Michael O'Leary rejects offer of money for sex

Teclo

Saying it like it is, or should be.

Link

KERSPLAT!

Cutting the dole and pensions, hiking taxes, mores levies etc when it's simple things like this that should be done! Why can't/don't they means test it?! Would save millions I'd imagine?!

KERSPLAT!

For mobile users

By Brian McDonald
Tuesday November 22 2011
RYANAIR boss Michael O'Leary has called for the scrapping of children's allowance payments, describing them as a subsidy for people to have sex.
He said that child benefit was "ridiculous" and neither he nor his wife needed it.
"Child benefit in this country should be scrapped. We're borrowing €1.3bn from European banks and European governments so that you can pay my wife four amounts of children's allowance when I clearly don't need it. I think it's absurd."
When it was put to him that the payment was not geared for people on high incomes such as himself, Mr O'Leary replied: "I think scrap it for everybody.
"There are clearly people on lower incomes and you need to channel children's allowance to them through income support schemes, single-parent allowances where you're trying to target money at people on very low incomes.
Absurdity

"But this broad band of just giving everybody children's allowance -- it's like the Government subsidising people money to have sex.
"Now, I don't know about you, but I'm very happy to have sex for free, I don't need a subsidy for it," he joked.
He said borrowing money from Europeans to give rich people in Ireland, or even people on average incomes, children's allowance, was an "absurdity".
"I'll get pilloried by the women of Ireland, but frankly, you don't need it and they'll still have children, whether they get children's allowance or not," he added.
"Channel the money where it's needed and that would be to people on lower incomes, but use income support schemes and single-parent allowances for doing that, but not some kind of ridiculous children's allowances," he argued at the opening of four new Ryanair routes from Knock airport to Paris, Milan, Frankfort and Barcelona.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny again stressed that no decision had been taken by the Government about a much-signalled cut of €10 in children's allowance.
"Nothing has been decided about any of these matters that are being talked about, because the Cabinet has not signed off on the Budget as yet," he said.

Irish Slaves for Europe

He is completely right as usual. The whole concept of child allowance is ridiculous. And while we're on it, the fact that married people get taxed less is mental as well.

mathie

Nice suggestion Michael.

So if you work hard and earn a decent wage and contribute to society your reward is .... no allowance.

If you don't work, leech off society you get ... an allowance.












Troll bait.

Freddie59

IPAM wrote: »

Cutting the dole and pensions, hiking taxes, mores levies etc when it's simple things like this that should be done! Why can't/don't they means test it?! Would save millions I'd imagine?!

I can't stand this guy, but he is right on this occasion. Heard of a professional couple last night who have five kids. ALL of their children's allowance was saved and given to them as a present when they were 18. Good luck to them if they could, but it's a bit mad.

Us? We had three under five, so it went where it was needed (new shoes, cloths, etc). And we certainly weren't 'professionals'.

Liam Byrne

Translation : you shouldn't get paid extra for doing stuff that should happen naturally?

Pity that's not the Ryanair philosophy!

KERSPLAT!

mathie wrote: »

Nice suggestion Michael.

So if you work hard and earn a decent wage and contribute to society your reward is .... no allowance.

If you don't work, leech off society you get ... an allowance.

Means test it. If you need it you get it, if you don't you don't. Also the amount should vary depending on the family situation IMO






Troll bait.[/QUOTE]

BoardsRanger

mathie wrote: »

So if you work hard and earn a decent wage and contribute to society your reward is ....

A decent wage.

stovelid

He has a point, but then again so could anybody you meet on the street.

The media really need to stop abetting Ryanair PR strategy by slavishly relaying inting his - hardly groundbreaking - pronouncements on social issues.

pajunior

I would love some guys like Michael O'Leary in Government. Absolute genius.

stovelid

pajunior wrote: »

genius.

Only relative to the minds of those proposing it.

goose2005

Our birth rate is just hanging in at replacement rate, and given the relatively high cost of education and childcare in Ireland a bit of child benefit doesn't help all that much. If we don't incentivise having children then fewer people will have them, and there will be fewer young workers to support you as a pensioner.

suicide_circus

BoardsRanger wrote: »

A decent wage.

