Lone parents to be targeted in budget 2012

samsham

Budget 2012 is to introduce major changes to the single parent welfare scheme in December's budget. It is believed the age of qualifying for the benefit will be reduced to a parent with a child under seven from what is now 14. It is believed 80% of people claiming this benefit live with partners. I for one will be one of those clapping Joan Burton on the back for finally getting welfare's act together. It has to be said it's sad that real lone parents will lose out because of the abuse of others. On the other hand as a society we should be looking at ways of preventing this behavior, we send money to to third world countries to promote condom use, yet here we have 15 year old children becoming mums and dads, which can only lead to disaster. We are beginning to follow in Britian's footsteps and down the road of children dragged up by children to be lawless lazy burdens on an already overstretched welfare budget. Of course there are the exceptions, But that's what they are.

femur61

I do feel sorry for people who are genuine cases but the dogs on the street know it has been abused. I would have been angry a couple of years ago but it seems to me that the most vunerable are being targeted to protect the pay and gold plated pensions of some in the PS.
www.politics.ie/forum/economy/176116-sb-post-average-public-servant-retirement-salary-67k.html

Maura74

femur61 wrote: »

I do feel sorry for people who are genuine cases but the dogs on the street know it has been abused. I would have been angry a couple of years ago but it seems to me that the most vunerable are being targeted to protect the pay and gold plated pensions of some in the PS.
www.politics.ie/forum/economy/176116-sb-post-average-public-servant-retirement-salary-67k.html

I totally agree, how can this be justify and they blame children that had no sex education.:o:mad::(

oldyouth

Excellent post OP. We also need the absentee parent to be forced to contribute to the support of their children.

ianuss

samsham wrote: »

It is believed 80% of people claiming this benefit live with partners.

That's a crazy number. Where'd you get that figure from?

samsham

ianuss wrote: »

That's a crazy number. Where'd you get that figure from?

It is believed that up to 80% of women claiming Lone-parent payment are actually living with partners, meaning that this fraud is costing the Department of Social Protection hundreds of millions per annum. Social Welfare inspectors have limited powers when it comes to investigating Lone-parent fraud, for example, if a social welfare inspector calls to the home of a ‘lone-parent’ and there is clearly a partner living there, the lone-parent can legally say, he is just visiting the child for a few days. Joan Burton is planning a radical cut in the age at which children no longer qualify under the lone-parent's allowance.
The Minister

Irish Observer http://theirishobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/budget-2012-social-welfare-cuts-lone_16.html

my problem with this type of crackdown is there will still be two partners claiming Welfare separately. Same thing really

ianuss

samsham wrote: »

It is believed that up to 80% of women claiming Lone-parent payment are actually living with partners, meaning that this fraud is costing the Department of Social Protection hundreds of millions per annum. Social Welfare inspectors have limited powers when it comes to investigating Lone-parent fraud, for example, if a social welfare inspector calls to the home of a ‘lone-parent’ and there is clearly a partner living there, the lone-parent can legally say, he is just visiting the child for a few days. Joan Burton is planning a radical cut in the age at which children no longer qualify under the lone-parent's allowance.
The Minister

Irish Observer http://theirishobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/budget-2012-social-welfare-cuts-lone_16.html

my problem with this type of crackdown is there will still be two partners claiming Welfare separately. Same thing really

Cheers for the link. Seems like an astonishingly high number though. I'd love to know where that blog got the figure from. I mean, it only says "it is believed..........".......it's a bit vague to be definitive or used as an argument IMO.


Also, how would they enforce any change? Are they saying that they will recognise 'seperated' parents as cohabitating? That would result in a fairly big decrease in payments received.

Frank Black

The whole thing makes me queasy.

Yes, the lone parent allowance is being abused by a significant number of recipitants - even worse, it makes it financially attractive for parents to raise their children as 'lone' parents, rather than as part of a couple.
So no argument from me on reforming the payment.

But, as per usual with the Government, they are taking the easy choices - slash €10 of child benefit for everyone whether you're a millionaire or destitute, then reduce the qualification age of lone parent payment allowance across the board.

