Single parents to lose welfare payment when child turns 13

Collie D · 29-05-2010 01:04PM

Pauleta wrote: »

I dont have kids and i wont have a child because i cant afford to have a child.

Yes, because all pregnancies are planned :rolleyes:

Spastafarian · 29-05-2010 01:08PM

omahaid wrote: »

Will do, know of a few part time jobs (shop assistant and the like) already.

You know of a few jobs going! Woohoo! I'll let the half a million unemployed know their troubles are over!

Ms. Captain M · 29-05-2010 01:15PM

Can I just jump in here with something a bit off topic. I'm a single parent who lives in a council house and I have a job. The rent I pay is only marginally less than if I rented privately, but I live in an small estate that's very quiet and I won't have to move house at the whim of a landlord. Sorry but I just see time and time again in these type of threads that some people think council house = free house, and that's not the case.

omahaid · 29-05-2010 01:20PM

Spastafarian wrote: »

You know of a few jobs going! Woohoo! I'll let the half a million unemployed know their troubles are over!

You must have been suspicious at all the people working in tesco, the petrol station, the banks, the pub, the hotel, the local chipper? There are still people working in this country, there are still jobs, there are still people getting jobs and losing them. We have never had 100% of the over 18 population in employment.

Sonnenblumen · 29-05-2010 01:23PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Good idea. All SW payments should move towards a model that promotes activity and punishes lifetime scrounging.

and how do you achieve this by targetting(punishing) 13yr old children?

This FF Gov is full of FFers who are expert at black art of screwing innocent vunerable people.

gurramok · 29-05-2010 01:24PM

up for anything wrote: »

Perhaps young men should think twice before diving between a pair of opened legs. Also, why pick on 'young women'. There are single parents of all ages and both sexes.

Ever hear of condoms? It takes two to tango.

up for anything wrote: »

I've been on social welfare now for six months and in my low moments, of which there are many, I have considered resorting to walking the ring road in search of casual employment in order to provide for my children. I don't see it as living on the pigs back but I may end up lying on my own back.

Why is the father of your kids not providing? Have you informed the authorities of his existence??

dlofnep · 29-05-2010 01:27PM

omahaid wrote: »

You must have been suspicious at all the people working in tesco, the petrol station, the banks, the pub, the hotel, the local chipper? There are still people working in this country, there are still jobs, there are still people getting jobs and losing them. We have never had 100% of the over 18 population in employment.

I'm not sure if you're either ignorant, or being purposefully obtuse.

The current employment rate is 13.4% - This time, 3 years ago it was only 4.5%. 1 in 4 of those under 25 are without work. There are insufficient jobs out there. Are you attempting to attribute the high levels of unemployment to people being suddenly lazy?

christina_x · 29-05-2010 01:27PM

ok i could sort of understand if the child was able to work and help bring an income into the house, but you cant work until your 16?

up for anything · 29-05-2010 01:32PM

gurramok wrote: »

Ever hear of condoms? It takes two to tango.

I heard of all forms of contraception and used most of them. What is your point?

Why is the father of your kids not providing? Have you informed the authorities of his existence??

I'm surprised there that you didn't ask about the fathers of my kids! :rolleyes: Not that it is any of your business, but we separated and he has been diagnosed with severe depression and was sacked from his part-time job for taking two weeks off sick because he wasn't able to cope. Yes, we made hundreds of bad life decisions during the the 30 years we were together but they seemed reasonable at the time and who knew they would lead to this situation. Anything else you would like to know, Mr Condescending?

mikom · 29-05-2010 01:36PM

Pauleta wrote: »

I dont have kids and i wont have a child because i cant afford to have a child. I use condoms. They cost less than children.

Collie D wrote: »

Yes, because all pregnancies are planned :rolleyes:

No, carrying johnnys or taking the pill are though.

Takes a bit more effort then deciding between the blue or red WKD granted....

danbohan · 29-05-2010 01:37PM

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're either ignorant, or being purposefully obtuse.

The current employment rate is 13.4% - This time, 3 years ago it was only 4.5%. 1 in 4 of those under 25 are without work. There are insufficient jobs out there. Are you attempting to attribute the high levels of unemployment to people being suddenly lazy?

of course their are insufficient jobs out there , nobody is denying that we have a major unemployment problem here , but in 2006 / 2007 there still their was 160000+ unemployed , we have a major long term unemployment / unemployable problem here , this country is broke , their has to be major cuts and social welfare in its many guises is one area that has to be cut , get used to it, theirs a lot more on the way

brianthebard · 29-05-2010 01:37PM

gurramok wrote: »

Ever hear of condoms? It takes two to tango.

Two condoms won't really increase their contraceptive abilities, especially if you're doing kinky foreign stuff.

Collie D · 29-05-2010 01:38PM

mikom wrote: »

No, carrying johnnys or taking the pill are though.