Ideally yes but not necessarily. What about the people who scrape by on minimum or close to minimum wage, work all the hours they can, live modestly and cause nobody any trouble...what does the state do for them? Nada.
They'd be better off squeezing out a few bastards, faking a disability and developing a drug habit

AeoNGriM

goose2005 wrote: »

Our birth rate is just hanging in at replacement rate, and given the relatively high cost of education and childcare in Ireland a bit of child benefit doesn't help all that much. If we don't incentivise having children then fewer single mothers will have them, and there will be fewer dole scroungers milking the system.

FYP

(and yes, I know I'm a kunt for doing it)

bobbysands81

pajunior wrote: »

I would love some guys like Michael O'Leary in Government. Absolute genius.

I could not think of somebody who would be less suited to being in Government than Michael O'Leary.

tayto lover

pajunior wrote: »

I would love some guys like Michael O'Leary in Government. Absolute genius.

Or complete prat.

Crazy Horse 6

O'Leary is part of the Irish elite. I have no time for any of his suggestions.

phil1nj

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ideally yes but not necessarily. What about the people who scrape by on minimum or close to minimum wage, work all the hours they can, live modestly and cause nobody any trouble...what does the state do for them? Nada.
They'd be better off squeezing out a few bastards, faking a disability and developing a drug habit

Is that you again Mr. Myers?:D

Gurgle

Irish Slaves for Europe wrote: »

the fact that married people get taxed less is mental as well.

I'm sure I'm wasting my time, but would you care to elaborate on this 'fact'?

Yahew

he was asked

When it was put to him that the payment was not geared for people on high incomes such as himself, Mr O'Leary replied: "I think scrap it for everybody.

Silly question, if it wasn't geared for people like him, then it would be means tested. So it is geared for him. Reduce it by 10% for every 10k over 30K.

PCPhoto

goose2005 wrote: »

Our birth rate is just hanging in at replacement rate, and given the relatively high cost of education and childcare in Ireland a bit of child benefit doesn't help all that much. If we don't incentivise having children then fewer people will have them, and there will be fewer young workers to support you as a pensioner.

incentivising having children (crotch droppings) is all well and good - IF you can get proper parents to take care of these "crotch droppings".

problem is that ordinary decent people are too busy working because of all the taxes/hidden taxes required to create a family and the ones that do have time are the dole sucking scroungers who pop a sprog with every sneeze.

Cut off Childrens Allowance (and decrease taxes) - try to remove this new class of society that lives on handouts and demands more and more (like a spoilt child).

on a side note: why cant we abolish "free legal aid" .... have a subsidised version where state pays a percentage and the punter pays a percentage ... if a scummer on Social Welfare had to fork out €20 of their benefits every time they are before the courts they might think twice about re-offending. (or might re-offend more ..it could go either way)


* = no offence intended to "some" of the unemployed or anyone with kids

ibarelycare

Gurgle wrote: »

I'm sure I'm wasting my time, but would you care to elaborate on this 'fact'?

Maybe they're talking about the fact that married people get an extra tax credit of €3660 between them every year.


There's already a thread on this, but I agree with MO'L. CB should be abolished. The money should be used for the government to provide free school uniforms, lunches and books for children until they leave secondary school. Families who are still struggling should be given food and clothing vouchers. It would stop CB being spent on luxuries.


Alternatively (as that will never happen), CB should only be given for the first two children. People shouldn't be encouraged to have more children they can't afford, plus the world is over-populated enough as it is.

tayto lover

Maybe I am blind but I don't know of one girl who deliberately got pregnant so that she could claim CB. I can't see the benefit being worth the trouble really. Who would want the pain, the loss of freedom and the duties of child rearing for the princely sum of just 140e per month ?

ThinkAboutIt

Its only fair you get a bit of money. Having kids will ruin your life after all.

up for anything

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ideally yes but not necessarily. What about the people who scrape by on minimum or close to minimum wage, work all the hours they can, live modestly and cause nobody any trouble...what does the state do for them? Nada.
They'd be better off squeezing out a few bastards, faking a disability and developing a drug habit

Welcome back to Catholic Ireland of yesteryear - we could save millions by bringing back the Magdalene Laundries and having the bearers of those bastards and those bastards themselves scrubbing clean the dirty laundry of the government and bankers.