People on here saying that they would clap Burton on the back should instead ask her why she's not tackling the ridiculous pay and conditions of those at the top of the public service.

femur61

I don't understand why the PS have such a hold on all governments. We need a Maggie Thatcher, at least she had balls.

n97 mini

samsham wrote: »

It is believed the age of qualifying for the benefit will be reduced to a parent with a child under seven from what is now 14.

That's for new claimants only.

Padraig Mor

n97 mini wrote: »

That's for new claimants only.

FFS. So all the fraudsters can carry on regardless.....

largepants

femur61 wrote: »

I don't understand why the PS have such a hold on all governments. We need a Maggie Thatcher, at least she had balls.

Here we go again. Yawn Yawn Yawn!!

fliball123

largepants wrote: »

Here we go again. Yawn Yawn Yawn!!

And unfortunately as you pointed out many times it has been brough up over the last 6 odd months and yet nothing will be done about it..But dont expect people to stop rising this issue ...It sticks out like a sore thumb

Dodge

I'm confused now.

Its the fault of the Public Service unions that 15 years olds are getting pregant?

And a random blog is the only source for the figures?

largepants

fliball123 wrote: »

And unfortunately as you pointed out many times it has been brough up over the last 6 odd months and yet nothing will be done about it..But dont expect people to stop rising this issue ...It sticks out like a sore thumb

Seriously I've never witnessed such whinging in all my life. Every thread seems to descend into the same argument no what the topic is. And all started by the same few people. They wait for a topic to be started and suddenly turn it into another PS bashing thread. At this stage everyone knows the you and your friends views. You don't have hijack every thread.

fliball123

largepants wrote: »

Seriously I've never witnessed such whinging in all my life. Every thread seems to descend into the same argument no what the topic is. And all started by the same few people. They wait for a topic to be started and suddenly turn it into another PS bashing thread. At this stage everyone knows the you and your friends views. You don't have hijack every thread.

I didnt...I think first off this is a good measure to implement...Regardless of PS ...But the reason why so many are being hijacked is that people see the disparity going on and when something like this hits people who are genuine then they compare it to what is evidently and fundamentally wrong in society..Personally this will not impact on me either way..

coolshannagh28

No real point cutting social welfare in any form , all this money goes straight back into the economy .The real problem is the huge amount of money being saved particularly in the PS . The govenment is leaving them alone for now because it desperatly needs them to start spending to kickstart the domestic ecomomy,however their innate conservatism prevents them from doing so. The economy continues to tank which dramatically narrows the options . Tough decisions sooner or later!

largepants

fliball123 wrote: »

I didnt...I think first off this is a good measure to implement...Regardless of PS ...But the reason why so many are being hijacked is that people see the disparity going on and when something like this hits people who are genuine then they compare it to what is evidently and fundamentally wrong in society..Personally this will not impact on me either way..

Its an awful pity then that your first post on this thread was a reply to my comment regarding PS bashing yet again and never mentioned your views on how good/bad this issue would be.There is disparity with several other things in life too including within the PS.

fliball123

largepants wrote: »

Its an awful pity then that your first post on this thread was a reply to my comment regarding PS bashing yet again and never mentioned your views on how good/bad this issue would be.There is disparity with several other things in life too including within the PS.

And whats your problem I didnt start the PS debate within this thread..but the problem here is that no matter what cuts, tax increases are going forward they are going to be linked to whats happening with the public sector..Its the only area of spend that is immune from wage cuts .. I didnt bring it up just jumping on your tired reprimand to a different poster...and as I say I will continue to bring this point to the fore as I believe it needs to be tackled...There are numerous threads on here such as the dole being cut and VAT and you will see that various other posters have attacked the PS and rightly so IMO as all Tax and cuts when it is relation to the exchequer are all interlinked...

Frank Black

Dodge wrote: »

I'm confused now.

Its the fault of the Public Service unions that 15 years olds are getting pregant?

And a random blog is the only source for the figures?

From your wilful misunderstanding of a straightforward point, I'd imagine you're easily confused.

Nolanger

oldyouth wrote: »

Excellent post OP. We also need the absentee parent to be forced to contribute to the support of their children.

Even if the absentee parent is 13 years of age?

Max Power1

Nolanger wrote: »

Even if the absentee parent is 13 years of age?

In that case other options, such as state mandated adoption, should be looked at.

Maura74

Max Power1 wrote: »

In that case other options, such as state mandated adoption, should be looked at.

What about the grandparents I am sure they would have something to say about their grrandchild being adopted.

Sex education in school is needed when such young people have children. :rolleyes:

oldyouth

Nolanger wrote: »

Even if the absentee parent is 13 years of age?

Obviously I'm not talking about the consequences of statutory rape & I don't appreciate you linking my post to that

murphaph

Maura74 wrote: »

What about the grandparents I am sure they would have something to say about their grrandchild being adopted.

Sex education in school is needed when such young people have children. :rolleyes:

Well then they can pay for the child of their 13 year old.

Parents should be legally and financially responsible for the actions of their children until the child turns 18.

byhookorbycrook

Maura74 wrote: »

What about the grandparents I am sure they would have something to say about their grrandchild being adopted.

Sex education in school is needed when such young people have children. :rolleyes:

Sex education is now done all through primary school and in secondary school. Makes no impact on young pregnancy figures.

Suryavarman

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Sex education is now done all through primary school and in secondary school. Makes no impact on young pregnancy figures.

As far as I can see, the only way teen pregnancy is going to go down is by giving secondary school students free condoms. The problem with that is that parents will be outraged by the attempts to pressurise their children into having sex.

Peanut

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

No real point cutting social welfare in any form , all this money goes straight back into the economy .

The problem is that we can no longer afford to put this money into the economy in the first place.

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

And whats your problem I didnt start the PS debate within this thread..but the problem here is that no matter what cuts, tax increases are going forward they are going to be linked to whats happening with the public sector..Its the only area of spend that is immune from wage cuts .. I didnt bring it up just jumping on your tired reprimand to a different poster...and as I say I will continue to bring this point to the fore as I believe it needs to be tackled...There are numerous threads on here such as the dole being cut and VAT and you will see that various other posters have attacked the PS and rightly so IMO as all Tax and cuts when it is relation to the exchequer are all interlinked...

There was a guy around these parts a while back kept droning on and on and on about the same point. It got pretty sickening after a while. We clearly know where you stand now on the PS. What is the point of repeating it endlessly.

Icepick

Child's father has to be on the birth certificate and child maintenance has to become standard too.

Red Actor

Welfare is a safety net and I see no reason why a lone parent should get more from the safety net than a person who is unemployed with children. Reducing the lone parents payment to the jobseekers would save €50m+ per annum (not including the different rate in the add on for children).

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

There was a guy around these parts a while back kept droning on and on and on about the same point. It got pretty sickening after a while. We clearly know where you stand now on the PS. What is the point of repeating it endlessly.

Once again I didnt bring it up..Someone else did...I just responded to a post on the matter..and I will keep repeating this until something has been done about it..

COYW

femur61 wrote: »

I do feel sorry for people who are genuine cases but the dogs on the street know it has been abused.

There will always be genuine cases out there, in relation to things like this but we all know that a significant amount of people are claiming welfare as lone parents whilst living with someone.

campo

This payment really gets on my goat if i am been honest and it really needs a radical shake up there is loads out there abusing it and I bet we all know at least one couple who are claiming this benefit.

It is hard t blame them though because the honest hard working couple get nothing from the state let me tell you my story I work and get paid what I would consider a nice wage ( above 20k but below 40k ) and my partner she works but is on a low income just marginally above min pay.
So we recently had a baby and it is nearly time for her to go back to work.
Now if she goes back work full time half her wages would go on childcare and that means if she stayed at home and claimed JSA it would work out better finacially, she wanted to go back part time work 3 days and claim 3 days but social ays no cant do that as it is youor choice to cut hours and they wont be for the other 3 days ( fair enough you might say but is paying out 3 days better then paying out for 6 ).
So basically every corner we take we are going to be down money BUT if she decided to claim lone parents allowance and pretend we broke up she could quit her job get the LPA, Medical card , Rent allowance and god only knows what else just like many people are doing at the moment now we would never do this but it is a complete joke that in this country you would be finacially better off not working and claiming that you are a lone parent then working and paying taxes and trying to do everything the honest way......rant over

hardCopy

Icepick wrote: »

Child's father has to be on the birth certificate and child maintenance has to become standard too.

