Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 12:39PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Contributory pensions should increase and non contributory should stay static.

Fair enough so, I'd back that.

maccored · 23-08-2018 12:45PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So let's get this straight. I've paid comfortably into the six figures in the last decade in tax, PRSI and USC.

I'll now be asked to pay more in for pension.

I pay tax, PRSI, USC and pension payments. why shouldnt you?

jay0109 · 23-08-2018 12:46PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Speaking to the Sunday World, she said: "He's not on the scene. I separated from him last year."

The 28-year-old's former long-term partner, John McCarthy, was remanded in the custody of Cloverhill Prison on July 25.

He is facing charges of assault at Westmoreland Street on June 24, engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour and possession of an offensive weapon, involving a sharpened tent spike.

https://www.herald.ie/news/mum-and-six-kids-forced-to-sleep-in-garda-station-given-beds-by-a-charity-37209313.html

Why is she still called Cash if she got married at 15?
Is McCarthy the man she married?

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 12:47PM

maccored wrote: »

I pay tax, PRSI, USC and pension payments. why shouldnt you?

WAAAAY to miss the point there.

Wheeliebin30 · 23-08-2018 12:47PM

jay0109 wrote: »

Why is she still called Cash if she got married at 15?
Is McCarthy the man she married?

All about the benefits as a “single mother”

Skelet0n · 23-08-2018 12:48PM

jay0109 wrote: »

Why is she still called Cash if she got married at 15?
Is McCarthy the man she married?

They haven’t consummated the marriage yet.

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 12:48PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

All about the benefits as a “single mother”

She doesn't even have to lie!

If you are a prisoner's spouse or civil partner, you should apply when your spouse or civil partner:

Has been in custody for at least 6 months without being sentenced or
Starts their sentence, which must be for at least 6 months

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 23-08-2018 01:05PM

seamus wrote: »

The evidence thus far from hundreds of thousands of years of human society is that there is no causative link between income and number of children. People continue having children whether they can afford to or not.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there are many people today not having children, or having fewer children than they would like, because they can't afford the costs.

The Guardian: 'Babies? An impossible dream': the millennials priced out of parenthood

New York Times: Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.

In the latter article, four of the top five reasons young Americans gave for having fewer children than their ideal are all economic: child care costs, worries about the economy, can't afford more children, and financial insecurity.

These concerns are mirrored across other countries, including Ireland, where women are having fewer children on average, and having them at an older age. The average Irish mother is now in her early thirties when she has her first child.

Citing "evidence ... from hundreds of thousands of years of human society" sounds grandiose, but this so-called "evidence" is largely irrelevant. Only very recently in human history have people gained access to reliable contraception and safe abortion. People in the Stone Age did not have such control over their reproductive choices.

The only people in Ireland today having as many children as they like without regard for the costs are long-term welfare dependents like Ms. Cash. As I stated earlier, for a welfare-dependent family, another baby is an asset because it increases household income and also increases the chances of getting moved up on the local authority housing list. For working parents, another baby is a liability because it increases costs, and/or reduces the capacity of one or both parents to work, and/or reduces the chances of qualifying for a mortgage.

The economic calculus is thus entirely different for the likes of Ms. Cash than for the majority of women in Ireland.

seamus · 23-08-2018 01:08PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do you reckon criminals sit at home with their spreadsheets open, listing all their expenditure and then have a column of income, starting with "social welfare - 350", then just head out and Rob whatever the have to to make up the difference?

:rolleyes:
If someone doesn't have enough to care for their families, what do you think they do? Sit around eating the dirt off the ground waiting to die?

Social welfare payments are protection money. Remove social welfare altogether and people won't magically go to work or stop having children, they'll just turn to black markets and petty crime.

Ask yourself whether you feel safer walking through Jobstown or Foxrock, and then it might make sense.

Or do you reckon that all criminals get involved in crime for the lulz?

Uriel. wrote: »

Let them go further into poverty so. Use the savings in benefit payments to provide a grant for permanent contraception and sort out our justice system.

What savings? How much will administration of all this justice and forced, sorry "permanent" contraception cost?

And what will you do when generations of these people refuse your offer of contraception and continuing have more children and getting involved in more crime?

It's a ridiculous sentiment where we admit we can't stop them breeding feral scum but at the same time just say, ah well we'll keep paying them for it anyway. It removes all personal responsibility and consequences.

I don't think anyone's saying that. I'm simply saying that it's facile and simplistic to suggest that taking away child benefit will stop people from having kids.