Who uses the word bastard any more in that context - only a fatherless son of a bitch, in my opinion. Personally, I despise your sort.

Lister_Petter wrote: »

He is dead right. Choil Benefih completely distorts things and is a clear incentive for girls to get knocked up.
I mean the simple rule should be this : if you can't afford to support 4 children, then don't have 4 children. Its not rocket science!

But he is wrong in saying it should be channeled into single mothers allowance and the like. That is a still a clear incentive for young wans to get stuffed and sponge off the state instead of contributing something useful, rather than their snotty spawn who will grow up just like them.

Michael O leary is exactly the type of man I want to see in the government. No bull****, cut the fat all around him, decimate rediculous welfare payments and give the hard working, ambitious and productive man a break by lowering taxes and promoting business growth.

+1 to MOL

As for you, you know absolutely nothing! Child Benefit a clear incentive to get knocked up. You're having a fucking laugh, aren't you or else just trotting out the uneducated clap trap you read in the daily rags and hear down the pub from others of your ilk. Have you any figures for the amount of young wans who have babies just to get their hands on the munificent CB as opposed to the families who actually need it. Nah, of course you don't - it's just all hearsay isn't it?

How about gelding the young fellas who can't wait to get their dicks into the willing young wans, as you refer to them, whether dickyboy is dressed for the occasion or not? That would save millions.

Bah humbug! I really dislike the self-righteous spite that proliferates these kind of threads. :mad:

stovelid

I wish I was gifted with the clairvoyance some of the posters here to know for certain I could afford to bring up xy amount of children.

Are you independently wealthy or perhaps just in possesion of an affadavit that states you won't lose your job or experience any other kind of hardship until your kids are raised?

PCPhoto

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe I am blind but I don't know of one girl who deliberately got pregnant so that she could claim CB. I can't see the benefit being worth the trouble really. Who would want the pain, the loss of freedom and the duties of child rearing for the princely sum of just 140e per month ?

Really ....

Maybe you should visit the unemployment office and listen to the conversations between some of scummersthe tracksuit classes.

having another sprog opens up more and more benefits .... with the government giving you child benefit you also get bumped up the housing list for social welfare housing (of course the more you have the higher up the list and the bigger the house you get)

.... and of course you also get other benefits .... quick visit to the Social to tell them you cant afford clothes for your kids for school ...you get school uniform allowance...and school books allowance - yet these types of people will often be seen smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and of course have massive LCD/LED TV screens (I still use a CRT TV and will continue to use it until it dies)

Cut the Childrens allowance and give food stamps instead of social welfare (that'll stop some of them wasting the money on booze/drugs/cigarettes)

Galtee

ibarelycare wrote: »

Maybe they're talking about the fact that married people get an extra tax credit of €3660 between them every year.

Wrong, they don't get an extra 3660. If only one is working they can use their spouses, that's all. Single is 1830 and Married is 3660 which is double the single. But if both are working then they can be assessed individually under their 1830 amount.

Son Of A Vidic

Irish Slaves for Europe wrote: »

the fact that married people get taxed less is mental as well.

Now, now, there's no need for you to be bitter.

Stinicker

The childrens allowance should be increased not cut, people here take such a dim view on things out of greed, jealousy and selfishness. It makes perfect financial sense to support families from an economic and social viewpoint.

Ireland is about the only country in europe at population replacement rate, most other countries like Germany, Italy and Spain are under breeding themselves out of existence with disastrous economic policies and selfish feminists who refuse to have children being career obsessed and to selfish.

Ireland's policy promotes population growth which in turn keeps the population stable and will allow for new entrants to the work force in future, meaning more new taxpayers to pay the burden of pensions and run the country. Children were always seen as a sense of security in the past to the look after the elderly and the same thing exists today. Other Countrys who are committing suicide by wiping themselves out will find their native populations a minority in their own countries soon.

Immigrants are not the solution, more native children are, unless of course you want to end up a minority in your own country with it overtaken by non-Europeans and Sharia law.

ibarelycare

Stinicker wrote: »

The childrens allowance should be increased not cut, people here take such a dim view on things out of greed, jealousy and selfishness. It makes perfect financial sense to support families from an economic and social viewpoint.