How do you police this though?

Girl gives name of random bloke who moved to Australia, how do welfare know if she's lying? They can't send welfare officers to Aus to DNA test him.

campo

Maybe we should to look to the UK and implement a department where maintence would be taken directly from the father/mothers wages or social and whatever they get from maintence should be taken off the LPA

Max Power1

Maura74 wrote: »

What about the grandparents I am sure they would have something to say about their grrandchild being adopted.

Sex education in school is needed when such young people have children. :rolleyes:

They should have more to say about their little "darling" and their lack of parenting if their child gets pregnant that young.


Oh, and heres a rolleyes for you too.:rolleyes:

Ave Sodalis

Just a quick question based on the nature of majority of the replies in here... are any of you actually lone parents and therefore understand the effect it would have on them?

RobbieTheRobber

sup_dude wrote: »

Just a quick question based on the nature of majority of the replies in here... are any of you actually lone parents and therefore understand the effect it would have on them?

Well to be fair apparently 80% (according to an earlier post) of lone parents wouldnt know what its like to be lone parents

Spacedog

samsham wrote: »

It is believed that up to 80% of women claiming Lone-parent payment are actually living with partners

It is believed that a magic man lives in the shy who died for our sins... doesn't mean it's true though.

ianuss

I think we need to knock this '80%' figure on the head. There's just nothing substantive to back it up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Frank Black

ianuss wrote: »

I think we need to knock this '80%' figure on the head. There's just nothing substantive to back it up.

I'd imagine that given the nature of what yor're trying to measure - i.e. that people are lying about being lone parents, you'll never have a substantive answer.

It's not like you can carry out a a survey of lone parents to ask them if they're not really lone parents.

The 80% figure does seem high - but I'dd be unsuprised if there was large scale abuse of this payment.

ianuss

black francis wrote: »

I'd imagine that given the nature of what yor're trying to measure - i.e. that people are lying about being lone parents, you'll never have a substantive answer.

It's not like you can carry out a a survey of lone parents to ask them if they're not really lone parents.

The 80% figure does seem high - but I'dd be unsuprised if there was large scale abuse of this payment.

Well if the figure came from a government agency perhaps it would carry more weight. The fact that it came from an internet blog makes it useless IMO.

And I don't doubt that LPA is being abused in a lot of cases either.

campo

Only going by cases I know off I would say the 80% figure is not far off

caseyann

80%,did they pull that one out of their other arsehole like they did when they said imf weren't coming in stories.:rolleyes:

I think it is an utter disgrace that yet again women and children are the center of the attack.
And most of the people on here hurrahing it sickening to say the least.

All i ever hear of on these threads is (I know ) (I Heard) (I seen) If you know or heard or seen then why dont you ring and report?????????????????????????????????
The truth of the matter is you dont know and cant know,unless they are your friends and they show you and tell you,and you arent reporting your friends?
If you seen the bf in and out of house living there report them.

Fecking country attack the weaker element in society.Rather than catching the ones who are actually living with partners.



But 80% sounds to me like yet again witch hunt talk. :rolleyes:
If she knows for a fact thats the case then why isnt she going after these 80% :rolleyes:


I can not wait to see the state of this country next year :pac:

Ave Sodalis

I must say, I love the attitude of ''Oh there's people taking benefits that shouldn't! Lets get rid of the benefit, that will show them! What about the genuine cases which will suffer severely from these cuts? Ah forget about them, mark them off, no need to worry, just think about the cheats!" :rolleyes:


Do you honestly think that these genuine people would want to live like this, if they had another choice? Do you think circumstances can change that much for these people in a few years to justify bring down the benefit? Do you really think they deserve the same punishment as cheats and that it was their fault for getting themselves into that situation in the first place? Do you actually know what it's like to be a single parent? Or a child of one?

