way that someone on 200k a year should be getting the same as someone on 20k.

Nail on the head IMO. The money is there to assist parents with the cost of rearing children. A woman I know is receiving payment for two children and doesnt need it, and has told me she has set up two bank accounts and is putting the monthly money in their bank accounts for when they are older. While that seems like a nice idea on the front of things, some parents desperately await their payments in order to make ends meet. Can the country really afford payouts to people that don't need it?

Clareboy

Children's Allowance - get rid of it! Needy families should receive vouchers for nappies, baby food, clothing etc.

Gannicus

Abi wrote: »

The money is there to assist parents with the cost of rearing children.

Exactly assist parents. But what about all these people like my neighbours who neither of them work and about to have their 6th child.

Abi

Big Steve wrote: »

Abi wrote: »

The money is there to assist parents with the cost of rearing children.

[COLOR="Blue"]Exactly assist parents. [/COLOR]But what about all these people like my neighbours who neither of them work and about to have their 6th child.

Cap it at three children as well as means testing.

Monty Burnz

I think your poll needs a few more options. It's a tad leading - the Sunday Independent would be proud of it.

Sample Sindo poll:

The question: Are you in favour of either debt sharing or the torture of children?

The headline: 95% or population in favour of debt sharing

You get the idea.

Big Nasty

I don't know how anyone on a normal wage could afford to have more than three kids in the first place, allowance or no!

hondasam

Abi wrote: »

Cap it at three children as well as means testing.

why not cap it at one or two children?

AgileMyth

There are three of us in my family. When my parents split my mother became dependant on children's allowance to make ends meat. Nobody can accuse her of having kids she couldn't afford to raise as the youngest was nine before this happened. Capping the number of kids doesn't take circumstances like ours into account.

Means tested on the other hand is an obvious step in the right direction.

Abi

hondasam wrote: »

Abi wrote: »

Cap it at three children as well as means testing.

why not cap it at one or two children?

Because I'm just being awkward

Yeah, maybe two. Once there's a line there .

Kathnora

Apart from the issue of the children's allowance the fact is that having a large family on limited finances means that those children could miss out on a lot of opportunities when they get older..... take education for instance.... what parents can afford to send that many children to 3rd level and provide them with the same opportunities as a child from a smaller family? If you even think about secondary school that's expensive too and what about providing study facilities etc in an over crowded house? It's grand when the children are small and their needs are few but they do grow up.....

hondasam

Kathnora wrote: »

Apart from the issue of the children's allowance the fact is that having a large family on limited finances means that those children could miss out on a lot of opportunities when they get older..... take education for instance.... what parents can afford to send that many children to 3rd level and provide them with the same opportunities as a child from a smaller family? If you even think about secondary school that's expensive too and what about providing study facilities etc in an over crowded house? It's grand when the children are small and their needs are few but they do grow up.....

I would have though bigger families were the norm years ago, it didn't stop some of these people getting on in the world.
When did children's allowance start?

MagicMarker

There should be no such thing as children's allowance except for people in need of it.

CathyMoran

It should be replaced with affordable childcare?

noxqs

Seriously

7sr2z3fely84g5

Abi wrote: »

A woman I know is receiving payment for two children and doesnt need it, and has told me she has set up two bank accounts and is putting the monthly money in their bank accounts for when they are older. While that seems like a nice idea on the front of things, some parents desperately await their payments in order to make ends meet. Can the country really afford payouts to people that don't need it?

its full and legal fraud if the person is rich or poor,i am fed up with these rubbish statements from officials that they cant means test it,anyone can claim it,the system is quiet a joke,here are the rates-
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/child_benefit.html

Child Benefit monthly rate in 2011:
Child Benefit Monthly rate One child €140 Two children €280 Three children €447 Four children €624 Five children €801 Six children €978 Seven children €1,155 Eight children €1,332

At the moment it is an incentive to have more children such is the rewarding of the benefit itself,the other fact is many depend on it to pay their mortgages such is the level of debt in this country

Kathnora

hondasam wrote: »

I would have though bigger families were the norm years ago, it didn't stop some of these people getting on in the world.
When did children's allowance start?

