No contraception, no dole

Tearin It Up

They're right, if you cant afford kids, dont have them.

But if its brought in here, i have to prove im on some form of contraception. The most effective contraception is abstinence. Its on them to prove I'm whoring around.

Gatling

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Not one mention of the male species and their responsibilities.

See males can't repeatedly go to the social welfare oh look it's happened again .

We males get Single person payments we don't get Child benefit and one parent families 99% are made up of a single mother with anything from 1-7 kids

DeJa VooDoo

Tearin It Up wrote: »

They're right, if you cant afford kids, dont have them.

What do you suggest people who's partners are deceased or were recently made redundant and had to claim lone parents allowance for their kids should do?
Hand the children over to someone else?

Day Lewin

Treating all humans as dignified people with needs, is the hallmark of the attempt to be civilised. Judging someone for having a large family is as outrageous as compulsory sterilization.

Any one of the families that draw social welfare assistance might be there for a multitude of reasons: any one of those kids might grow up to benefit the human race. They'll be nursing us, when we get old.

"Scrounging" means an undeserving attitude: but a large family that has lost its main breadwinner IS deserving.
And the State already pay everyone's way with vaccinations and primary schooling and child benefit and and and...
and the State policing private sexual practices is an abhorrent idea. Even for Australia/.

CruelCoin

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Not one mention of the male species and their responsibilities.

It's a gender and not a species firstly.


Single fathers, single mothers, who cares? The gender mentioned doesn't change my argument of not wanting to pay someone to pop out offspring and live off my taxes.

It's a vagina, not a ****ing clown-car.

suicide_circus

Kinda like the free hysterectomy/vasectomy for, what Joe Duffy calls, "unwell people"

Fukuyama

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

How many people on the dole do you know like that?

To be fair, I genuinely know quite a few.

There are two types of people who claim SW.

The 80%: Lost job. Embarrassed to even claim. Budgeting like mad. Living within their means. Doing everything to get out of the hole they're in.

The 20%: The lifers. I've spoken to lads I went to school with who have been on social welfare most of their lives. They know the system better than the people behind the counter. At the very worst a few have to participate in adult employment programs, courses etc.. to continue claiming. And even then they only show up the minimum amount of time required and otherwise take the piss.

The proliferation of social welfare families with lots of high end consumer electronics is totally true. They're most often bought on credit or otherwise financed.

For example, big screen TVs can be got on finance and paid back over a few years. The people on the dole that I know all have iPhones 5/6. They're all got on 2 year bill pay contracts with **** allowances and high monthly payments.

This creates an odd situation whereby most people on the dole live within their means and generally are only one it for a reasonably short period. However, you then have people who claim the dole for YEARS while actively making really terrible personal finance decisions which further impoverish themselves. They then claim that the dole isn't enough to finance their lifestyles, which themselves are actually financed through loans, credit and other debt obligations.

It's extremely hard for working people to stomach because many can't afford nice clothes, tech items etc... and also cannot simply demand more money from their boss because they can't afford nice things.

That's how we get a sob story in The Mirror about a single mother in a council flat who can't afford a sliced pan.

listermint

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

How many people on the dole do you know like that?

Actually a good few tbh. And no its not one of those nigerian mothers prams nonsense. 50 Inch plasma in the sitting room Sky dish on the wall set to FTA mind you but the android box streams all the shows during the day when they have their feet up.


Makes me sad.

DeJa VooDoo

Dean0088 wrote: »

To be fair, I genuinely know quite a few.

There are two types of people who claim SW.

The 80%: Lost job. Embarrassed to even claim. Budgeting like mad. Living within their means. Doing everything to get out of the hole they're in.

The 20%: The lifers. I've spoken to lads I went to school with who have been on social welfare most of their lives. They know the system better than the people behind the counter. At the very worst a few have to participate in adult employment programs, courses etc.. to continue claiming. And even then they only show up the minimum amount of time required and otherwise take the piss.

The proliferation of social welfare families with lots of high end consumer electronics is totally true. They're most often bought on credit or otherwise financed.

For example, big screen TVs can be got on finance and paid back over a few years. The people on the dole that I know all have iPhones 5/6. They're all got on 2 year bill pay contracts with **** allowances and high monthly payments.

This creates an odd situation whereby most people on the dole live within their means and generally are only one it for a reasonably short period. However, you then have people who claim the dole for YEARS while actively making really terrible personal finance decisions which further impoverish themselves. They then claim that the dole isn't enough to finance their lifestyles, which themselves are actually financed through loans, credit and other debt obligations.

