Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Options
1…7172747677…251

Comments

  • Options
    #2192
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Then they should be entitled to it. That's why I said in certain cases yes. But John and Mary who have no issues and decide to pop out a few sprogs get the money anyway. They shouldn't. Just like anyone else who has no reasons. The fact that everyone gets it regardless is wrong and that's what I want to tackle. You shouldn't be entitled to it just because you had a kid. It's like giving everyone the dole even if they're working, or don't need it, imo. And it's obviously unpopular, so perfect for this thread!

    Also, I think compassion shouldn't come into it. Go on facts. In your example, the facts clearly show that help is needed, and indeed warranted. If we didn't give everyone the child benefit as a matter of course, we could then afford to give that family a lot more to help them. I'd much prefer they got €300 per child instead of giving it to someone who has no reason for it.

    I jsut think it's crazy that the second someone has a kid they get free money, regardless of circumstances. And as said, there are many out there who have kids as a source of additional income for them, not the kids. This would stop that and, imo, would be far more beneficial to the country.

    That’s just an example I know of. Others will have their own. And for the people who pop out children as a lifestyle choice to have their children’s allowance cut off, others who run in difficulties despite their best efforts will also have to be screwed over.

    With the children’s allowance, what people seem not to understand is that regardless of the parents’ reason for having the child, the child is a person with needs. The child had no say in whether they were conceived or not. They exist and that’s it. But strangely people train the vitriol they feel for the parent on the child.


  • Options
    #2193
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Again, I've no issues with the people who genuinely need it, but it shouldn't be standard. There's always exceptions. And I've no vitriol for the parents or child (well, maybe for certain "parents"), it's the payment I have issues with.


  • Options
    #2194
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Again, I've no issues with the people who genuinely need it, but it shouldn't be standard. There's always exceptions. And I've no vitriol for the parents or child (well, maybe for certain "parents"), it's the payment I have issues with.

    Well, you said that people should plan for the future. It doesn’t take much for things to go to shit. I thanks my stars that I didn’t have children when diagnosed with cancer because children’s allowance or not, it would have pushed us close to the breadline if we did have them. Some people don’t have family to fall back on when the shit hits the fan either.

    If you are begrudging a child the children allowance, then that’s a kind of contempt for them.


  • Options
    #2195
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    If you are begrudging a child the children allowance, then that’s a kind of contempt for them.

    Ah here, that's a bit of a jump in fairness. I don't feel contempt for children, jesus. I may not like them, but contempt?

    And I stand by my view, having a child is not something you just do. It can accidentally happen, but again through a deliberate act, and it's a life long commitment. Planning parents do need to look that far ahead, and unfortunately a lot don't.

    Let's say it was removed Monday morning for anyone not yet pregnant. It doesn't mean planning parents can't suddenly have them, but need to ensure they can afford it without the extra payment, but knowing that it's there in cases of emergencies.

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I don't see it as unfair. It's a long term expense, and a priority, but the decision can, and often does happen without consideration. In your case, I'd imagine it was a consideration (I don't know the details and I don't want to pry). But you said yourself, even with it would have pushed ye to the breadline, so if it wasn't there there would have been no difference in your case (hope/glad it all worked out ok).

    I just think we're supporting bad decision making without consequences by having this automatic support available. It's still there for emergencies, but otherwise no payment. Which may be extreme initially, so maybe phase it out, 2 kids max for a while, then 1 kid max, then 0. I just think the money can be better placed elsewhere while eventually leading to, imo, better decision making. A lot of 'troubled' kids head that way due to a lack of parental engagement, maybe this would make said bad decisions not happen if there was no safety net and lead to more engagement. Who knows, but I think it's time we at least tried it.

    Sorry if I sound like a dick, I'm actually not, but there's a few things I feel strongly about and this is one of them. My opinion on this doesn't define me, because I know it goes so much against the grain when there are far more other policies we would agree on.


  • Options
    #2196
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    Containing the spread of a potentially deadly virus is an unpopular opinion?

    I wouldn’t let anyone who emigrated back into the country when things pick up, virus or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2197
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    I wouldn’t let anyone who emigrated back into the country when things pick up, virus or not.

    People should either live in Ireland their whole lives, or leave and never come back?


  • Options
    #2198
    Johnny Sausage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Johnny Sausage


    Kell Brook wrote: »
    This is why life assurance policies are available to buy.

    Good win last night fella, when are you fighting Amir Kahn though?


  • Options
    #2199
    mr_fegelien
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭mr_fegelien


    That attitudes that are deemed "racist" are understandable. In many European countries where there's more intolerance towards certain types of people, immigrants from certain backgrunds have a higher crime rate.

    Look at France and their problem with banlieus "the suburbs". North African immigrants are more likely to be unemployed and have a higher crime rate.

