Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

11 Kids Under 12

2

Comments

  • #32
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »
    Oh look another elitist thread on boards
    Oh yeah? What's your thoughts on the matter?


  • #33
    amen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    lets cancel children's allowance all together. If you can't afford them.don't have them.
    That's what the girlfriends mate says.

    great idea. Lets also remove free state funded health care for those who smoke and drink. Actually lets remove it for everyone

    Lets remove rent allowance from those who don't own their own home.


  • #34
    CathyMoran
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,458 ✭✭✭CathyMoran


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    How would that make any difference to a couple who want to actually RAISE their kids, instead of just HAVE them ?
    Fine, then give tax credits for the person who stays at home. I would love for my husband to be able to stay at home with our children but we can not afford it, we do not regret them for one second though.


  • #35
    Plazaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭Plazaman


    Those Chinese lads know how to do it, never mind capping Benefits, cap family sizes (funny trying to come up with a way to enforce that though). I remember a fella in a bar once celebrating the birth of his 11th child, all boys. "I've enough for a football team now", he says. Another fella beside him says "Jaysus, never thought of that, I've 18 daughters - enough for a golf course". Presume he was joking.


  • #36
    Orando Broom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,351 ✭✭✭Orando Broom


    The night the children's allowance is paid is a boon night for pubs. You can't deprive publicans of this additional income.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    Plazaman wrote: »
    Those Chinese lads know how to do it, never mind capping Benefits, cap family sizes (funny trying to come up with a way to enforce that though). I remember a fella in a bar once celebrating the birth of his 11th child, all boys. "I've enough for a football team now", he says. Another fella beside him says "Jaysus, never thought of that, I've 18 daughters - enough for a golf course". Presume he was joking.


    He'd wanna be. Because if there's any truth in the myth that women who live / work together eventually synch their monthlies, he'd wanna find alternative accommodation for a week :pac:


  • #38
    dirtypanties
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭dirtypanties


    I have 2 kids under 3.

    We are renting,don't run a car as we live in a medium sized town and husband works a 10 minute walk away-No foreign holidays in the last 3 years-No nights out-Everything we have goes on the kids-I am staying at home to mind them as working would not cover the cost of childcare-I would ideally love a part time job outside the house for my own feeling of self worth and to be able to buy a few luxuries/treats whatever but that can't happen for another few years due to husband being on various different shifts week to week.

    The childrens allowance does not come close to feeding/clothing/nappying them and is put towards the cost of rent.

    I shudder to think what would happen if husband lost his job as I know we would definitely not make ends meet-We are just about making it as it is.

    I don't for 1 second believe that people have more children purely for the child benefit-They would be fools if they did!

    At the moment you couldn't pay me to have a 3rd!Lol:D


  • #39
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    I think it's more important to means test. But like the free transport/medical card/fuel allowance for pensioners, votes from rich people are more important than fairness.


  • #40
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    dirtypanties wrote: »
    I don't for 1 second believe that people have more children purely for the child benefit-They would be fools if they did!
    Ah, god bless your naievty. In some sections of society, there's a welfare culture where people genuinely believe that they are entitled to have all their needs paid for by the state. For them, children are things you have in order to get things from the Government.

    Mate of mine started going out with a girl when he was 19, she was a little older. About 6 months into the relationship she told him that she wanted a baby so that she could get a house from the corpo. He initially said no f'in way, but then she told him that if he didn't she'd go find someone who would.

    Of course, being an idiot in love he agreed and a baby girl came along and she got her two-bedroom corpo house. They broke up when the child was 6 months old.

    A few years later, some other mug is going out with her and same ultimatum. Another baby girl. But she's not happy - if she'd had a boy, she'd be entitled to a 3-bed house. That relationship breaks up.

    Not long after her second child is born, a third idiot is drafted into baby duty, and yes she's now pregnant again. And delighted, because regardless of the baby's sex she is "entitled" to be moved to a bigger house because she has 3 kids now.

    I would usually be wary of "friend of a friend" stories, but I've talked to this girl and she has bragged about her intentions in public. My contempt for this dirtbag girl at this stage knows no bounds. All of her kids are just a meal ticket for her. I'm just really sorry that a good mate of mine is stuck to her for life by his daughter.