Yes, that's true alright. There were 12 children in my mother's family and most of them did well (circa 1950's). But..... things weren't so expensive then and some of my uncles got council scholarships that got them through second level. Once you got your Leaving Cert as they did then a lot of civil service jobs etc were available to them. Times have changed and now a 3rd level education is necessary where once a Leaving Cert was an adequate standard.

Liam Byrne

CathyMoran wrote: »

It should be replaced with affordable childcare?

How would that make any difference to a couple who want to actually RAISE their kids, instead of just HAVE them ?

MugMugs

Down with this sort of thing!

Abi

Layton Echoing Cereal wrote:

At the moment it is an incentive to have more children such is the rewarding of the benefit itself,the other fact is many depend on it to pay their mortgages such is the level of debt in this country

I think you would have to be terminally stupid to see having a child as a financial incentive. If you receive 180 euro for that child it doesn't come close to the actual monthly cost of feeding, clothing and whatever other costs along the way.

Though for those who are stupid enough to think that, capping and means testing should make them see sense.

Dravokivich

Abi wrote: »

Yeah, maybe two. Once there's a line there .

Lines are better when there's more in'em :pac:

wolfpawnat

The father works so they are not just sponging the state for all it is worth.

What about the Miriam O'Callaghan and her 8 kids and her €600,000 a year? Go after her, not a family who has a menial living. At least he goes out and works, he would probably be better off not working, but he still goes out and shows his family the meaning of a hard days work.

CA should be available to those who need it as should not be a saving scheme for wealthy families. €140 a month per child is nothing in the grand scheme of things. 1 tub of formula milk is €9.50, a pack of nappies is €11.49, clothes and shoes have to be replaced in a very short time.

As for the education thing, my father is one of 14, and all of his siblings have worked hard and have everything they need in life and most of my cousins are very well qualified, so that idea is rubbish!

Crazy Horse 6

Oh look another elitist thread on boards

mikemac

Big Steve wrote: »

Should we really be of the opinion that if you can't afford the kids yourself the state (taxpayers) shouldn't foot the bill because you were careless with your amorous activity.

Lots of us came from large families and in our parents generation it was even more common.
Careless?

If they're happily married and working as best they can I don't see the issue, good luck to them.
Childrens allowance is there to assist them

And I don't think much of your poll OP

seamus

Link it to tax credits. You get child benefit for the first two, and tax credits for every child thereafter.

Abi

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Oh look another elitist thread on boards

Oh yeah? What's your thoughts on the matter?

amen

lets cancel children's allowance all together. If you can't afford them.don't have them.
That's what the girlfriends mate says.

great idea. Lets also remove free state funded health care for those who smoke and drink. Actually lets remove it for everyone

Lets remove rent allowance from those who don't own their own home.

CathyMoran

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How would that make any difference to a couple who want to actually RAISE their kids, instead of just HAVE them ?

Fine, then give tax credits for the person who stays at home. I would love for my husband to be able to stay at home with our children but we can not afford it, we do not regret them for one second though.

Plazaman

Those Chinese lads know how to do it, never mind capping Benefits, cap family sizes (funny trying to come up with a way to enforce that though). I remember a fella in a bar once celebrating the birth of his 11th child, all boys. "I've enough for a football team now", he says. Another fella beside him says "Jaysus, never thought of that, I've 18 daughters - enough for a golf course". Presume he was joking.

Orando Broom

The night the children's allowance is paid is a boon night for pubs. You can't deprive publicans of this additional income.

Abi

Plazaman wrote: »

Those Chinese lads know how to do it, never mind capping Benefits, cap family sizes (funny trying to come up with a way to enforce that though). I remember a fella in a bar once celebrating the birth of his 11th child, all boys. "I've enough for a football team now", he says. Another fella beside him says "Jaysus, never thought of that, I've 18 daughters - enough for a golf course". Presume he was joking.

He'd wanna be. Because if there's any truth in the myth that women who live / work together eventually synch their monthlies, he'd wanna find alternative accommodation for a week :pac:

dirtypanties

I have 2 kids under 3.