    I don't think with the exception of a few, anyone seeks out to be intolerant. There's usually a good reason for it.


  • Options
    #2200
    Johnny Sausage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Johnny Sausage


    mr_fegelien wrote: »
    That attitudes that are deemed "racist" are understandable. In many European countries where there's more intolerance towards certain types of people, immigrants from certain backgrunds have a higher crime rate.

    Look at France and their problem with banlieus "the suburbs". North African immigrants are more likely to be unemployed and have a higher crime rate.

    I don't think with the exception of a few, anyone seeks out to be intolerant. There's usually a good reason for it.

    So for exanple... if someone told you to go back to Africa you're not wanted here, you'd be okay with it because there's "a good reason for" it?


  • Options
    #2201
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Kell Brook wrote: »
    This is why life assurance policies are available to buy.

    The woman is still alive. :confused: They are struggling because they both had to quit work. They don’t have an insurance payout to use. People can live quite a while with a terminal diagnosis. But still be in a bad way. So whilst there may be a payout when she dies, they are going through hardship whilst she is still alive and they might even go into debt the longer she lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2202
    davo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭davo2001


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    The woman is still alive. :confused: They are struggling because they both had to quit work. They don’t have an insurance payout to use. People can live quite a while with a terminal diagnosis. But still be in a bad way. So whilst there may be a payout when she dies, they are going through hardship whilst she is still alive and they might even go into debt the longer she lives.

    Life assurance pays out on a policy if you get a terminal diagnosis.


  • Options
    #2203
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    davo2001 wrote: »
    Life assurance pays out on a policy if you get a terminal diagnosis.
    ye critical illness/serious illness cover. you'd have to get it in addition to a basic life policy though iirc
    just to clarify i am fine with the children's allowance
    Rodin wrote: »
    I think you'll find women would be the first to complain if gender separation was eliminated in professional sport. There probably wouldn't be a single female athlete at the Olympics if they had to compete against men.
    there'll be plenty at the olympics and why not. take advantage of stupid rules. wasnt a chinese group in one of the sports half men?
    maybe it'll wake people up to what is going on.
    at least some states in the usa are banning boys being in girls' sports
    Millicently wrote: »
    Speaking of cock, I can't find it now, but there's a photo somewhere of a guy getting first prize from some women's competition, wrestling I think, and he has a visible erection.

    probably "laurel" hubbard


  • Options
    #2204
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    davo2001 wrote: »
    Life assurance pays out on a policy if you get a terminal diagnosis.

    Then I guess she didn’t have one. Though I suspect many people might not have that cover and I bet a payout wouldn’t be straightforward. So the children shouldn’t suffer because of that. The topic was children’s allowance and a cut off after a certain amount. Mammy didn’t sort life assurance and now has a terminal illness - tough break, kids! Ye should have thought of that before she got ill. :confused:

    Christ on a bike.


  • Options
    #2205
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Kell Brook wrote: »
    While unforeseen circumstances can cause financial hardship, that doesn't preclude people for saving money to mitigate against unforeseen circumstances.

    For example, it's always a possibility that you will lose your job, so it is quite stupid not to save money as a buffer to protect against that possibility if you are capable of saving. And most people are capable of saving if they are honest with themselves, but they prioritise instant gratification over long term well being.

    Well, if the buffer isn’t there, those mouths still need feeding. Unless we suspend them in animation until conditions improve? The children weren’t responsible for saving. Something people seem not to understand about children is that they have many pressing needs and are blameless.

    And both adults aren’t working, so watch those savings disappear. She’s still alive and it’s been four-ish years. How much savings do you think that would require?


  • Options
    #2206
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Kell Brook wrote: »
    Life is tough that's why parents should engage their brains and assess the risks and plan accordingly.

    And if they don’t, what should the kids do?

    And, again, how much savings do you think you’d need for four years and counting of not being able to work?

    Any solid answers outside platitudes?

    I’m all ears.


  • Options
    #2207
    Justin Credible Darts
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Justin Credible Darts


    its one thing to have kids...lose you job....no one should begrudge that

    But girls who never had a job in their life, getting pregnant and no sign of the father, get the flat "near their mams", and expect the state to pay for them and their fatherless child , and then another child by another absent father, so she can now get the council house that the tax payer will pay for is wrong.


  • Options
    #2208
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Kell Brook wrote: »
    Life assurance could pay off the mortgage if they bothered to buy a policy.

    As said, not all will pay out on a living person and they might not have one... so those mouths go hungry? The children exist no matter what the parents did. So, what happens? Any suggestions? My suggestion is a children’s allowance and, yay, it exists!
    Justin Credible Darts wrote: »
    its one thing to have kids...lose you job....no one should begrudge that

    But girls who never had a job in their life, getting pregnant and no sign of the father, get the flat "near their mams", and expect the state to pay for them and their fatherless child , and then another child by another absent father, so she can now get the council house that the tax payer will pay for is wrong.