It's education. It's all about education. Adding or taking money won't magically turn someone into a model citizen. But ensuring that they don't have enough to live on is a sure fire way of turning them to crime.

seamus · 23-08-2018 01:10PM

Judson Calm Remote wrote: »

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there are many people today not having children, or having fewer children than they would like, because they can't afford the costs.

Because they're educated.

Cost is secondary. Someone who is not educated doesn't factor in the cost.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the only way to reduce poverty and welfare dependency is education. All of the punitive measures in the world won't do it.

Taking away welfare to encourage someone to better themselves is standing on their head while telling them to swim.

maccored · 23-08-2018 01:11PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

WAAAAY to miss the point there.

did you make one?

jay0109 · 23-08-2018 01:12PM

I have several friends who only have 1 or 2 kids but would have loved more. They are Dublin based and simply couldn't afford to have several children as well as paying Dublin mortgages and Dublin childcare costs.

na1 · 23-08-2018 01:12PM

Judson Calm Remote wrote: »

The only people in Ireland today having as many children as they like without regard for the costs are long-term welfare dependents like Ms. Cash. As I stated earlier, for a welfare-dependent family, another baby is an asset because it increases household income and also increases the chances of getting moved up on the local authority housing list. For working parents, another baby is a liability because it increases costs, and/or reduces the capacity of one or both parents to work, and/or reduces the chances of qualifying for a mortgage.

The economic calculus is thus entirely different for the likes of Ms. Cash than for the majority of women in Ireland.

I call it a Division of Labor:
some people make goods & services,
some people make children.

KrustyUCC · 23-08-2018 01:19PM

seamus wrote: »

Because they're educated.

Cost is secondary. Someone who is not educated doesn't factor in the cost.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the only way to reduce poverty and welfare dependency is education. All of the punitive measures in the world won't do it.

Taking away welfare to encourage someone to better themselves is standing on their head while telling them to swim.

If Educatiuon is the key to reduce welfare dependency then everybody should have at least a Leaving Cert before you are eligible for payments

*whether that is LCA, Ordinary Level or Honours thats up to each individual*

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 23-08-2018 01:22PM

seamus wrote: »

Because they're educated.

Cost is secondary. Someone who is not educated doesn't factor in the cost.

Ms. Cash may only have a primary level education, but she seems to have no trouble grasping the basic principle that, for someone in her position, more babies = more money.

There are also plenty of working people who may not have great educations, but they can also understand that, for them, more babies = less money.

To claim that only "educated" people can understand this logic is simply wrong.

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 01:22PM

maccored wrote: »

did you make one?

Yes, several times. Shame you missed them.

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 01:24PM

Judson Calm Remote wrote: »

Ms. Cash may only have a primary level education, but she seems to have no trouble grasping the basic principle that, for someone in her position, more babies = more money.

There are also plenty of working people who may not have great educations, but they can also understand that, for them, more babies = less money.

To claim that only "educated" people can understand this logic is simply wrong.

+1,000!

Sweet Lord above - there's defending them and then there's "hun" worthy comments eh ???

Comment there about "if they don't have enough to live on, where will they get money ?"

WORK. Like the f**ing rest of us do!!!!

KrustyUCC · 23-08-2018 01:26PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Comment there about "if they don't have enough to live on, where will they get money ?"

WORK. Like the f**ing rest of us do!!!!

That's an alien concept

She's entitled to ....

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 01:29PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

That's an alien concept

She's entitled to ....

........ A bloody chastity belt!!!

KrustyUCC · 23-08-2018 01:32PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

........ A bloody chastity belt!!!

Lol

The answer apparently is a few beers, a communion dress for her daughter, a home forever and also there is no limit to how many children you can have

seamus · 23-08-2018 01:32PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

If Educatiuon is the key to reduce welfare dependency then everybody should have at least a Leaving Cert before you are eligible for payments

I think you tried to make a funny there, but it's fallen pretty flat.

Judson Calm Remote wrote: »

To claim that only "educated" people can understand this logic is simply wrong.

Because you say so? Of course, this is a strawman you're constructing. You point to individual cases, ascribe to them motivations that you cannot prove, and then extrapolate to assume that they're illustrative of much larger groups.

What evidence do you have that there's a widespread practice of people having more children for more money? And by widespread I mean in the tens of thousands, not a couple of hundred cases here and there. And not anecdotes of "this guy my sister was talking to on the Luas".

There is a direct link between education, poverty, and family size. This claim that removing social welfare will cause smaller families in welfare-dependent families is demonstrably false. Because it has never been the case anywhere, in the history of the world, that impoverished people choose to have small families.