Ireland is about the only country in europe at population replacement rate, most other countries like Germany, Italy and Spain are under breeding themselves out of existence with disastrous economic policies and selfish feminists who refuse to have children being career obsessed and to selfish.

Ireland's policy promotes population growth which in turn keeps the population stable and will allow for new entrants to the work force in future, meaning more new taxpayers to pay the burden of pensions and run the country. Children were always seen as a sense of security in the past to the look after the elderly and the same thing exists today. Other Countrys who are committing suicide by wiping themselves out will find their native populations a minority in their own countries soon.

Immigrants are not the solution, more native children are, unless of course you want to end up a minority in your own country with it overtaken by non-Europeans and Sharia law.

How are women who choose not to have children "selfish"? Or "feminists" for that matter?

pajunior

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I could not think of somebody who would be less suited to being in Government than Michael O'Leary.

Cheap Effective Government wouldn't that be a shame.

But yes a cabinet full of people like him would not be good.

Doc Ruby

Its not called parents allowance for a reason; its not a child's fault if the parent is in poverty and the child shouldn't be penalised on that basis. That said, yeah cut it for the wealthy, I don't know why its not means tested.

sophieblake

Bit rich of someone on his money deciding that because he doesn't need it the government should not give it to anyone. Whatever anyone feels about the pros and cons of children's allowances it's barefaced cheek of him to decide that for everyone in general. the guy is an arsehole

Ellis Dee

pajunior wrote: »

I would love some guys like Michael O'Leary in Government. Absolute genius.

He doesn't own Ryanair; he's only an employee. Like many other CEOs who flew high for a long time, but then crashed to earth when the share price went south and the shareholders became impatient, he may one day get the heave as well.:rolleyes:

Then maybe he'll stand for election and you can vote for him. In the meantime, he should stick to running his crud airline and leave social affairs to those who answer to the electorate at every election. :D

pajunior

sophieblake wrote: »

Bit rich of someone on his money deciding that because he doesn't need it the government should not give it to anyone. Whatever anyone feels about the pros and cons of children's allowances it's barefaced cheek of him to decide that for everyone in general. the guy is an arsehole

If you read the article he is saying the opposite. He wants the money to go back into the system a different way. He suggests single-mother allowance but it could be done on a fund for children's books/uniforms for parents who can't afford them.
That way the money goes to people who need it and is spent on the child.

pajunior

Ellis Dee wrote: »

He doesn't own Ryanair; he's only an employee. Like many other CEOs who flew high for a long time, but then crashed to earth when the share price went south and the shareholders became impatient, he may one day get the heave as well.:rolleyes:

Then maybe he'll stand for election and you can vote for him. In the meantime, he should stick to running his crud airline and leave social affairs to those who answer to the electorate at every election. :D

Oh yeah sorry I completely forgot how well that has been working out for us. :pac:

UDP

Stinicker wrote: »

Immigrants are not the solution, more native children are, unless of course you want to end up a minority in your own country with it overtaken by non-Europeans and Sharia law.

as opposed to catholic law?

A family that is taking in 100k neither needs child benefit nor are having children due to being encouraged to do so via child benefit.

I think child benefit should be completely scrapped.

There is a low-life in my hometown who has so far got 12 children. He takes in about €2k per month from child benefit alone not to mention his dole and all the allowances. He also has people to come and dress and feed his children in the morning time for school and has them to help with their homework in the evening.

He says he has a goal of reaching 20 children. This would bring him in €3.3k a month plus all the allowances. This is would probably work out at about €60k per year but costing the state much more than that.

Now tell me it makes sense to reward this guy with €2k a month.

Stinicker

ibarelycare wrote: »

How are women who choose not to have children "selfish"? Or "feminists" for that matter?

They are selfish in the sense that if their own mothers decided the same thing they would not exist. Society must realise that equality and equal rights for women have severely damaged European society.

Women and men are not equal, women are far more important than men and there is a reason for women and children into the lifeboats first and Women need to be accommodated socially and financially to meet their needs as mothers and if a woman decides she wants to have children and raise them then this needs to be allowed happen with full state support.

A woman's natural role is as a mother and as a caregiver, for centuries societys have existed along these lines where the woman raises the children and the hunter gather male went out to collect the bacon. Millions of men were killed in both world wars yet it had little effect on population because a man can father dozens of children until he is 80+ yet a woman can only mother only several children until she reaches her late thirties / early forties.

With high birth rates at the time it actually created a major baby boom after the war with peace and new found prosperity it led to a golden age in the west with a growing population came economic growth and new demands, the increased proliferation of women in the work force over the last 30 years and declining birth rates have slowed this economic growth and the greatest threat to society emerged in the 1970's and it is not AID's, War, Famine or Disease but rather the contraceptive pill.

It has allowed women to choose not to be mothers for the first time and its stark reality is that it will destroy entire countries and civilisations because no society can emerge from population decline unless we revert back to times when most women were having 4+ children.

Only women can bear children, which is half the population and for to grow the population sustainably each woman needs to have a minimum of 3 children. Young Women and Men are under incredible financial pressures during these early years of life and by neglecting to start families the entire core of the population is undermined. If a woman wants to start having kids there should be no financial obstacles and she should get full support, tax breaks and state educational provisions for the new child.

The kids of today are the taxpayers of tomorrow and each child born should be a profit to the state and not a cost when you take the long term economic value of each life into account.

tayto lover

UDP wrote: »

as opposed to catholic law?

A family that is taking in 100k neither needs child benefit nor are having children due to being encouraged to do so via child benefit.

I think child benefit should be completely scrapped.

There is a low-life in my hometown who has so far got 12 children. He takes in about €2k per month from child benefit alone not to mention his dole and all the allowances. He also has people to come and dress and feed his children in the morning time for school and has them to help with their homework in the evening.

He says he has a goal of reaching 20 children. This would bring him in €3.3k a month plus all the allowances. This is would probably work out at about €60k per year but costing the state much more than that.

Now tell me it makes sense to reward this guy with €2k a month.

No doubt there are cases like that but there are many more deserving cases who would suffer because of O'Leary's proposals. We can't cut off our noses on all cases.

Ellis Dee

Means-testing the allowance could well cost more than it would save. Why not change the law so that it is treated as income and added to whatever other income (earned, interest, etc) the family has? That way, the wealthy like Michael O'Leary would still receive it, but end up paying a good deal of tax on it, whilst low-income families would get the full benefit of it.:rolleyes:

That's assuming, of course, that the likes of Michael O'Leary pay their fair share of tax and do not use all the loopholes and highly competent accountants and other professionals that are available to them.:)

But, as they say, sin ceist eile.;)

Eric Cartman

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe I am blind but I don't know of one girl who deliberately got pregnant so that she could claim CB. I can't see the benefit being worth the trouble really. Who would want the pain, the loss of freedom and the duties of child rearing for the princely sum of just 140e per month ?

You obviously didnt go to public school then , Or managed to grow up in a time before this became a lifestyle choice

Eric Cartman

The big problem is, the wrong kind of people are having kids . You have dole scrounging single mothers , minimum wage earning couples and the less educated going for it. If you scrapped any current benefit to have children and replaced it with an allowance that cut 5% off the higher rate of income tax per child up to 4 children then youd start having a situation where high earners and people who can afford kids are having them and there is no benefit to anyone on the dole having a kid

UDP

tayto lover wrote: »

No doubt there are cases like that but there are many more deserving cases who would suffer because of O'Leary's proposals. We can't cut off our noses on all cases.

No they wouldn't suffer as O'Leary makes it clear that the aid should come through a different way.

bobbysands81

pajunior wrote: »

Cheap Effective Government wouldn't that be a shame.

But yes a cabinet full of people like him would not be good.

Cheap effective Government is the nadir that all of us involved in the public service should be striving for a daily basis.

Cheap effective Government being provided for by a man such as Michael O'Leary would be a disaster for all concerned, especially people availing of the services which he would be providing. It would be an unmitigated disaster.

Guy:Incognito

He collects his chilrens allowance doesnt he? So should that not be "MOL accepts offer of free money for sex"?

Sonnenblumen

Teclo wrote: »

Saying it like it is, or should be.

Link

Is he the same person who was happy to charge for tossing services?

UDP

Lister_Petter wrote: »

Why should those of us who work hard to make good money be forced to pay for people who have obviously failed in life.

Thats oversimplifying it though. While I think things should be hardened up - its not as black and white as that.