Are we going back to the laundries for single mothers?

Hitchens

On the Vincent Browne show last night, it was stated that when a single parent - invariably the mother - has a child turn 7 years of age, the allowance the parent receives will be cut by 27%. This will happen even if the child has a medical condition.

It was further stated that when contacted about this, the Minister didn't even give a hearing.

What kind of society are we going to have in a few years if this type of policy continues?

Banjo String

You're not a man of God.

Morag

Feral latch key kids, that is what will happen.

Celly Smunt

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo.

In terms of a child with a medical condition, services should be provided and sustained by the social welfare.

Hitchens

Banjo String wrote: »

You're not a man of God.

Abou Ben Adhem
BY LEIGH HUNT

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

dodderangler

Hitchens wrote: »

Abou Ben Adhem
BY LEIGH HUNT

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

Fcuk off I ain't reading all that.

eviltwin

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo.

In terms of a child with a medical condition, services should be provided and sustained by the social welfare.

She would need to find work that fits in with school times, most kids of that age finish at about 2pm which rules out a lot of jobs. I have nothing against it in theory as I think lone parents should be encouraged to work as their kids get older but a lot have no skills, no experience. It should be done in tandem with access to education and affordable childcare.

dxhound2005

Hitchens wrote: »

On the Vincent Browne show last night, it was stated that when a single parent - invariably the mother - has a child turn 7 years of age, the allowance the parent receives will be cut by 27%. This will happen even if the child has a medical condition.

It was further stated that when contacted about this, the Minister didn't even give a hearing.

What kind of society are we going to have in a few years if this type of policy continues?

Do you understand the meaning of the word invariably?

Who contacted the Mininster?

This is old news. Anyone getting the payment should have been aware of the impending change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/loneparent-allowance-will-be-cut-despite-burton-row-26844882.html

dark crystal

eviltwin wrote: »

She would need to find work that fits in with school times, most kids of that age finish at about 2pm which rules out a lot of jobs. I have nothing against it in theory as I think lone parents should be encouraged to work as their kids get older but a lot have no skills, no experience. It should be done in tandem with access to education and affordable childcare.

This is the key right here.

If the government want sinle parents to go out and work, they must provide affordable childcare.

Families with two incomes working full time are finding it hard enough to pay for childcare, so it's that much harder for lone parents who don't have the luxury of a grandparent willing and able to do it.

It's not just after school care, either. It's during school holidays where a child would have to be minded full time. That cost alone would be prohibitive for many lone parents.

Potatoeman

Hitchens wrote: »

What kind of society are we going to have in a few years if this type of policy continues?

One with greater emphasis on personal responsibilities.

Hitchens

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of the word invariably?

Who contacted the Mininster?

This is old news. Anyone getting the payment should have been aware of the impending change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/loneparent-allowance-will-be-cut-despite-burton-row-26844882.html

about as much as you understand how to spell minister?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Why are people having children then expecting everyone else to fund them? Seriously if you can't raise your children because the government aren't giving you enough, then don't ****ing procreate. Jesus.

7 years gives a parent to get out of a bad situation, find a job/retrain/find their feet if it was an unplanned pregnancy and it should be enough time to get yourself into a position to be able to raise the child without handouts.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

dark crystal wrote: »

This is the key right here.

If the government want sinle parents to go out and work, they must provide affordable childcare.

Families with two incomes working full time are finding it hard enough to pay for childcare, so it's that much harder for lone parents who don't have the luxury of a grandparent willing and able to do it.

It's not just after school care, either. It's during school holidays where a child would have to be minded full time. That cost alone would be prohibitive for many lone parents.

Is childcare something of an afterthought for parents? It seems to only dawn on them after their children come along that they need to be minded, why are parents always so surprised about childcare costing money

biko

Comparing a pay cut to the Magdalene Laundries is diminishing the suffering of the women sent there, imo.



To add, it's like we're living in Nazi Germany...

eviltwin

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Is childcare something of an afterthought for parents? It seems to only dawn on them after their children come along that they need to be minded, why are parents always so surprised about childcare costing money

Affordable childcare is for everyone not just single parents and although it will cost money you have to weigh that up against the welfare bill. Surely its better economic sense to provide childcare for someone to go to college for a few years so they can find work and pay back into the system rather than have them stuck on welfare for years on end?

Many parents are being forced out of the workforce due to reduced wages and increased childcare costs, that's a person who might be on job seekers, lone parents or a family who have to claim family income supplement, its the added things as well like medical cards, back to school allowance.