  • #41
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    seamus wrote: »
    Ah, god bless your naievty. In some sections of society, there's a welfare culture where people genuinely believe that they are entitled to have all their needs paid for by the state. For them, children are things you have in order to get things from the Government.

    Mate of mine started going out with a girl when he was 19, she was a little older. About 6 months into the relationship she told him that she wanted a baby so that she could get a house from the corpo. He initially said no f'in way, but then she told him that if he didn't she'd go find someone who would.

    Of course, being an idiot in love he agreed and a baby girl came along and she got her two-bedroom corpo house. They broke up when the child was 6 months old.

    A few years later, some other mug is going out with her and same ultimatum. Another baby girl. But she's not happy - if she'd had a boy, she'd be entitled to a 3-bed house. That relationship breaks up.

    Not long after her second child is born, a third idiot is drafted into baby duty, and yes she's now pregnant again. And delighted, because regardless of the baby's sex she is "entitled" to be moved to a bigger house because she has 3 kids now.

    I would usually be wary of "friend of a friend" stories, but I've talked to this girl and she has bragged about her intentions in public. My contempt for this dirtbag girl at this stage knows no bounds. All of her kids are just a meal ticket for her. I'm just really sorry that a good mate of mine is stuck to her for life by his daughter.

    She's an utter scumbag.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    sh!t pole needs more options...

    On a side note, her fanny must be in bits.


  • #43
    inforfun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    Make birth control free.
    (and after reading Seamus post, maybe even mandatory in certain cases)


    Cap child allowance at 2, maybe 3.


  • #44
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    pole does need more options, i think it should be capped at 5 or 6 kids.



    Could only imagine the pressure on a family with 3 children already and the wife falls pregnant even though taking contraceptives and is forced to have an abortion because of lack of money because they have a hugh mortgage and are in negative equity because they bought the house in 2007, the husband then has his hours cut at work and his pay slashed due to the recession, (but not slashed enough to get any state support ).

    *if i was in the above position i would not abort the baby, but families could be forced into due to financial problems.

    The child beifit is a god send to people in that position. without it many would be starving and naked with no heating or electric.


    why do people focus on the ones in council houses in all honesty they have it easy compared to the above! If you cut it from ones in council houses you cut it for everyone!


    birth control should be free for every girl/woman over the age of 14.


  • #45
    EGAR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,874 ✭✭✭EGAR


    I've got one child who has just turned 7. I certainly will not have another child for various reasons, one of which is the financial impact it would have. The child benefit is helping to pay for school, clothes for my child. I certainly do not hit the pubs with it.

    I think it should be means tested and it should be capped at a certain amount of kids. And if you think you can afford 5, 6 or 7 kids then you shouldn't be entitled to it.


  • #46
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    Cap it at two!

    Is it not a bit selfish to have children you can't afford to feed?

    Like forget everything else like the cost of education, childcare etc.. etc...

    If you can't afford the basics of being able to feed and clothe the child out of your own pocket.. why would you have children?

    Would you not look at your child everyday and feel like an utter failure because you need hand outs to put a jumper on their back?

    I know money isn't everything when it comes to having children, they need to be loved to.. but surely if you loved them you would only have introduced them into a situation where you could give them the best you could personally afford and not rely on the state to give you slim pickings to do so?


    Contraception should be free and very available to. Condoms still have the luxury tax on them don't they?


  • #47
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Cap it at two!

    Is it not a bit selfish to have children you can't afford to feed?

    Exactly. Children don't ask to be born, and parents owe it to them to give them the best possible start in life. People that have children for payouts and houses should have their reproductive organs forcefully removed.


  • #48
    7sr2z3fely84g5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭7sr2z3fely84g5


    cost of living is still high itself,as i pointed out earlier in the thread it does reward you for more kids you have,and i think this gives a gateway to anymore supplements from the welfare atm machine.


  • #49
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    I was reading the paper the other day and the couple in question had 2 children, both were going to die before the age of 10. the woman fell pregnant again by accident, when the baby was 2 the middle child died at age 4. you would be cruel enough to deny this family child benefit for the 2 years with the 3rd child because the dad had a decent wage, irrespective of the amount of time he had to take off or the weeks spent in hospital with the kids, the childminders needed for the other kids while they were in hospital.

