Are we going back to the laundries for single mothers?

Hitchens · 04-06-2014 01:09PM #1

On the Vincent Browne show last night, it was stated that when a single parent - invariably the mother - has a child turn 7 years of age, the allowance the parent receives will be cut by 27%. This will happen even if the child has a medical condition.

It was further stated that when contacted about this, the Minister didn't even give a hearing.

What kind of society are we going to have in a few years if this type of policy continues?

Banjo String · 04-06-2014 01:16PM

You're not a man of God.

Morag · 04-06-2014 01:17PM

Feral latch key kids, that is what will happen.

Celly Smunt · 04-06-2014 01:19PM

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo.

In terms of a child with a medical condition, services should be provided and sustained by the social welfare.

Hitchens · 04-06-2014 01:24PM

Banjo String wrote: »

You're not a man of God.

Abou Ben Adhem
BY LEIGH HUNT

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

dodderangler · 04-06-2014 01:25PM

Hitchens wrote: »

Abou Ben Adhem
BY LEIGH HUNT

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

Fcuk off I ain't reading all that.

eviltwin · 04-06-2014 01:26PM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo.

In terms of a child with a medical condition, services should be provided and sustained by the social welfare.

She would need to find work that fits in with school times, most kids of that age finish at about 2pm which rules out a lot of jobs. I have nothing against it in theory as I think lone parents should be encouraged to work as their kids get older but a lot have no skills, no experience. It should be done in tandem with access to education and affordable childcare.

dxhound2005 · 04-06-2014 01:29PM

Hitchens wrote: »

On the Vincent Browne show last night, it was stated that when a single parent - invariably the mother - has a child turn 7 years of age, the allowance the parent receives will be cut by 27%. This will happen even if the child has a medical condition.

It was further stated that when contacted about this, the Minister didn't even give a hearing.

What kind of society are we going to have in a few years if this type of policy continues?

Do you understand the meaning of the word invariably?

Who contacted the Mininster?

This is old news. Anyone getting the payment should have been aware of the impending change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/loneparent-allowance-will-be-cut-despite-burton-row-26844882.html

dark crystal · 04-06-2014 02:28PM

eviltwin wrote: »

She would need to find work that fits in with school times, most kids of that age finish at about 2pm which rules out a lot of jobs. I have nothing against it in theory as I think lone parents should be encouraged to work as their kids get older but a lot have no skills, no experience. It should be done in tandem with access to education and affordable childcare.

This is the key right here.

If the government want sinle parents to go out and work, they must provide affordable childcare.

Families with two incomes working full time are finding it hard enough to pay for childcare, so it's that much harder for lone parents who don't have the luxury of a grandparent willing and able to do it.

It's not just after school care, either. It's during school holidays where a child would have to be minded full time. That cost alone would be prohibitive for many lone parents.

Potatoeman · 04-06-2014 02:49PM

Hitchens wrote: »

What kind of society are we going to have in a few years if this type of policy continues?

One with greater emphasis on personal responsibilities.

Hitchens · 04-06-2014 03:04PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of the word invariably?

Who contacted the Mininster?

This is old news. Anyone getting the payment should have been aware of the impending change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/loneparent-allowance-will-be-cut-despite-burton-row-26844882.html

about as much as you understand how to spell minister?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 04-06-2014 03:16PM

Why are people having children then expecting everyone else to fund them? Seriously if you can't raise your children because the government aren't giving you enough, then don't ****ing procreate. Jesus.

7 years gives a parent to get out of a bad situation, find a job/retrain/find their feet if it was an unplanned pregnancy and it should be enough time to get yourself into a position to be able to raise the child without handouts.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 04-06-2014 03:18PM

dark crystal wrote: »

This is the key right here.

If the government want sinle parents to go out and work, they must provide affordable childcare.

Families with two incomes working full time are finding it hard enough to pay for childcare, so it's that much harder for lone parents who don't have the luxury of a grandparent willing and able to do it.