I don't know the math but I'm sure if we look at other countries who have childcare provided by for the state to some level it saves money in the long term.

anncoates

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo

Child care?

looking_around

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Why are people having children then expecting everyone else to fund them? Seriously if you can't raise your children because the government aren't giving you enough, then don't ****ing procreate. Jesus.

7 years gives a parent to get out of a bad situation, find a job/retrain/find their feet if it was an unplanned pregnancy and it should be enough time to get yourself into a position to be able to raise the child without handouts.

And what if the child is 8 and you just lost your job?
__
I think this cutting of child care is going the wrong way about things.

If they want to do this, school from 7 on starts at 8am and finishes at 6pm. (do able, would require major changs in the system as kids cant spend the entire doing 'bookwork'/class work.. etc..)
Or
tax back that pays a fair amount of the childcare. (means tested) This shouldnt be hassle to apply for. So parents. dont have to feel liek they'll be waiting months, struggling.

but no, good ole Ireland, make cuts without any supports. makes sense:rolleyes:

Potatoeman

eviltwin wrote: »

Affordable childcare is for everyone not just single parents and although it will cost money you have to weigh that up against the welfare bill. Surely its better economic sense to provide childcare for someone to go to college for a few years so they can find work and pay back into the system rather than have them stuck on welfare for years on end?

Many parents are being forced out of the workforce due to reduced wages and increased childcare costs, that's a person who might be on job seekers, lone parents or a family who have to claim family income supplement, its the added things as well like medical cards, back to school allowance.

I don't know the math but I'm sure if we look at other countries who have childcare provided by for the state to some level it saves money in the long term.

I think its usually provided instead of child benefit. Good luck trying to get that changed.

Pumpkinseeds

Expecting a parent to work to provide for their own child is a bad thing There are far too many layabout parents who've never done an honest days work happily living off the benefit money for their 4/5 kids, collecting their benefit payments and having their rent paid for them. It's high time the cushy ride ended. As far as medical cards are concerned, they should be based on medical need not means.

Hitchens

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Expecting a parent to work to provide for their own child is a bad thing There are far too many layabout parents who've never done an honest days work happily living off the benefit money for their 4/5 kids, collecting their benefit payments and having their rent paid for them. It's high time the cushy ride ended. As far as medical cards are concerned, they should be based on medical need not means.

that's tarring everyone with the same brush, in fairness

Alf. A. Male

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo.

Yes, because we have full employment, no jobless at all, so single parents can just walk into jobs.

What specifically becomes different about the cost of raising a child once they turn 7? Do they eat less or need less clothing or something? Or is just a divide and conquer tactic which will be successful because people unaffected will jumpt to defend it or just shut up and accept it? There's nothing justified about this cut, it's just as ill thought out as cuts to medical cards, carer's allowances, services for the elderly etc. in spite of having money to pay bondholders and bankers who gambled and should have lost but won't be allowed to.

jobeenfitz

I would think it is hard for a lone parent to survive or find adequate childcare so they can go out to work. The other parent should be contributing money to the child also. I know I would not like to find out how hard it is to survive on social welfare and rare my child.

Lots of people are lone/single parents for different reasons. It may not have been something they chose?

Some people are great at judging, Just because there are a few people out to sponge doesn't mean the majority should be punished.

Pumpkinseeds

Hitchens wrote: »

that's tarring everyone with the same brush, in fairness

It's referring to all parents who've never bothered to earn a days wages but who still breed like rats anyway. Those people are parasites. At 7 years of age a child is at school. If that child's mother doesn't want to get a job to provide for her child she shouldn't expect the state/tax payer to provide for that child.

Pumpkinseeds

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Yes, because we have full employment, no jobless at all, so single parents can just walk into jobs.

What specifically becomes different about the cost of raising a child once they turn 7? Do they eat less or need less clothing or something? Or is just a divide and conquer tactic which will be successful because people unaffected will jumpt to defend it or just shut up and accept it? There's nothing justified about this cut, it's just as ill thought out as cuts to medical cards, carer's allowances, services for the elderly etc. in spite of having money to pay bondholders and bankers who gambled and should have lost but won't be allowed to.

What about all the years when the country was booming and yet many of these mothers didn't bother to work then either? I'm sick and tired of hearing whinings about how tough things are for single mothers. Cross your legs or use contraception.