We are renting,don't run a car as we live in a medium sized town and husband works a 10 minute walk away-No foreign holidays in the last 3 years-No nights out-Everything we have goes on the kids-I am staying at home to mind them as working would not cover the cost of childcare-I would ideally love a part time job outside the house for my own feeling of self worth and to be able to buy a few luxuries/treats whatever but that can't happen for another few years due to husband being on various different shifts week to week.

The childrens allowance does not come close to feeding/clothing/nappying them and is put towards the cost of rent.

I shudder to think what would happen if husband lost his job as I know we would definitely not make ends meet-We are just about making it as it is.

I don't for 1 second believe that people have more children purely for the child benefit-They would be fools if they did!

At the moment you couldn't pay me to have a 3rd!Lol:D

IvyTheTerrible

I think it's more important to means test. But like the free transport/medical card/fuel allowance for pensioners, votes from rich people are more important than fairness.

seamus

dirtypanties wrote: »

I don't for 1 second believe that people have more children purely for the child benefit-They would be fools if they did!

Ah, god bless your naievty. In some sections of society, there's a welfare culture where people genuinely believe that they are entitled to have all their needs paid for by the state. For them, children are things you have in order to get things from the Government.

Mate of mine started going out with a girl when he was 19, she was a little older. About 6 months into the relationship she told him that she wanted a baby so that she could get a house from the corpo. He initially said no f'in way, but then she told him that if he didn't she'd go find someone who would.

Of course, being an idiot in love he agreed and a baby girl came along and she got her two-bedroom corpo house. They broke up when the child was 6 months old.

A few years later, some other mug is going out with her and same ultimatum. Another baby girl. But she's not happy - if she'd had a boy, she'd be entitled to a 3-bed house. That relationship breaks up.

Not long after her second child is born, a third idiot is drafted into baby duty, and yes she's now pregnant again. And delighted, because regardless of the baby's sex she is "entitled" to be moved to a bigger house because she has 3 kids now.

I would usually be wary of "friend of a friend" stories, but I've talked to this girl and she has bragged about her intentions in public. My contempt for this dirtbag girl at this stage knows no bounds. All of her kids are just a meal ticket for her. I'm just really sorry that a good mate of mine is stuck to her for life by his daughter.

Abi

seamus wrote: »

Ah, god bless your naievty. In some sections of society, there's a welfare culture where people genuinely believe that they are entitled to have all their needs paid for by the state. For them, children are things you have in order to get things from the Government.

Mate of mine started going out with a girl when he was 19, she was a little older. About 6 months into the relationship she told him that she wanted a baby so that she could get a house from the corpo. He initially said no f'in way, but then she told him that if he didn't she'd go find someone who would.

Of course, being an idiot in love he agreed and a baby girl came along and she got her two-bedroom corpo house. They broke up when the child was 6 months old.

A few years later, some other mug is going out with her and same ultimatum. Another baby girl. But she's not happy - if she'd had a boy, she'd be entitled to a 3-bed house. That relationship breaks up.

Not long after her second child is born, a third idiot is drafted into baby duty, and yes she's now pregnant again. And delighted, because regardless of the baby's sex she is "entitled" to be moved to a bigger house because she has 3 kids now.

I would usually be wary of "friend of a friend" stories, but I've talked to this girl and she has bragged about her intentions in public. My contempt for this dirtbag girl at this stage knows no bounds. All of her kids are just a meal ticket for her. I'm just really sorry that a good mate of mine is stuck to her for life by his daughter.

She's an utter scumbag.

smash

sh!t pole needs more options...

On a side note, her fanny must be in bits.

inforfun

Make birth control free.
(and after reading Seamus post, maybe even mandatory in certain cases)


Cap child allowance at 2, maybe 3.

cynder

pole does need more options, i think it should be capped at 5 or 6 kids.



Could only imagine the pressure on a family with 3 children already and the wife falls pregnant even though taking contraceptives and is forced to have an abortion because of lack of money because they have a hugh mortgage and are in negative equity because they bought the house in 2007, the husband then has his hours cut at work and his pay slashed due to the recession, (but not slashed enough to get any state support ).