It's extremely hard for working people to stomach because many can't afford nice clothes, tech items etc... and also cannot simply demand more money from their boss because they can't afford nice things.

That's how we get a sob story in The Mirror about a single mother in a council flat who can't afford a sliced pan.

I agree with a lot of this but I'm interested in where you get the 80%/20% figure from.

VinLieger

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

What do you suggest people who's partners are deceased or were recently made redundant and had to claim lone parents allowance for their kids should do?
Hand the children over to someone else?

This isn't about people who have kids and then have to apply for the dole, its focusing on people who are on the dole and then choose to have kid's, two very different prospects

suicide_circus

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this but I'm interested in where you get the 80%/20% figure from.

Guesstimation

DeJa VooDoo

listermint wrote: »

Actually a good few tbh. And no its not one of those nigerian mothers prams nonsense. 50 Inch plasma in the sitting room Sky dish on the wall set to FTA mind you but the android box streams all the shows during the day when they have their feet up.


Makes me sad.

The 50" plasma does sound a bit like the 'nigerian mothers prams' TBH.
Most houses would have a flatscreen panel these days in any case I would have thought.
Plasma is old hat too, 4K UHD LCD is the way to go...

Effects

Not the same but similar: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jun/12/barbara-harris-sterilise-drug-addicts-alcoholics

DoYouEvenLift

Regarding the people on the dole who still have all the latest tech and comforts, if you're close enough to know that they have all that but their children are underfed and not looked after well enough etc. I'd hope you'd report that. If someone would choose to finance a new TV or phone each week than use the money towards their kids if it was needed then they're disgraceful parents.

ColeTrain

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

What do you suggest people who's partners are deceased or were recently made redundant and had to claim lone parents allowance for their kids should do?
Hand the children over to someone else?

What about a single mother in her early 20's having 3 kids or more with no education or any hope of finding a career?

Look there's a balance here and nobody is attempting to brush every single parent into one category but in the extreme cases, what's wrong in suggesting that people take some responsibility?

This thread is gonna piss me off. All I am seeing is "it is the responsibility of the woman", "men can't get child benefit" (wtf?), "vaginas".

A little token sentence of "I couldnt care less if they are male or female" doesn't change the fact that opinion here is it is the females problem.

How about, the snip for all men from age 14 onwards and when they reach an acceptable income level, they get the procedure reversed? Nah, didn't think you'd go for that one.

Responsibility lies with both mother and father, equally. Sort out the stupid laws that infringe on fathers rights and hopefully the "it's her problem" mentality will die out.

DeJa VooDoo

VinLieger wrote: »

This isn't about people who have kids and then have to apply for the dole, its focusing on people who are on the dole and then choose to have kid's, two very different prospects

Contraception isn't 100% foolproof.
Are you then suggesting that people refrain from having intercourse?

BTW, do you actually agree with what's proposed by this nutjob?

Tugboats

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

This thread is gonna piss me off. All I am seeing is "it is the responsibility of the woman", "men can't get child benefit" (wtf?), "vaginas".

A little token sentence of "I couldnt care less if they are male or female" doesn't change the fact that opinion here is it is the females problem.

How about, the snip for all men from age 14 onwards and when they reach an acceptable income level, they get the procedure reversed? Nah, didn't think you'd go for that one.

Responsibility lies with both mother and father, equally. Sort out the stupid laws that infringe on fathers rights and hopefully the "it's her problem" mentality will die out.

agree which is why there should be no such thing as child benefit. Imagine buying a dog and expecting the government to feed it:o

DeJa VooDoo

ColeTrain wrote: »

What about a single mother in her early 20's having 3 kids or more with no education or any hope of finding a career?

Look there's a balance here and nobody is attempting to brush every single parent into one category but in the extreme cases, what's wrong in suggesting that people take some responsibility?

Absolutely.
A bit of education would be a good thing.
I'm not sure there's many young women with 3 young kids running around and no partner to help out who, if they had their time over, would do it again.

Fukuyama

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this but I'm interested in where you get the 80%/20% figure from.

My own experience. Let's not go down the usual route in AH of requesting figures which simply don't exist.

It's not like the Department of Social Protection can go around to people's houses and inspect their living rooms.

I'm from a working class area, and have worked in many others around Dublin. I have old acquaintances on the dole along with extended family, some of whom spend their lives going between jail cells and social housing.