Alf. A. Male

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

What about all the years when the country was booming and yet many of these mothers didn't bother to work then either? I'm sick and tired of hearing whinings about how tough things are for single mothers. Cross your legs or use contraception.

So it's definitely the single mothers, yeh? Nothing to do with delinquent fathers at all? And what if those mothers worked during those boom years but are now out of work through no fault of their own? What if they are widows who can't find work?

Hitchens

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It's referring to all parents who've never bothered to earn a days wages but who still breed like rats anyway. Those people are parasites. At 7 years of age a child is at school. If that child's mother doesn't want to get a job to provide for her child she shouldn't expect the state/tax payer to provide for that child.

So the children have to suffer for something they have no hand, act or part in? We're talking about human beings here, not rats.

darkpagandeath

Affordable and childcare in a Sentence.... If both parents are on a average wage most of one of the wages goes towards childcare costs. Childcare In Ireland is especially extortionate.

Pumpkinseeds

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

So it's definitely the single mothers, yeh? Nothing to do with delinquent fathers at all? And what if those mothers worked during those boom years but are now out of work through no fault of their own? What if they are widows who can't find work?

You know as well as I do that the bulk of single mothers in this country are not women who went out to work to provide for their child or widows. There's an awful lot of them who just can't be bothered to work. As for deliquent dads, that's a whole other thread.

darkpagandeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You know as well as I do that the bulk of single mothers in this country are not women who went out to work to provide for their child or widows. There's an awful lot of them who just can't be bothered to work. As for deliquent dads, that's a whole other thread.

I'm sure you have figures to backup your wild theory's ?

Pumpkinseeds

Hitchens wrote: »

So the children have to suffer for something they have no hand, act or part in? We're talking about human beings here, not rats.

That's down to their parents not me or you or the other tax payers in this country.

Pumpkinseeds

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm sure you have figures to backup your wild theory's ?

I just take a look around me.

Celly Smunt

anncoates wrote: »

Child care?

School?

darkpagandeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I just take a look around me.

So that's a no then you could be living in an unemployment black spot ? As you know its difficult to relocate or travel long distances with a child to find a suitable job.

Alf. A. Male

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You know as well as I do that the bulk of single mothers in this country are not women who went out to work to provide for their child or widows. There's an awful lot of them who just can't be bothered to work. As for deliquent dads, that's a whole other thread.

I know no such thing, got some facts and figures to back it up?

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I just take a look around me.

Oh, you've answered that already, you don't, you just made some assumptions.

And delinquent fathers isn't another thread, the children weren't conceived immaculately and this measure does nothning to make them financially responsible, but reinforces the prejudices you espouse.

Celly Smunt

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Yes, because we have full employment, no jobless at all, so single parents can just walk into jobs.

What specifically becomes different about the cost of raising a child once they turn 7? Do they eat less or need less clothing or something? Or is just a divide and conquer tactic which will be successful because people unaffected will jumpt to defend it or just shut up and accept it? There's nothing justified about this cut, it's just as ill thought out as cuts to medical cards, carer's allowances, services for the elderly etc. in spite of having money to pay bondholders and bankers who gambled and should have lost but won't be allowed to.

Key words, looking for work.

I'm going to brush past your burn the bondholders crap and say that there is also no reason why they shouldnt be in education if they cant find employment.This sense of entitlement of staying home to look after one child malarkey is not merited and shouldn't exist.If the mother cant find employment, then she should be training to better herself; not leeching off the state to stay at home whilst being rewarded.

It might be firm and "unfair" but that's how thw world works.

Pumpkinseeds

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So that's a no then you could be living in an unemployment black spot ? As you know its difficult to relocate or travel long distances with a child to find a suitable job.

You're just grasping at straws now. There's a lot of unemployed single mothers who don't want to work because they just don't want to work. I don't live in an unemployment blackspot. There's an engrained culture in this country among families from regeneration backgrounds. The simple reality is that many of them get pregnant as soon as they can and get themselves a council flat or Rent Allowance. It's gone on for decades and it doesn't look like stopping any time soon.

But you want to believe that all single mothers are just down on their luck and really want to work in order to provide a decent standard of living for their children, as much as I'd like to play that game with you I can't, there's entirely too much delusion going on with the Social Welfare system.

anncoates

Celly Smunt wrote: »

School?

Home time is between 1.30 and 3.30 depending on the year in primary school so you need quite flexible hours and to be near to the school.

By all means I think people should work if they can, but this across the board diatribes are petty.