Permabear, where did you get that information from? On the contrary, coming as a daughter of a single parent and knowing many single parents, the children of them strive to have a better way of living as they don't want to be single parents themselves because they know how hard it is. They want to go to university and have an proper education to get a proper job but since there's talk of cutting the grants, introducing fees and having a student ID levy, it's becoming near impossible for them as lesser off people. Sure, let the single parents get a job... but their wages will mostly go into child care while they are working. Majority of actual single parents would prefer to work and prefer to have someone there to help look after the kids.


I have to agree with caseyann, if you know cheats, report them. Leave the actual ones in need of it alone

anymore

femur61 wrote: »

I do feel sorry for people who are genuine cases but the dogs on the street know it has been abused. I would have been angry a couple of years ago but it seems to me that the most vunerable are being targeted to protect the pay and gold plated pensions of some in the PS.
www.politics.ie/forum/economy/176116-sb-post-average-public-servant-retirement-salary-67k.html

Well someone has to pay the 4 defined benefits pensions of the 'Socialist President Mr Higgins and to pay to allow Higgins precious 'artists and writers' to earn € 100,000 each year without paying a single penny in tax. That's ' Socialism' for yeah ! No point in complaining now !

campo

sup_dude wrote: »

I must say, I love the attitude of ''Oh there's people taking benefits that shouldn't! Lets get rid of the benefit, that will show them! What about the genuine cases which will suffer severely from these cuts? Ah forget about them, mark them off, no need to worry, just think about the cheats!" :rolleyes:


Do you honestly think that these genuine people would want to live like this, if they had another choice? Do you think circumstances can change that much for these people in a few years to justify bring down the benefit? Do you really think they deserve the same punishment as cheats and that it was their fault for getting themselves into that situation in the first place? Do you actually know what it's like to be a single parent? Or a child of one?

Permabear, where did you get that information from? On the contrary, coming as a daughter of a single parent and knowing many single parents, the children of them strive to have a better way of living as they don't want to be single parents themselves because they know how hard it is. They want to go to university and have an proper education to get a proper job but since there's talk of cutting the grants, introducing fees and having a student ID levy, it's becoming near impossible for them as lesser off people. Sure, let the single parents get a job... but their wages will mostly go into child care while they are working. Majority of actual single parents would prefer to work and prefer to have someone there to help look after the kids.


I have to agree with caseyann, if you know cheats, report them. Leave the actual ones in need of it alone

Of course there is a lot of "real" single parents out there who need and deserve this benefit but as a country we can no longer afford to keep the fraudsters in the lifestyle they have but the question is how do we stop this, I know of a couple where the GF was claiming lone parents allowance and living with partner who was on JSA and she was also getting rent allowance she then gets pregnant with a 2nd child when the social questioned her about it being the same man who fathered the 1st child all she said was she got drunk one night and met up with him and well these things happen and they accepted this????.

Unfortuantly there is no silver bullet to fix these issues but greater minds then I need to come up with something as they are costing me you and the real single parents millions each each year.

And regards to reporting these people in theory I do agree with you but lets be honest it is very hard to report a good friend or family member I dont agree with what they do but would prefer if it was the social who copped onto it without my phone call

Max Power1

I think there should be a cap on SW benefits that people can recieve.

Something like 250-300 per week. A similar scheme is being implemented in the UK.
Rather than "cut this cut that" it seems more equitable. Thoughts?

Welease

Max Power1 wrote: »

I think there should be a cap on SW benefits that people can recieve.

Something like 250-300 per week. A similar scheme is being implemented in the UK.
Rather than "cut this cut that" it seems more equitable. Thoughts?

The arguement is that it already exists.. You can only claim for benefits you are entitled to, so therefore there is a ceiling..

If the ceiling is considered too high, then it could be lowered by how do you do so in an equitable manner?

Should a person with 0 kids get the same as someone with 2 kids.
Should someone with 2 kids get the same as someone with 2 heavily dependent physically and mentally handicapped children.
etc.

Most don't agree that they should not get the same as their circumstances are vastly different. So then you start setting limits for each portion, and you end you end up back where we are today....