    The children born into these households - do they get a say in the circumstances into which they were born?


  • Options
    #2209
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    As said, not all will pay out on a living person and they might not have one... so those mouths go hungry? The children exist no matter what the parents did. So, what happens? Any suggestions? My suggestion is a children’s allowance and, yay, it exists!



    The children born into these households - do they get a say in the circumstances into which they were born?

    In all fairness they also dont get a say in how the CA is spent


  • Options
    #2210
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    In all fairness they also dont get a say in how the CA is spent

    True but that doesn’t mean it should be stopped. If it’s stopped then they truly could have nothing. Hardly a solution.


  • Options
    #2211
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    True but that doesn’t mean it should be stopped. If it’s stopped then they truly could have nothing. Hardly a solution.

    I dont think it should be stopped but I do think it should be capped at 3 or 4 children . If you choose to have 4 children or more you need to be a high earner.I see young people all around me with both parents working and high mortgage and they know well they cannot afford more then one or two children.
    I also think CA should be properly aimed towards children's needs, clothing , food, childcare , school books etc .I know that is difficult to administer but it could be done in a voucher system in my opinion


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2212
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    I dont think it should be stopped but I do think it should be capped at 3 or 4 children . If you choose to have 4 children or more you need to be a high earner.I see young people all around me with both parents working and high mortgage and they know well they cannot afford more then one or two children.
    I also think CA should be properly aimed towards children's needs, clothing , food, childcare , school books etc .I know that is difficult to administer but it could be done in a voucher system in my opinion

    So if you’re like my friend, you have the added indignity of paying for things with vouchers as if life isn’t hard enough.

    As for capping, I’m wondering why children after the cap should be punished like that? They had no say in their being born. No matter what way anyone words it, it comes back to the most blameless people in the situation paying.


  • Options
    #2213
    teediddlyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭teediddlyeye


    Is there a reason that childrens allowance can't be given as a tax credit rather than a cash payment? So that working parents would be rewarded more than those that don't for once.

    "I never thought I was normal, never tried to be normal."- Charlie Manson



  • Options
    #2214
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    teediddlyeye wrote: »
    Is there a reason that childrens allowance can't be given as a tax credit rather than a cash payment? So that working parents would be rewarded more than those that don't for once.

    Well, because if the parents are unemployed, the children still exist.


  • Options
    #2215
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    So if you’re like my friend, you have the added indignity of paying for things with vouchers as if life isn’t hard enough.

    As for capping, I’m wondering why children after the cap should be punished like that? They had no say in their being born. No matter what way anyone words it, it comes back to the most blameless people in the situation paying.

    Why would paying for clothes with an official CA voucher be undignified ? If that was the norm I see no reason at all to see it as undignified .?


  • Options
    #2216
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    GENUINELY UNPOPULAR OPINION


    IVF should be banned and IVF babies put up for adoption.
    Your genes aren't special. It's too late and you should have had kids at a normal age.


  • Options
    #2217
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Why would paying for clothes with an official CA voucher be undignified ? If that was the norm I see no reason at all to see it as undignified .?

    Anyone who really needs CA relies on those vouchers more. In a small town (of which there are many in Ireland), somebody paying excessively with vouchers would be noticed. It would probably get to a point that those doing well enough to not need CA probably wouldn’t use the vouchers.


  • Options
    #2218
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Anyone who really needs CA relies on those vouchers more. In a small town (of which there are many in Ireland), somebody paying excessively with vouchers would be noticed. It would probably get to a point that those doing well enough to not need CA probably wouldn’t use the vouchers.
    Well then they don’t need CA now either . If they don’t need the vouchers they don’t need CA


  • Options
    #2219
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,924 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Re: children's allowance, here's an "unpopular opinion", people who begrudge others for what they think they are undeserving of, whether it's the dole, or children's allowance, or whatever, should be made live in those conditions for a couple of years.

    That'll soon rearrange their thoughts on the matter.


  • Options
    #2220
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    People should either live in Ireland their whole lives, or leave and never come back?
    Some tend to mix up unpopular opinion with stupid opinion or "look at me, I'm so edgy" with zero thought/logic/back-up opinion.
    marieholmfan wrote: »
    GENUINELY UNPOPULAR OPINION


    IVF should be banned and IVF babies put up for adoption.
    Your genes aren't special. It's too late and you should have had kids at a normal age.
    And those who try to conceive at a normal age but have fertility issues? Having children late in life is not the only purpose of IVF.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2221
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    Some tend to mix up unpopular opinion with stupid opinion or "look at me, I'm so edgy" with zero thought/logic/back-up opinion.

    Ah yes, as we all know by now anyone in disagreement with however you say things must be is stupid.


Advertisement