I have eyes and it's fairly obvious to see. When someone who spends every weekday in a pub, wearing a tracksuit with five days stubble is telling me about how their new Smart TV connects to the internet, I can be fairly confident in guessing that they're not paying for it in a 9-5.

I have also had numerous people actually tell me how they bounce between SW schemes or dodge the "reviews" they get called in for every six months.

It's very often routed into certain families. Little johnnie sees Mammy and Daddy sitting on their holes his entire life, so when he turns 18 he know the SW game better than most!

This country has a growing problem with long-term SW lifers who impoverish themselves. Ireland has a great SW welfare system with very generous amounts given. The UK give nothing compared to us. And yet, we still hear cries of "it's not enough".

You might claim that I'm talking through my hole here with 20% figure. But I guarantee that in my area and many others it'd be upwards of 60% of those on the dole are taking the piss. 20% would be a national average I reckon.

VinLieger

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Contraception isn't 100% foolproof.
Are you then suggesting that people refrain from having intercourse?

BTW, do you actually agree with what's proposed by this nutjob?

Of course Contraception isn't 100% but some forms' are pretty close at 99% such as an IUD implant., btw thats not suggesting we force people to get these implants but its an example of contraception that is more effective than condoms.

Yes I do agree with this suggestion. He is simply suggesting people who do not have the means to look after and pay for a child or children take some responsibility and not expect other people IE the tax payers to foot the bill for their life choices to have a child when they cannot afford it.

DeJa VooDoo

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Responsibility lies with both mother and father, equally. Sort out the stupid laws that infringe on fathers rights and hopefully the "it's her problem" mentality will die out.

Agreed.
When the guy is proven to be the father either have his wages, or his welfare if he's on it, 'garnished' to suit and have a similar reduction of the money she gets from the state.

DoYouEvenLift

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

This thread is gonna piss me off. All I am seeing is "it is the responsibility of the woman", "men can't get child benefit" (wtf?), "vaginas".

A little token sentence of "I couldnt care less if they are male or female" doesn't change the fact that opinion here is it is the females problem.

How about, the snip for all men from age 14 onwards and when they reach an acceptable income level, they get the procedure reversed? Nah, didn't think you'd go for that one.

Responsibility lies with both mother and father, equally. Sort out the stupid laws that infringe on fathers rights and hopefully the "it's her problem" mentality will die out.

If it was completely pain and discomfort free and 100% guaranteed reversible with instant recovery I would, but "the snip" is none of those. Can one really compare having a surgery with swallowing a pill?

LoonyLovegood

No contraception, no dole, fine. But will they pay for the hormonal contraception? What if it doesn't agree with the woman, will they pay for another form of it? It's a crazy idea.

Dyr

CruelCoin wrote: »

No more obnoxious than a single mother with five kids expecting me to pay her way.

Hmmm by that logic, did I pay for you to go to school? I probably paid mickey money to your ma too. Are you gonna pay that back?

I wasn't saying that australia is unique in its capacity to produce obnoxious bawbags, this wee island can turn out some fine examples

Dog of Tears

The ability to reproduce should be strictly controlled and regulated by the State.

As a minimum, prospective parents should be required to undertake IQ tests and demonstrate minimum income levels prior to being allowed to have children.

Failure to comply with these requirements should result in heft fines and/or imprisonment for both partners and forced abortion of the foetus.

yipeeeee

We have the second highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.

If you can't afford kids don't have them.

People who rely on the state to support themselves then Go on to have kids and expect the state to support them.

It's called family planning.

rob316

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Agreed.
When the guy is proven to be the father either have his wages, or his welfare if he's on it, 'garnished' to suit and have a similar reduction of the money she gets from the state.

Exactly its men impregnate women not the other way around. The money to support a child should be taken from the working father, I know this is what's supposed to happen but it doesn't and usually its a pretty small sum.

DeJa VooDoo

Dog of Tears wrote: »

The ability to reproduce should be strictly controlled and regulated by the State.

As a minimum, prospective parents should be required to undertake IQ tests and demonstrate minimum income levels prior to being allowed to have children.

Failure to comply with these requirements should result in heft fines and/or imprisonment for both partners and forced abortion of the foetus.

Careful now!

DoYouEvenLift

yipeeeee wrote: »

We have the second highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.

If you can't afford kids don't have them.

That's honestly fuking depressing.