Celly Smunt

anncoates wrote: »

Home time is between 1.30 and 3.30 depending on the year in primary school so you need quite flexible hours and to be near to the school.

By all means I think people should work if they can, but this across the board diatribes are petty.

There are after school programs across the country, can't see why they couldn't be availed of.

darkpagandeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You're just grasping at straws now. There's a lot of unemployed single mothers who don't want to work because they just don't want to work. I don't live in an unemployment blackspot. There's an engrained culture in this country among families from regeneration backgrounds. The simple reality is that many of them get pregnant as soon as they can and get themselves a council flat or Rent Allowance. It's gone on for decades and it doesn't look like stopping any time soon.

But you want to believe that all single mothers are just down on their luck and really want to work in order to provide a decent standard of living for their children, as much as I'd like to play that game with you I can't, there's entirely too much delusion going on with the Social Welfare system.

Nope I just gave a reason why some could be unemployed your the one tarring everyone with the same brush not me. I do know some people who are like your afford mentioned examples but I would hesitate to say it's not reflective of the whole group that are single mothers.

Pumpkinseeds

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

I know no such thing, got some facts and figures to back it up?



Oh, you've answered that already, you don't, you just made some assumptions.

And delinquent fathers isn't another thread, the children weren't conceived immaculately and this measure does nothning to make them financially responsible, but reinforces the prejudices you espouse.

A woman is ultimately responsible for her own body. If she chooses to have a child it will be her choice. If she chooses to have a child with a man who is an unreliable waste of space, well that's her choice too. I'm expressing my point of view. You don't like my point of view so you label my as being predjudiced. If you define being predjudiced as thinking that single mothers should get off their arses and provide for their children then you need a reality check.

anncoates

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There are after school programs across the country, can't see why they couldn't be availed of.

??

Pumpkinseeds

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope I just gave a reason why some could be unemployed your the one tarring everyone with the same brush not me. I do know some people who are like your afford mentioned examples but I would hesitate to say it's not reflective of the whole group that are single mothers.

I'm referrring to single mothers who can't be bothered to work. The kind who plaster 'full time mommy' on their Facebook pages but who think that giving a child a packet of biscuits is giving them lunch. Or who have kids that they don't bother to sit down and do homework with or any of a whole host of other things.

I'm not referring to women who've been made redundant, or who are ill or who have to be at home as a carer. I'm specifically referring to those single mothers who are just too bone idle and lazy to work to provide for their kids and who in my opinion really shouldn't have kids at all.

banie01

I'm going to buck a trend on this thread.
As a Male who has previously been in receipt of OPFA(It is not ''invariably'' a woman's payment, @2.5% of recipients are Male)
Getting back to work and away from the welfare dependence is incredibly difficult due to the way the system is currently setup!
It is meant to be a support, but it often forces a dependency.
As not only is there automatic assumption that anyone who is in receipt of that payment is female.
There is also a very very skewed support system in place around it.
Female recipients are offered training and course's usually in the childcare or caring for the elderly areas.
Courses that are basically designed to get a person off welfare but offer little scope for career development or any real semblance of a work/life balance.
However as a man, you get offered no courses!
No opportunity to retrain and indeed when I tried to gain access to certain courses I was told ''Ah sure your already well qualified and we don't have any programs in place for a man in your situation''

The focus after a child reaches 7, indeed the focus at any age!
Should be around ensuring
1. The child's wellbeing is paramount, and their will be some situation where either through lack of a family support network, Illness or isolation that a parent may genuinely be unable to ''afford'' to return to work without significant continuing support.
2. The parent has adequate access to affordable childcare(Subsidised or Tax Credited)
3. The parent has access to opportunity to appropriate educational and training courses to allow them to upskill for a job that can actually raise them out of the welfare trap, rather than giving them minimum wage opportunities and topping up their earnings via FIS or other welfare supports.
The earlier a suitable support and intervention is made to support a single parent...
The earlier that parent can get back to either education or employment, avoiding the welfare trap and ensuring the actual wellbeing of their child.
At 7.o the child is often in school meaning generally the parent can be available for work at minimum between 9am-2pm.....
Sounds good,
Try finding a job within those hours that can offer the wage that will pull one out of the welfare trap though

OldNotWIse

Hitchens wrote: »

So the children have to suffer for something they have no hand, act or part in? We're talking about human beings here, not rats.

As opposed to childless taxpayers having to suffer for something they too had no hand, act or part in?