Ultimately this is classic, "my taxes rabble rabble rabble". People want to get some form of "vengeance" on the likes of Cash, satisfy their own feelings of injustice, even if it may be detrimental to society. Am I saying that Ms Cash is a sign of a "good" society? No.

But can anyone providing even the slightest shred of evidence that if her income were to be reduced to zero tomorrow, that society would be better for it?

end of the road · 23-08-2018 01:34PM

Pints? wrote: »

Horrible situation for anyone to be in regardless of how they got there. But if she can't support her kids why aren't they taken off her. That'll give her a chance to sort life out. When she can prove she can support her kids she can have them back. **** for the kids and her I agree but as bad as it will be it will be better than growing up in a dysfunctional homeless environment.
They have no chance as it is.

because the children are not in a situation where it is necessary to take them off their mother. they are not in danger, they are provided for, and they are not being abused. their mother may not be the perfect or most ideal parent, but that's not a valid reason to be removing children, otherwise probably all of the children in the state would be in care, because someone elses idea of an ideal parent is different to anothers.
the care system is for children who are in very serious situations and who it is just not possible to leave them with the parent or parents, and there is no other relatives in a position to take care of them. miss cash's case is not one of those, she is taking care of her children. simply removing children because people don't like the parents is unlikely to have a good outcome for the children and society. one may not like the fact miss cash has had 7 kids and is on wellfare, and that's fine, but again that is not a good or valid reason to be removing children.

Pints? wrote: »

They would be traumatised. As any child would. Would anyone disagree that it'd still be best for them in long run.

i would suggest it would likely be worse for them. being split up alone which is highly likely, will quite possibly do serious damage mentally to them. i'd suspect that is only the start.

KrustyUCC · 23-08-2018 01:34PM

seamus wrote: »

I think you tried to make a funny there, but it's fallen pretty flat.

No funny

Either you work when out of school or welfare is tied to staying in Education until at least the Leaving Cert

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 01:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

because the children are not in a situation where it is necessary to take them off their mother. they are not in danger, they are provided for, and they are not being abused. their mother may not be the perfect or most ideal parent, but that's not a valid reason to be removing children, otherwise probably all of the children in the state would be in care, because someone elses idea of an ideal parent is different to anothers.
the care system is for children who are in very serious situations and who it is just not possible to leave them with the parent or parents, and there is no other relatives in a position to take care of them. miss cash's case is not one of those, she is taking care of her children. simply removing children because people don't like the parents is unlikely to have a good outcome for the children and society. one may not like the fact miss cash has had 7 kids and is on wellfare, and that's fine, but again that is not a good or valid reason to be removing children.

i would suggest it would likely be worse for them. being split up alone which is highly likely, will quite possibly do serious damage mentally to them. i'd suspect that is only the start.

So how many do we allow her and her ilk to have before we say enough is enough ?

4 more kids and she is touching 70 grand a year, take home.

KrustyUCC · 23-08-2018 01:37PM

The kids are only provided for thanks to the taxpayer

Nothing their parents have done for them

Apparently it doesn’t matter if anybody has one child or more according to Margaret.

PlaneSpeeking · 23-08-2018 01:39PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

The kids are only provided for thanks to the taxpayer

Nothing their parents have done for them

I for one am heartily sick of reading fluffy garbage from posters about why this kind of anti social conduct (and it is against society, so the very definition) should not only be encouraged but paid for ?

It is utterly mental to think she and he kind will EVER do society any good whatsoever so why the f**k should she get payments most of us will never ever see near.

Sweet.Science · 23-08-2018 01:40PM

So now i've just realised i will work from 18-70 and wont be entitled to a state pension

This thread is depressing - i should have had a load of sprogs

23-08-2018 01:40PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

When I saw the story about this yokes own criminal record and then to see what her partner did I lost ALL sympathy

I knew about the partner, but what is her own record?

KrustyUCC · 23-08-2018 01:42PM

Margaret also confirmed she was once busted by cops for handling stolen goods when she was younger.

She said: “That is going back years ago. That’s stupid, none of that has nothing to do with what’s going on now.

“If I was a murderer or a rapist, it wouldn’t make a difference, everybody has a human right to be housed, to have a home.

“No matter what I done in my past, it doesn’t take away the fact that I have a right to be housed.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6997892/homeless-mum-sleep-police-station-six-kids-blasts-facebook-trolls/

Edit here it is

https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/enniscorthy-guardian/20171212/281779924469721

Skelet0n · 23-08-2018 01:43PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I knew about the partner, but what is her own record?

Drunk driving with stolen goods in the car.

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments