nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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?!).

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

we actually need to grow our population and tax base.

One of the big issues is not just people having kids and claiming the benefit, it's WHO is having kids and claiming the benefits..

This is all anecdotal, but it seems like a lot more travellers, long term unemployable, scrotes and scummers are belting out kids, opposed to the amount that the grafting, income-earning people out there are.

Probably a lot to do with the amount of spare time they have, but in my area (a council estate) i see women with 3/4 kids a lot. In other areas I visit you rarely see more than 2, when the parents are working.

This will become more and more apparent over the next 2 decades, I feel.

dxhound2005

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the big issues is not just people having kids and claiming the benefit, it's WHO is having kids and claiming the benefits..

This is all anecdotal, but it seems like a lot more travellers, long term unemployable, scrotes and scummers are belting out kids, opposed to the amount that the grafting, income-earning people out there are.

Probably a lot to do with the amount of spare time they have, but in my area (a council estate) i see women with 3/4 kids a lot. In other areas I visit you rarely see more than 2, when the parents are working.

This will become more and more apparent over the next 2 decades, I feel.

Wherever you got the anecdotes from, they gave you wrong information about travellers. They are a tiny percentage of the population, and their population increase in the last census was not much higher than the 3.8% recorded for the general population.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp8iter/p8iter/p8itd/

The total number of usually resident Irish Travellers enumerated in April 2016 was 30,987 representing 0.7 per cent of the general population. This figure was an increase of 5.1 per cent on the 2011 figure of 29,495.

[Deleted User]

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Wherever you got the anecdotes from, they gave you wrong information about travellers. They are a tiny percentage of the population, and their population increase in the last census was not much higher than the 3.8% recorded for the general population.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp8iter/p8iter/p8itd/

The total number of usually resident Irish Travellers enumerated in April 2016 was 30,987 representing 0.7 per cent of the general population. This figure was an increase of 5.1 per cent on the 2011 figure of 29,495.

Do 'settled' travellers count as travellers in that though?

I know a fair few traveller families from various areas (albeit, all in Louth/Meath/Dublin/Cavan/Monaghan) and they have no shortage of children.

dxhound2005

Deleted User wrote: »

Do 'settled' travellers count as travellers in that though?

I know a fair few traveller families from various areas (albeit, all in Louth/Meath/Dublin/Cavan/Monaghan) and they have no shortage of children.

It is those who self identified as Irish Traveller in the Census. You probably identified as White Irish. But your ancestry might be from economically deprived tenant farmers, who typically had ten children. I think that is my background as well, and we owe our presence here now to those forebears.

Jim Bob Scratcher

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

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

Wow, that's crazy. It should be stopped after 2. If you're going to keep popping out kids then look after them yourselves.

Jack Moore

Wade Mango Tongue wrote: »

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

Do you really think that’s all you get
I was made redundant in May
I got a job in June
How much donyou think I got a week when I was out of work
I’m married with one kid

MadDog76

There seems to be some confusion on this thread...... EVERY child in this country is entitled to the Children's Allowance regardless of the parent(s) income.

up for anything

MadDog76 wrote: »

There seems to be some confusion on this thread...... EVERY child in this country is entitled to the Children's Allowance regardless of the parent(s) income.

Would you stop, MadDog. No point trying to infuse a bit of sense and knowledge into this shower. I tried telling them as much a few posts back but they only hear what they want to hear. What was it AH used to say... rabble rabble rabble.

So many of the AH threads in the last few years sound like poor relations escaped from Stormfront. Not even worth the clicking.

erica74

Cut it after 2 children. The reality is that the vast majority of people can't afford to raise one child, nevermind 2, without state help and the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for idiots who can't evaluate whether their income matches their family planning decisions.

[Deleted User]

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

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

Family sizeMonthly rate, €
Eight children 1,120

Yes, which is the cost of putting one of those eight kids in crèche for a single month. The idea of there being a Children's Allowance which incentivises people to have more children only exists in the minds of the morons here who utterly fail to see how the wealthiest in society have a myriad of ways to ensure they get much more from the state than somebody on welfare could ever get.

It's quite extraordinary how obsessive people here get about people on welfare, but never once start threads about the enormous rise in inequality in the western world since the early 1970s, a divide which has actually become significantly larger as a result of the last recession.