Cut children's allowance after 3 kids

TOMs WIFE

Cut children's allowance after 3 kids.
Any more it's your choice, like Sky Sports.
It encourages people who shouldn't have more, and those who really can't afford more, to have more.

Allowance for 9th kid? Crazy. We'd see a little more restraint and more room in Garda Station waiting rooms if it was stopped.

Harry Palmr

Should be cut after two, a refill is enough.

The_Kew_Tour

Should be after 2

Hector Bellend

Who gets to draw the line?

Where does the line get drawn?

If people had two brain cells that worked together they wouldnt have kids they couldnt raise.

PirateShampoo

With "Professionals" putting off having children until later life and then having only 1 or 2, where do you think the future generations are going to come from to pay for your free bus pass, medical card and state pension?

ThunbergsAreGo

I agree with this proposal entirely but it would be impossible to bring in

dotsman

PirateShampoo wrote: »

With "Professionals" putting off having children until later life and then having only 1 or 2, where do you think the future generations are going to come from to pay for your free bus pass, medical card and state pension?

Nowhere - welfare kids generally become welfare adults!

We need to completely restructure our whole social welfare program so it helps people to help themselves and not just encourage to become completely dependent on it for life.

Any adult not able to even independently look after themselves financially should not be bringing children into this world.

puppieperson1

Make people apply for a license to have kids then do a pre kids course then be monitered and IQ tested also made to outline the path they intend to lay out for the child and what education they intend to provide.

After all that they might think twice & anyone who does not comply then their offspring be automatically sent for adoption to parents who can then have a child without all the IVF torture and raise a good decent human being !! SIMPLE ......

Irish Praetorian

Four seems more reasonable, especially given the tendency of so many people these days not to marry and not to have children. Might also be an idea to express provision to families in the form of tax credits, so if you earn nothing and survive on government handouts you won't do so well, but if you're in a full time employment then happy days are here to stay.

myshirt

All these threads laying into those on welfare is not consistent with the fact that the bulk of this country is actually sucking on the tit of the State whether you believe it or not. Is it just you guys don't know it?

Dravokivich

Hello China.

amcalester

Link CB to gross family income, the higher the income the higher the CB.

Encourage high earners to have more future high earners.

uck51js9zml2yt

Do you really think people have kids for the sake of €35 a week ?

begbysback

Is this law suggested to avoid another generation of the Corrs?

JJJJNR

We need more kids not less. More children mean more tax payers to keep this kip going . Increase the children's allowance x10.

PirateShampoo

dotsman wrote: »

Nowhere - welfare kids generally become welfare adults!

.

Do they yeah, I was a welfare kid to a single mother, I started work on building sites at 17 and I've worked the majority of days ever since. That was 20 years ago. Same can be said about my siblings.

puppieperson1

we need more motivated kids ambitious kids not welfare kids

Atoms for Peace

It should be cut altogether it serves no purpose now that abortion has been legalised. The government should be spending on infraetructure such as child care rather than individual payments.

corner of hells

puppieperson1 wrote: »

Make people apply for a license to have kids then do a pre kids course then be monitered and IQ tested also made to outline the path they intend to lay out for the child and what education they intend to provide.

After all that they might think twice & anyone who does not comply then their offspring be automatically sent for adoption to parents who can then have a child without all the IVF torture and raise a good decent human being !! SIMPLE ......

Good idea , we could do a theory test and have provisional license for practice rides.

I like the idea of removing kids from their parents , sure that always works well.

puppieperson1

well you can see the alternative on the late late show tonight !!

corner of hells

puppieperson1 wrote: »

well you can see the alternative on the late late show tonight !!

Ryan Turbridy turned out okay.

Fcuk the kids. They should fend for themselves.

Fr_Dougal

JJJJNR wrote: »

We need more kids not less. More children mean more tax payers to keep this kip going . Increase the children's allowance x10.