Takes a bit more effort then deciding between the blue or red WKD granted....

No contraception is 100% reliable but I'm sure you knew that. I'll ignore your second "sentence"

gurramok · 29-05-2010 01:39PM

up for anything wrote: »

I heard of all forms of contraception and used most of them. What is your point?

I'm surprised there that you didn't ask about the fathers of my kids! :rolleyes: Not that it is any of your business, but we separated and he has been diagnosed with severe depression and was sacked from his part-time job for taking two weeks off sick because he wasn't able to cope. Yes, we made hundreds of bad life decisions during the the 30 years we were together but they seemed reasonable at the time and who knew they would lead to this situation. Anything else you would like to know, Mr Condescending?

You are not the typical case, 30 yrs together and then separation is not the section of single parents have I distaste for.

I am talking about the career single mothers who are quite some number who blatantly drain the system.

mikom · 29-05-2010 01:42PM

Collie D wrote: »

No contraception is 100% reliable but I'm sure you knew that. I'll ignore your second "sentence"

No welfare system is 100% reliable.

omahaid · 29-05-2010 01:44PM

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're either ignorant, or being purposefully obtuse.

The current employment rate is 13.4% - This time, 3 years ago it was only 4.5%. 1 in 4 of those under 25 are without work. There are insufficient jobs out there. Are you attempting to attribute the high levels of unemployment to people being suddenly lazy?

It would appear that you completely missed my point so I will try and explain it. If lone parents with children over 13 cannot find jobs and they are being paid maintenance from the absent parent and they still cannot make ends meet then the state should consider assisting them. However, if like you, their excuse is "there are zero jobs" then I would scrutinize their situation. As I already mentioned I believe both the state AND the lone parent have a responsibility of ensuring the absent parent provide adequate maintenance.

I hope this makes my point clearer.

Collie D · 29-05-2010 01:44PM

mikom wrote: »

No welfare system is 100% reliable.

Not once in this thread have I mentioned the rights or wrongs of the social welfare system. I responded to tasteless, crass comments such as your WKD one.

mikom · 29-05-2010 01:45PM

Collie D wrote: »

I responded to tasteless, crass comments such as your WKD one.

Thought you were ignoring it.

Collie D · 29-05-2010 01:52PM

mikom wrote: »

Thought you were ignoring it.

Wish I had now if that's the pinnacle of your argument.

billy the squid · 29-05-2010 01:53PM

This is rather a divisive proposal, but I think it is a distraction. keep an eye out for something more sinister being pushed through at the same time in order for it to be buried.

remember that famous individualisation budget that charlie mccreevey came out with. it was commended to the house on the same day that Ireland signed up for Partnership for Peace. yet despite there being much protests over the latter, because of this controversial budget, the P4P story received little or no coverage.

dlofnep · 29-05-2010 01:55PM

omahaid wrote: »

It would appear that you completely missed my point so I will try and explain it.

Actually, I didn't. You attempted to assert that there are sufficient jobs available.

omahaid wrote: »

If lone parents with children over 13 cannot find jobs and they are being paid maintenance from the absent parent and they still cannot make ends meet then the state should consider assisting them.

If they cannot make ends meet, the state should consider assisting them?

omahaid wrote: »

However, if like you, their excuse is "there are zero jobs" then I would scrutinize their situation.

It's not an excuse. Let me break it down for you how this all works.

2007 - Unemployment rate, 4.5%.

2009-2010 - Businesses closing across the country. Jobs lost on a mass scale (2000 in Dell for example). Unemployment rate shoots up to 13.4%.

What this means is that, there are far less jobs - and the minimal jobs that are available are extremely competitive. This means, that work is much more difficult to obtain. Ever see someone with a masters degree, flipping burgers at McDonalds? That's how competitive the environment is.

The reality of the matter is, there is insufficient work available. You can scrutinize whatever you want, but it's not going to change that reality.

omahaid wrote: »

As I already mentioned I believe both the state AND the lone parent have a responsibility of ensuring the absent parent provide adequate maintenance.

Two assumptions you've made.

That the other parent has work. (Remember, 13.4%)
That the other parent hasn't jumped ship.

omahaid wrote: »

I hope this makes my point clearer.

No, it makes it even more ridiculous.

brianthebard · 29-05-2010 01:56PM

gurramok wrote: »

You are not the typical case, 30 yrs together and then separation is not the section of single parents have I distaste for.

I am talking about the career single mothers who are quite some number who blatantly drain the system.

There's no typical case, which you and the government don't seem to be able to grasp.

gurramok · 29-05-2010 02:01PM

brianthebard wrote: »

There's no typical case, which you and the government don't seem to be able to grasp.

Yes there is. Tell me, why should a 'single' mother stop having kids when she has the following benefits PER WEEK?