    What about the ones who adopt the special needs kids and look after them because no one else will. We will end up with more abortions more special needs kids being fostered out to families who already have kids.

    when you say it should be means tested whats the cap, 40k 50k a year 60k 90k 100k dont forget there are mortages to pay some over 2k a month, medical bills to pay , insurances to pay, as well as paying their taxes! I would agree wtih anyone on a wage of 150k shouldnt need child benifit, but they might, its not for me to say.


  • #50
    7sr2z3fely84g5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭7sr2z3fely84g5


    grindelwald wrote: »
    when you say it should be means tested whats the cap, 40k 50k a year 60k 90k 100k dont forget there are mortages to pay some over 2k a month, medical bills to pay , insurances to pay, as well as paying their taxes!
    Every other benefit is means tested regardless on whose got bills to pay.


  • #51
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    grindelwald wrote: »
    I was reading the paper the other day and the couple in question had 2 children, both were going to die before the age of 10. the woman fell pregnant again by accident, when the baby was 2 the middle child died at age 4. you would be cruel enough to deny this family child benefit for the 2 years with the 3rd child because the dad had a decent wage, irrespective of the amount of time he had to take off or the weeks spent in hospital with the kids, the childminders needed for the other kids while they were in hospital.

    What about the ones who adopt the special needs kids and look after them because no one else will. We will end up with more abortions more special needs kids being fostered out to families who already have kids.

    when you say it should be means tested whats the cap, 40k 50k a year 60k 90k 100k dont forget there are mortages to pay some over 2k a month, medical bills to pay , insurances to pay, as well as paying their taxes! I would agree wtih anyone on a wage of 150k shouldnt need child benifit, but they might, its not for me to say.

    Technically the state should have that medical situation covered.

    Anyone on a wage of 150K that needs handouts for their kids needs to be given a copy of excel and taught how to make a house hold budget!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    Layton Echoing Cereal wrote: »
    Every other benefit is means tested regardless on whose got bills to pay.


    so your saying that the cap should be for people earning under 40k, well its better to be on the dole for that so and living in a council house.


    when people start shouting about means testing its the middle income earners with 3 kids that are hit harder than anyone.

    In every budget its the middle incomes with 3 kids that gets hits the hardest.


  • #53
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Technically the state should have that medical situation covered.

    !!!


    yeh right! do you not here of people needing 100k - 500k to go to america so their kids can be treated! they have to go begging and rundraising, some sell their homes or re-mortgage to get the money. the state only coveres certain things, a lot is left uncovered!

    vhi helps but only to a certain degree.


  • #54
    7sr2z3fely84g5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭7sr2z3fely84g5


    grindelwald wrote: »
    so your saying that the cap should be for people earning under 40k, well its better to be on the dole for that so and living in a council house.


    when people start shouting about means testing its the middle income earners with 3 kids that are hit harder than anyone.

    In every budget its the middle incomes with 3 kids that gets hits the hardest.
    i don't see why people trying to defend it,like the same sort who go on the radio/tv telling that pensioners are poor and vulnerable.a lot of former FF minsters/banking executives are "pensioners" but certainly not vulnerable.


  • #55
    vamos!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭vamos!


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    CA should be available to those who need it as should not be a saving scheme for wealthy families.

    /QUOTE]

    I agree that families on really high incomes dont need the child benefit but what about those on decent incomes who arent millionaires. So what if they choose to put the money in an account for a family holiday or college- it benefits the kids. We are not a Communist country where everyone gets the same. If some people are lucky enough to have 2 decent paying jobs where they work hard surely they deserve to be able to have more disposable income than career spongers. I am not saying that people who have fallen on hard times shouldnt get as much help as possible, but I am saying that we are too soft on the very rich and the entitled live off the state opportunists. Means testing CB would hit the people who work hard (or try their best to) to provide nice lives for their children. Serial .SW families should not have as much as families where the adults work hard and pay their way.


  • #56
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    vamos! wrote: »
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    CA should be available to those who need it as should not be a saving scheme for wealthy families.