No we don’t. At the rate automation is going, these kids will end up unemployed.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fcuk the kids

Reported
Thats a new low in here

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Reported
Thats a new low in here

I'm paraphrasing OP

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing OP

Im joking.


*gets coat

Kevin Finnerty

Passed two girls today in the local Spar

"Fucķin state of ya", the other being heavily pregnant.
"As if I had a choice" says she. Two of them laughed, they'd less teeth between them than they had kids.

Charming. It made me wanna cry.

TOMs WIFE

Wade Mango Tongue wrote: »

Do you really think people have kids for the sake of €35 a week ?

For some families, that €350 per week adds up.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Hello China.

In the UK:

Rate (weekly)

Eldest or only child £20.70
Additional children £13.70 (per child)

corner of hells

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Passed two girls today in the local Spar

"Fucķin state of ya", the other being heavily pregnant.
"As if I had a choice" says she. Two of them laughed, they'd less teeth between them than they had kids.

Charming. It made me wanna cry.

Are you sure , you're in the right thread ?

Maybe you should be in the pregnancy thread , the dental thread or Spar thread.

TOMs WIFE

The very fact that Citizens information have to publish the below, is worrying enough.

Family sizeMonthly rate, €
One child 140
Two children280
Three children420
Four children560
Five children700
Six children840
Seven children 980

Eight children 1,120

Purple Mountain

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Passed two girls today in the local Spar

"Fucķin state of ya", the other being heavily pregnant.
"As if I had a choice" says she. Two of them laughed, they'd less teeth between them than they had kids.

Charming. It made me wanna cry.

It reminds me of an antenatal appointment in Mt hospital when I was pregnant over a decade ago.
Two, shall we say, less desirable ladies were having an open chat in the corridor, no qualms about who was listening.
Turns out one of them was a nit advanced into her pregnancy before it was noticed and was at the hospital for a scan to determine gestation.
The other one asked her if she was hoping for a boy or girl and the she replied by saying neither, sure I didn't even want to get pregnant.
I know it's off topic here but your post reminded me of that and that some people should no be allowed be parents.

freshpopcorn

This is something I often wondered about how it would work!
Would they people also want medical card, grants, back to school allowance or any payments people receive for their kids?

Hitman3000

Two welfare threads in the one day? Maybe time for a name change from AH to WR (welfare rant).

Irish Praetorian

I must admit, it does seem like a strange sort of topic, considering how modest a proportion of the whole budge it makes up (notwithstanding stuff like pensions).

Eggs For Dinner

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Should be after 2

An heir and a spare should be the norm

Whats the thought process behind this?

Multiple births
If you have twins, you get one and a half times the normal monthly rate for each child. For triplets and other multiple births, Child Benefit is paid at double the normal monthly rate for each child, provided at least three of the children remain qualified.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/child_benefit.html

end of the road

Cut children's allowance after 3 kids.
Any more it's your choice, like Sky Sports.[/QUOTE]

except it's never going to work like that, because unlike sky sports which is a commercial television station, children if born will require, and are entitled to be supported, whatever our opinions of their parents.

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

It encourages people who shouldn't have more, and those who really can't afford more, to have more.

does it really though? i'm not sure it does in reality. it might look as if it does on the face of it, but if we examine this deeper, then i'd be surprised if this viewpoint really does stand up. while people will get benefits per child had, the question we have to ask is whether after a certain stage, those benefits will cover the full cost of raising all of those children. personally, i'd be surprised if it does, which is why i don't believe that over all, anyone with a large family on benefits is simply having children for money. some may be trying that tac, but i'd bet they find out quickly that it's not going to work out as they would hope.