*if i was in the above position i would not abort the baby, but families could be forced into due to financial problems.

The child beifit is a god send to people in that position. without it many would be starving and naked with no heating or electric.


why do people focus on the ones in council houses in all honesty they have it easy compared to the above! If you cut it from ones in council houses you cut it for everyone!


birth control should be free for every girl/woman over the age of 14.

EGAR

I've got one child who has just turned 7. I certainly will not have another child for various reasons, one of which is the financial impact it would have. The child benefit is helping to pay for school, clothes for my child. I certainly do not hit the pubs with it.

I think it should be means tested and it should be capped at a certain amount of kids. And if you think you can afford 5, 6 or 7 kids then you shouldn't be entitled to it.

wild_cat

Cap it at two!

Is it not a bit selfish to have children you can't afford to feed?

Like forget everything else like the cost of education, childcare etc.. etc...

If you can't afford the basics of being able to feed and clothe the child out of your own pocket.. why would you have children?

Would you not look at your child everyday and feel like an utter failure because you need hand outs to put a jumper on their back?

I know money isn't everything when it comes to having children, they need to be loved to.. but surely if you loved them you would only have introduced them into a situation where you could give them the best you could personally afford and not rely on the state to give you slim pickings to do so?


Contraception should be free and very available to. Condoms still have the luxury tax on them don't they?

Abi

wild_cat wrote: »

Cap it at two!

Is it not a bit selfish to have children you can't afford to feed?

Exactly. Children don't ask to be born, and parents owe it to them to give them the best possible start in life. People that have children for payouts and houses should have their reproductive organs forcefully removed.

7sr2z3fely84g5

cost of living is still high itself,as i pointed out earlier in the thread it does reward you for more kids you have,and i think this gives a gateway to anymore supplements from the welfare atm machine.

cynder

I was reading the paper the other day and the couple in question had 2 children, both were going to die before the age of 10. the woman fell pregnant again by accident, when the baby was 2 the middle child died at age 4. you would be cruel enough to deny this family child benefit for the 2 years with the 3rd child because the dad had a decent wage, irrespective of the amount of time he had to take off or the weeks spent in hospital with the kids, the childminders needed for the other kids while they were in hospital.

What about the ones who adopt the special needs kids and look after them because no one else will. We will end up with more abortions more special needs kids being fostered out to families who already have kids.

when you say it should be means tested whats the cap, 40k 50k a year 60k 90k 100k dont forget there are mortages to pay some over 2k a month, medical bills to pay , insurances to pay, as well as paying their taxes! I would agree wtih anyone on a wage of 150k shouldnt need child benifit, but they might, its not for me to say.

7sr2z3fely84g5

grindelwald wrote: »

when you say it should be means tested whats the cap, 40k 50k a year 60k 90k 100k dont forget there are mortages to pay some over 2k a month, medical bills to pay , insurances to pay, as well as paying their taxes!

Every other benefit is means tested regardless on whose got bills to pay.

wild_cat

grindelwald wrote: »

I was reading the paper the other day and the couple in question had 2 children, both were going to die before the age of 10. the woman fell pregnant again by accident, when the baby was 2 the middle child died at age 4. you would be cruel enough to deny this family child benefit for the 2 years with the 3rd child because the dad had a decent wage, irrespective of the amount of time he had to take off or the weeks spent in hospital with the kids, the childminders needed for the other kids while they were in hospital.

What about the ones who adopt the special needs kids and look after them because no one else will. We will end up with more abortions more special needs kids being fostered out to families who already have kids.

when you say it should be means tested whats the cap, 40k 50k a year 60k 90k 100k dont forget there are mortages to pay some over 2k a month, medical bills to pay , insurances to pay, as well as paying their taxes! I would agree wtih anyone on a wage of 150k shouldnt need child benifit, but they might, its not for me to say.

Technically the state should have that medical situation covered.

Anyone on a wage of 150K that needs handouts for their kids needs to be given a copy of excel and taught how to make a house hold budget!!!