No. Of Children / Payment

1 / €225.80
2 / €255.60
3 / €285.40
4 / €315.20
5 / €345.00

Plus Rent Supplement of 1100 per month in the Dublin area. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/supplementary-welfare-schemes/rent_supplement

Plus medical card.

Why on earth should she work with all this money and benefits?

Collie D · 29-05-2010 02:05PM

gurramok wrote: »

Yes there is.

Tell us what it is then.

wobblyknees · 29-05-2010 02:06PM

changes wrote: »

It doesn't just stop at that. They will be entitles to either rent allowance or a council house, medical cards, Family Income Supplement (if they are bring in less than €500 per week).

Also of the 90,000 people in reciept of OPFP how many of those are co-habiting, how many have lied about not knowing the father and are either living with him or getting money off him without the knowledge of the state.

Its quite possible for a single parent to have her first child and 18, and her last at 43 and live out her entire adult life at the states expense.

Its only right this whole farce of a set up is finally being tackled.

Firstly, you have hijacked the point I made. I don't agree with what you are saying.

Secondly, out of interest, do you have any facts or figures to back your statement? For example. You suggest that 90000 people are currently in receipt of the one parent family allowance. This is about 2% of the population. How many, as a % of this do you know, factually, are in receipt of these benefits, at the same time, as you seem to suggest is possible:

Job seekers/One parent family
Rent allowance or a council house
Medical cards
Family Income Supplement

dlofnep · 29-05-2010 02:07PM

gurramok - let's hear how much you feel they should get, and please quantify it with cost of living analysis per child.

gurramok · 29-05-2010 02:07PM

Collie D wrote: »

Tell us what it is then.

I did, careerists.

edellc · 29-05-2010 02:08PM

up for anything wrote: »

Find me one please that doesn't have four hundred desperate applicants. I'm willing to travel.

The government should be working their bollixes off to create employment and not just minimum wage employment. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic here but I'm fed up of them handing out my tax money that I have paid out over the years to prop up ailing banks with overpaid and bonused directors on one hand, and on the other then punishing me by cutting the benefit that I worked for all my life while 'demonising' me. PRSI is insurance to help you when you are in need. There is always condemnation and disgust when regular insurance companies try and swindle us on payouts but the government seems to get away with it.

I've been on social welfare now for six months and in my low moments, of which there are many, I have considered resorting to walking the ring road in search of casual employment in order to provide for my children. I don't see it as living on the pigs back but I may end up lying on my own back.

There are always so many 'I'm alright Jack' smug, self-satisfied posts on boards in relation to social welfare that I avoid these threads as a rule but I couldn't resist this one. I'm not usually a vindictive person but I hope all the posters on their moral high-horses come a cropper one of these days and maybe you'll see that any life choice can be a bad life choice when things go wrong. :mad:

I couldn't agree more with you I'm so sick of reading the smug posts about social welfare it does come down to our government or lack of it not one of them it seems have ever fallen on bad times yet its through their bad decision making (and obviously the greed of other nations) that we find ourselves in this situation
again the poorest get punished and the richest get a hand out it makes me sick
my sister is a lone parent she is in college studying while her little one is in school and i have never seen anyone work so hard to keep everything going its a very fine line people walk between just hanging in there and falling off
brian cowan and his cronies need a serious pay cut and need to stop the bail outs and focus on job creation rather than punishing people who helped build this country up in the good years

Ms. Captain M · 29-05-2010 02:09PM

gurramok wrote: »

Yes there is. Tell me, why should a 'single' mother stop having kids when she has the following benefits PER WEEK?

No. Of Children / Payment

1 / €225.80
2 / €255.60
3 / €285.40
4 / €315.20
5 / €345.00

Plus Rent Supplement of 1100 per month in the Dublin area. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/supplementary-welfare-schemes/rent_supplement

Plus medical card.

Why on earth should she work with all this money and benefits?

Because she wants to get back into the workforce? Because she wants a little bit of self esteem back? Because she wants to give her child more than a life of living off benefits? Because she's tired of being made to feel like she's a second class citizen? Or maybe all of the above.

NTMK · 29-05-2010 02:10PM

omahaid wrote: »

It would appear that you completely missed my point so I will try and explain it. If lone parents with children over 13 cannot find jobs and they are being paid maintenance from the absent parent and they still cannot make ends meet then the state should consider assisting them. However, if like you, their excuse is "there are zero jobs" then I would scrutinize their situation. As I already mentioned I believe both the state AND the lone parent have a responsibility of ensuring the absent parent provide adequate maintenance.

I hope this makes my point clearer.

The state do **** all for lone parents. its all well and good saying if they are being paid maintenance but alot are not and the state dont do a thing. My so called father owes the bones €120,000 in maintenance and all that can be done about it is a petty court order that states which is nothing more than an idle threat.

It should be assessed on a person by person basis and the scum that dont pay maintenance should be hunted down but knowing the corrupt half-wits that run this country it wont

Single parents to lose welfare payment when child turns 13

Comments