It's not just after school care, either. It's during school holidays where a child would have to be minded full time. That cost alone would be prohibitive for many lone parents.

Is childcare something of an afterthought for parents? It seems to only dawn on them after their children come along that they need to be minded, why are parents always so surprised about childcare costing money

biko · 04-06-2014 03:21PM

Comparing a pay cut to the Magdalene Laundries is diminishing the suffering of the women sent there, imo.

To add, it's like we're living in Nazi Germany...

eviltwin · 04-06-2014 03:23PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Is childcare something of an afterthought for parents? It seems to only dawn on them after their children come along that they need to be minded, why are parents always so surprised about childcare costing money

Affordable childcare is for everyone not just single parents and although it will cost money you have to weigh that up against the welfare bill. Surely its better economic sense to provide childcare for someone to go to college for a few years so they can find work and pay back into the system rather than have them stuck on welfare for years on end?

Many parents are being forced out of the workforce due to reduced wages and increased childcare costs, that's a person who might be on job seekers, lone parents or a family who have to claim family income supplement, its the added things as well like medical cards, back to school allowance.

I don't know the math but I'm sure if we look at other countries who have childcare provided by for the state to some level it saves money in the long term.

anncoates · 04-06-2014 03:24PM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo

Child care?

looking_around · 04-06-2014 03:25PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Why are people having children then expecting everyone else to fund them? Seriously if you can't raise your children because the government aren't giving you enough, then don't ****ing procreate. Jesus.

7 years gives a parent to get out of a bad situation, find a job/retrain/find their feet if it was an unplanned pregnancy and it should be enough time to get yourself into a position to be able to raise the child without handouts.

And what if the child is 8 and you just lost your job?
__
I think this cutting of child care is going the wrong way about things.

If they want to do this, school from 7 on starts at 8am and finishes at 6pm. (do able, would require major changs in the system as kids cant spend the entire doing 'bookwork'/class work.. etc..)
Or
tax back that pays a fair amount of the childcare. (means tested) This shouldnt be hassle to apply for. So parents. dont have to feel liek they'll be waiting months, struggling.

but no, good ole Ireland, make cuts without any supports. makes sense:rolleyes:

Potatoeman · 04-06-2014 03:26PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Affordable childcare is for everyone not just single parents and although it will cost money you have to weigh that up against the welfare bill. Surely its better economic sense to provide childcare for someone to go to college for a few years so they can find work and pay back into the system rather than have them stuck on welfare for years on end?

Many parents are being forced out of the workforce due to reduced wages and increased childcare costs, that's a person who might be on job seekers, lone parents or a family who have to claim family income supplement, its the added things as well like medical cards, back to school allowance.

I don't know the math but I'm sure if we look at other countries who have childcare provided by for the state to some level it saves money in the long term.

I think its usually provided instead of child benefit. Good luck trying to get that changed.

Pumpkinseeds · 04-06-2014 04:10PM

Expecting a parent to work to provide for their own child is a bad thing

There are far too many layabout parents who've never done an honest days work happily living off the benefit money for their 4/5 kids, collecting their benefit payments and having their rent paid for them. It's high time the cushy ride ended. As far as medical cards are concerned, they should be based on medical need not means.

Hitchens · 04-06-2014 04:19PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Expecting a parent to work to provide for their own child is a bad thing There are far too many layabout parents who've never done an honest days work happily living off the benefit money for their 4/5 kids, collecting their benefit payments and having their rent paid for them. It's high time the cushy ride ended. As far as medical cards are concerned, they should be based on medical need not means.

that's tarring everyone with the same brush, in fairness

Alf. A. Male · 04-06-2014 04:20PM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There's no reason why a single mother with a 7 year old child couldn't be looking for work or working. The cut is justified imo.

Yes, because we have full employment, no jobless at all, so single parents can just walk into jobs.