    /QUOTE]

    I agree that families on really high incomes dont need the child benefit but what about those on decent incomes who arent millionaires. So what if they choose to put the money in an account for a family holiday or college- it benefits the kids. We are not a Communist country where everyone gets the same. If some people are lucky enough to have 2 decent paying jobs where they work hard surely they deserve to be able to have more disposable income than career spongers. I am not saying that people who have fallen on hard times shouldnt get as much help as possible, but I am saying that we are too soft on the very rich and the entitled live off the state opportunists. Means testing CB would hit the people who work hard (or try their best to) to provide nice lives for their children. Serial .SW families should not have as much as families where the adults work hard and pay their way.


    Funding holidays while people wait on trollys.......


  • #57
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    vamos! wrote: »
    I agree that families on really high incomes dont need the child benefit but what about those on decent incomes who arent millionaires. So what if they choose to put the money in an account for a family holiday or college- it benefits the kids. We are not a Communist country where everyone gets the same. If some people are lucky enough to have 2 decent paying jobs where they work hard surely they deserve to be able to have more disposable income than career spongers. I am not saying that people who have fallen on hard times shouldnt get as much help as possible, but I am saying that we are too soft on the very rich and the entitled live off the state opportunists. Means testing CB would hit the people who work hard (or try their best to) to provide nice lives for their children. Serial .SW families should not have as much as families where the adults work hard and pay their way.

    No those who are the SW long term should not be given everything, meaning they are as well off as everyone else, but the SW was set up to help those truly in need (as many families in this economic climate are).

    I believe yes that college is something that is worthy of being saved for, but not a holiday, I have not been on a holiday since I was working, I'd like one, but it is not a basic requirement. I went my whole childhood with none and it was embarrassing but I had food on the table so I did not suffer neglect.

    €140 a month is €1680 a year, that is to provide for food and clothes for a child (though it does not come close to the actual cost!) not to go to Lanzarote.

    Why not put it at a cut off of €100,000 pa post tax? That is more than enough to provide a good lifestyle for children and are in no need of €1680 a year!


  • #58
    k.p.h
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭k.p.h


    Their should just be some sort of "population" control. Nobody should be allowed to have 6 children now.Its just plain right irresponsible. We know that over population is a genuine issue. Not everyone is going to understand exponential growth so governments need to start doing something about it TBH. Limiting children's allowance would be one way of doing that. e.g only allowance for the first 3 children.

    I might get shot down for saying that now, but it is a complicated issue. I'm not 100% in my views but people at least need to start thinking about it.


  • #59
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    k.p.h wrote: »
    Their should just be some sort of "population" control. Nobody should be allowed to have 6 children now.Its just plain right irresponsible. We know that over population is a genuine issue. Not everyone is going to understand exponential growth so governments need to start doing something about it TBH. Limiting children's allowance would be one way of doing that. e.g only allowance for the first 3 children.

    I might get shot down for saying that now, but it is a complicated issue. I'm not 100% in my views but people at least need to start thinking about it.


    I know a GP with 9 children! All planned, you can be an intelligent idiot you know :) I fail to see how even his €80,000-120,000 a year can provide well for them!

    Ireland used have a population of 8 million, we can take the growth space wise, we just need our government to get off their behinds and help the economy get back to a decent level again.


  • #60
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    wolfpawnat wrote: »

    Ireland used have a population of 8 million, we can take the growth space wise, we just need our government to get off their behinds and help the economy get back to a decent level again.

    We can't support 8 million people if everyone thinks they are entitled to free money to pay for over zealous child breeding and for paying off their giant mortgages taken out with not much future planning.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    wild_cat wrote: »
    We can't support 8 million people if everyone thinks they are entitled to free money to pay for over zealous child breeding and for paying off their giant mortgages taken out with not much future planning.

    You will not hear me disagreeing with you with regards frivolous spending and free handouts galore but we cannot forget those who are further down the social contributory scale than ourselves, such as children (tax payers of tomorrow) and the elderly (tax payers of yesterday). When a packet of nappies is €11.49 a pack and formula milk is €9.50 a tub due to the cost of living in this country we do need to help people look after their children, especially through their education so they can qualify in good careers and ensure a better standard living for themselves and others in years to come. Most of the money is there, it is just very unevenly distributed (consultants and high ranking TD's being 2 examples)


Advertisement
Advertisement