Potatoeman

banie01 wrote: »

I'm going to buck a trend on this thread.
As a Male who has previously been in receipt of OPFA(It is not ''invariably'' a woman's payment, @7.5% of recipients are Male)
Getting back to work and away from the welfare dependence is incredibly difficult due to the way the system is currently setup!
It is meant to be a support, but it often forces a dependency.
As not only is there automatic assumption that anyone who is in receipt of that payment is female.
There is also a very very skewed support system in place around it.
Female recipients are offered training and course's usually in the childcare or caring for the elderly areas.
Courses that are basically designed to get a person off welfare but offer little scope for career development or any real semblance of a work/life balance.
However as a man, you get offered no courses!
No opportunity to retrain and indeed when I tried to gain access to certain courses I was told ''Ah sure your already well qualified and we don't have any programs in place for a man in your situation''

The focus after a child reaches 7, indeed the focus at any age!
Should be around ensuring
1. The child's wellbeing is paramount, and their will be some situation where either through lack of a family support network, Illness or isolation that a parent may genuinely be unable to ''afford'' to return to work without significant continuing support.
2. The parent has adequate access to affordable childcare(Subsidised or Tax Credited)
3. The parent has access to opportunity to appropriate educational and training courses to allow them to upskill for a job that can actually raise them out of the welfare trap, rather than giving them minimum wage opportunities and topping up their earnings via FIS or other welfare supports.
The earlier a suitable support and intervention is made to support a single parent...
The earlier that parent can get back to either education or employment, avoiding the welfare trap and ensuring the actual wellbeing of their child.
At 7.o the child is often in school meaning generally the parent can be available for work at minimum between 9am-2pm.....
Sounds good,
Try finding a job within those hours that can offer the wage that will pull one out of the welfare trap though

Can you not access FAS courses?

darkpagandeath

OldNotWIse wrote: »

As opposed to childless taxpayers having to suffer for something they too had no hand, act or part in?

What’s childless have to do with anything ? You have to pay tax irrespective lots of things people have to pay tax for that they may not have a hand in..

banie01

Potatoeman wrote: »

Can you not access FAS courses?

Online ones are available, but as I said generally hometimes are around 2.30pm for a child upto the age of 12.
Fulltime Fás courses usually require attendance until 4pm.
Meaning school collection, and childcare needs to be arranged and without a good support network this gets expensive.
And the same applies to the few Fás courses available in the evening, childcare still needs sorting.

My main point around the courses offered to the recipients of OPFA is that they are generally very deliberately targeted towards roles that would be traditionally female and are service orientated.
There are options around BTEA that weren't available to me as I already have a level8 qualification and as such I was precluded from retraining in a more employable feild.

OldNotWIse

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What’s childless have to do with anything ? You have to pay tax irrespective lots of things people have to pay tax for that they may not have a hand in..

erm...the fact that they wont benefit is kind of the point.

eviltwin

banie01 wrote: »

Online ones are available, but as I said generally hometimes are around 2.30pm for a child upto the age of 12.
Fulltime Fás courses usually require attendance until 4pm.
Meaning school collection, and childcare needs to be arranged and without a good support network this gets expensive.
And the same applies to the few Fás courses available in the evening, childcare still needs sorting.

My main point around the courses offered to the recipients of OPFA is that they are generally very deliberately targeted towards roles that would be traditionally female and are service orientated.
There are options around BTEA that weren't available to me as I already have a level8 qualification and as such I was precluded from retraining in a more employable feild.

I feel your pain. I was made redundant just before my second child was born, thankfully my husband was working but I was badly in need of upskilling and just couldn't access anything, all the courses were full time and I couldn't afford childcare and the grant wouldn't cover an OU course or other distance learning.

Electric Sheep

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Is childcare something of an afterthought for parents? It seems to only dawn on them after their children come along that they need to be minded, why are parents always so surprised about childcare costing money

True. Parents also like to blabber on about how raising children is the most important job in the world, but they think it should be low cost or free when they outsource it.

Dravokivich

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Why are people having children then expecting everyone else to fund them? Seriously if you can't raise your children because the government aren't giving you enough, then don't ****ing procreate. Jesus.

7 years gives a parent to get out of a bad situation, find a job/retrain/find their feet if it was an unplanned pregnancy and it should be enough time to get yourself into a position to be able to raise the child without handouts.

Just becuase someone may need assistance, doesnt mean they are looking for a handout. Maybe someday you'll learn the difference becuase you are always incredibly quick to shoot this one off in these topics.