What specifically becomes different about the cost of raising a child once they turn 7? Do they eat less or need less clothing or something? Or is just a divide and conquer tactic which will be successful because people unaffected will jumpt to defend it or just shut up and accept it? There's nothing justified about this cut, it's just as ill thought out as cuts to medical cards, carer's allowances, services for the elderly etc. in spite of having money to pay bondholders and bankers who gambled and should have lost but won't be allowed to.

jobeenfitz · 04-06-2014 04:24PM

I would think it is hard for a lone parent to survive or find adequate childcare so they can go out to work. The other parent should be contributing money to the child also. I know I would not like to find out how hard it is to survive on social welfare and rare my child.

Lots of people are lone/single parents for different reasons. It may not have been something they chose?

Some people are great at judging, Just because there are a few people out to sponge doesn't mean the majority should be punished.

Pumpkinseeds · 04-06-2014 04:26PM

Hitchens wrote: »

that's tarring everyone with the same brush, in fairness

It's referring to all parents who've never bothered to earn a days wages but who still breed like rats anyway. Those people are parasites. At 7 years of age a child is at school. If that child's mother doesn't want to get a job to provide for her child she shouldn't expect the state/tax payer to provide for that child.

Pumpkinseeds · 04-06-2014 04:28PM

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Yes, because we have full employment, no jobless at all, so single parents can just walk into jobs.

What specifically becomes different about the cost of raising a child once they turn 7? Do they eat less or need less clothing or something? Or is just a divide and conquer tactic which will be successful because people unaffected will jumpt to defend it or just shut up and accept it? There's nothing justified about this cut, it's just as ill thought out as cuts to medical cards, carer's allowances, services for the elderly etc. in spite of having money to pay bondholders and bankers who gambled and should have lost but won't be allowed to.

What about all the years when the country was booming and yet many of these mothers didn't bother to work then either? I'm sick and tired of hearing whinings about how tough things are for single mothers. Cross your legs or use contraception.

Alf. A. Male · 04-06-2014 04:35PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

What about all the years when the country was booming and yet many of these mothers didn't bother to work then either? I'm sick and tired of hearing whinings about how tough things are for single mothers. Cross your legs or use contraception.

So it's definitely the single mothers, yeh? Nothing to do with delinquent fathers at all? And what if those mothers worked during those boom years but are now out of work through no fault of their own? What if they are widows who can't find work?

Hitchens · 04-06-2014 04:36PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It's referring to all parents who've never bothered to earn a days wages but who still breed like rats anyway. Those people are parasites. At 7 years of age a child is at school. If that child's mother doesn't want to get a job to provide for her child she shouldn't expect the state/tax payer to provide for that child.

So the children have to suffer for something they have no hand, act or part in? We're talking about human beings here, not rats.

darkpagandeath · 04-06-2014 04:37PM

Affordable and childcare in a Sentence.... If both parents are on a average wage most of one of the wages goes towards childcare costs. Childcare In Ireland is especially extortionate.

Pumpkinseeds · 04-06-2014 04:38PM

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

So it's definitely the single mothers, yeh? Nothing to do with delinquent fathers at all? And what if those mothers worked during those boom years but are now out of work through no fault of their own? What if they are widows who can't find work?

You know as well as I do that the bulk of single mothers in this country are not women who went out to work to provide for their child or widows. There's an awful lot of them who just can't be bothered to work. As for deliquent dads, that's a whole other thread.

darkpagandeath · 04-06-2014 04:40PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You know as well as I do that the bulk of single mothers in this country are not women who went out to work to provide for their child or widows. There's an awful lot of them who just can't be bothered to work. As for deliquent dads, that's a whole other thread.

I'm sure you have figures to backup your wild theory's ?

Pumpkinseeds · 04-06-2014 04:40PM

Hitchens wrote: »

So the children have to suffer for something they have no hand, act or part in? We're talking about human beings here, not rats.

That's down to their parents not me or you or the other tax payers in this country.

Pumpkinseeds · 04-06-2014 04:41PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm sure you have figures to backup your wild theory's ?

I just take a look around me.

Are we going back to the laundries for single mothers?

Comments