Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
I was just wondering how the whole thing would work out if benefits were drastically cut.
Would kids simply end up in care or foster homes which also costs a packet.

Rather than breaking up families, or driving existing children into poverty, the goal of cutting benefits would be to change the incentive for people to do the same thing that Ms. Cash has done. Given the ages of her children, it seems that she first got pregnant at age 16 or 17. She went on to have 7 kids in the space of 10 years, with no ability to support them, and now, at the age of 28, wants the taxpayer to raise and house her ever-expanding family in an area of her choosing. Most people can see that this is wrong.

You're right, of course, that slashing benefits would have a negative impact on existing children. So the only reasonable way to do it would be to draw a line in the sand. Children who are already born (or on the way) receive one level of benefits. But the level of benefits is cut for future children, thus changing the incentives for welfare-dependent parents to keep popping out kids that the taxpayer must then support.

The core problem right now is that, for a welfare-dependent family, every additional baby is an asset that adds to the family income. For a working family, an extra baby is a liability, because of the costs incurred and the potentially reduced income from a parent staying at home or only working part-time. That calculus has to change.

A study by Laya Life Insurance estimates that Irish families spend an average of around €105,000 to raise each child. For a working couple, then, buying a home and raising a family of seven children would cost well over €1 million, which is well beyond most people's means. So why should people like Ms. Cash get all this paid for free by the taxpayer?