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Allowance for 9th kid? Crazy. We'd see a little more restraint and more room in Garda Station waiting rooms if it was stopped.

i'm not sure we would see either of those in reality. there are people in countries with no supports for children who have large families. yes there is the issue of lack of contraception but i think that can only go so far as an explanation as to why people have large families.

up for anything

Child Benefit is payable to anyone who has children whether it's Michael O'Leary, Seanie Fitzpatrick or me or even you lot if you ever find anyone wanting to make babies with you. :D:D The way you're all speaking about it you'd swear your own mothers never got it regardless of whether they needed it or not. Very few refuse it.

I wonder what you'd find to whine in After Hours about if Ireland suddenly withdrew all welfare benefits.

TOMs WIFE

up for anything wrote: »

Child Benefit is payable to anyone who has children whether it's Michael O'Leary, Seanie Fitzpatrick or me or even you lot if you ever find anyone wanting to make babies with you. :D:D The way you're all speaking about it you'd swear your own mothers never got it regardless of whether they needed it or not. Very few refuse it.

I wonder what you'd find to whine in After Hours about if Ireland suddenly withdrew all welfare benefits.

Said the 10th youngest

end of the road

puppieperson1 wrote: »

Make people apply for a license to have kids then do a pre kids course then be monitered and IQ tested also made to outline the path they intend to lay out for the child and what education they intend to provide.

After all that they might think twice & anyone who does not comply then their offspring be automatically sent for adoption to parents who can then have a child without all the IVF torture and raise a good decent human being !! SIMPLE ......

i would be surprised if in reality, that they would think twice about anything with your suggestion.
also, sending children off for adoption because you don't like the parents or they don't fit your view of a perfect parent, or they don't comply with some nonsense course which has no guarantee of achieving the aims you would like, would effectively be stealing children in my view. no better then what the catholic church, among others were doing. it would also be impossible to do, as you would probably be removing children from every parent bar yourself, and maybe a small few others, as very few would actually comply with any of this, and rightly so. not only that, but there is no guarantee that adopting these children to other parents would mean they turn out decent, as there have been decent parents who have turned out scumbags, and scumbags who have turned out decent people. this is why your idea of a perfect parent cannot be realised as a whole across society.
when the state intervenes to remove children from their parents, in this country at least, it's (rightly) because there is a genuine reason to do so, their parents are a genuine serious danger to their children. it is not because the state doesn't like the parents.

TOMs WIFE

Subsequent kids cost less. Hand me downs. Reduced rate.

Grayson

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This is something I often wondered about how it would work!
Would they people also want medical card, grants, back to school allowance or any payments people receive for their kids?

It's effectively making life harder for those kids who come after the first two.
I fully understand where the desire to cap the allowance comes from but if it's going to hurt kids then it's probably a bad thing.

Pero_Bueno

PirateShampoo wrote: »

With "Professionals" putting off having children until later life and then having only 1 or 2, where do you think the future generations are going to come from to pay for your free bus pass, medical card and state pension?

ehhhh ... these type of people wont be contributing to the tax system !
They will be like their parents, free loading wasters.

Pero_Bueno

JJJJNR wrote: »

We need more kids not less. More children mean more tax payers to keep this kip going . Increase the children's allowance x10.

You do realise there is 7 Billion people in the world?

Totally unsustainable.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i would be surprised if in reality, that they would think twice about anything with your suggestion.
also, sending children off for adoption because you don't like the parents or they don't fit your view of a perfect parent, or they don't comply with some nonsense course which has no guarantee of achieving the aims you would like, would effectively be stealing children in my view. no better then what the catholic church, among others were doing. it would also be impossible to do, as you would probably be removing children from every parent bar yourself, and maybe a small few others, as very few would actually comply with any of this, and rightly so. not only that, but there is no guarantee that adopting these children to other parents would mean they turn out decent, as there have been decent parents who have turned out scumbags, and scumbags who have turned out decent people. this is why your idea of a perfect parent cannot be realised as a whole across society.
when the state intervenes to remove children from their parents, in this country at least, it's (rightly) because there is a genuine reason to do so, their parents are a genuine serious danger to their children. it is not because the state doesn't like the parents.

I think that suggestion was tongue in cheek

Pero_Bueno

puppieperson1 wrote: »

well you can see the alternative on the late late show tonight !!

Who was on ?

Pero_Bueno

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Passed two girls today in the local Spar

"Fucķin state of ya", the other being heavily pregnant.
"As if I had a choice" says she. Two of them laughed, they'd less teeth between them than they had kids.

Charming. It made me wanna cry.

These people should just be taken into a field and tickled with feathers

dxhound2005

When the allowance started in 1944 it was only paid for the third child and any subsequent children. Nothing for child number one or two ever. Very advanced thinking for the time.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

It's effectively making life harder for those kids who come after the first two.
I fully understand where the desire to cap the allowance comes from but if it's going to hurt kids then it's probably a bad thing.

I can understand the angle you're coming at it from, but personal responsibility has to play a part.

If this came into effect, in theory it shouldn't harm any kids, as people who aren't able to support a child wouldnt (or at least shouldn't) have one.



As an aside, I like the OP suggestion, except if it were up to me, I'd be harsher.

Increase the Child benefit payment and give it as a full rate to the first child. Half the rate for the 2nd child, quarter for the 3rd child and nothing for any children thereafter.

There is an anti-welfare stance on boards in general, but the unfortunate reality (as someone living on a council estate who sees it every day) is that people are milking the system.

People who never have worked, and never will work, will have children to:

1) Get up the housing list
2) Claim single motherhood, and stagger their kids so they can state they need to look after their child, so FAS/SOLAS/etc. won't make them do courses or get jobs.

It might sound far-fetched, but I see loads of these 'mothers' every single day. I think the people that claim this stuff is nonsense are the ones who are fortunate enough to not have to mingle with them.

end of the road

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Subsequent kids cost less. Hand me downs. Reduced rate.

hand me downs will only go so far and last so long. reduced rate is likely not viable.

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

ehhhh ... these type of people wont be contributing to the tax system !
They will be like their parents, free loading wasters.

some of them will. all of them certainly won't however.

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

You do realise there is 7 Billion people in the world?

Totally unsustainable.

Totally unsustainible according to who?
whatever about for the rest of the world, ireland has room and we actually need to grow our population and tax base.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that suggestion was tongue in cheek

perhapse, but sometimes it's hard to know for sure. especially around here.

Also, just to add, I am 30, male, making a self employed wage that keeps me ticking over, but couldn't support a child on it properly. Partner's wage included and we'd get by but there'd be no luxuries.

I live in a 'disadvantaged' area (full of scummers) that even I hate. I'd never have a child because 1) I couldn't afford it, and 2) the chances of having a child that's surrounded by useless lazy scumbags, turning into a useless lazy scumbag by association, would annoy me a lot and I'd view it as a failure of parenting.

So I make the sensible decision to not have a child. Effectively meaning when I'm 60-70-80 and need assistance, I'll have no kids there that can do anything for me. No one will call around to me when I'm old and financially fcuked, but that's the responsible, decent thing to do.

If I sat on my hole for the rest of my life and made some nonsense disability claim, had a few kids, i'd get a reduced rent, extra benefits, etc. and I'd probably still see similar money coming in.

I wouldn't pay for anything because if the fridge breaks, the welfare officer will buy me a new one (exceptional needs payment). I'd be where I am at the moment, probably not much better or worse off, but I'd be a sponger and I'd hate that. This country simply won't let you starve on the streets (no matter how hard certain people try to portray otherwise).

So I applaud all the people out there that go to work, bust their hump all day and make the sensible and respectable decisions. Especially those on lower incomes and just about getting by. They're the ones keeping the country running, but it's generally not worth their while.


The Margaret Cash's of society need the proper boot in the hole they deserve (as we enter into Budget 2019, full of both welfare increases and income tax increases.. who's really winning here?!).