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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Cut children's allowance after 3 kids
Comments
-
sbsquarepants wrote: »Newsflash - The country needs children being born - they're the little people who will pay your pension when you're older
I've been wondering about this recently. Based on some VERY broad estimates off the top of my head, pension is approx 10k per year, for approx 10 years based on life expectancy so 100k per adult.
Per child
Child benefit age 0-23 = 38640
+ Free maternity care est 10k
+ Free GP / healthcare / dentist est 3k
+ Schooling 14 years est 28k
+ Pre school 2 years est 7k
The above is before taking medical cards or any type of social welfare assistance or tax credits into account. And I'm sure I've probably left things out.
So 100k state cost per adult for a pension, 86k+ state cost per child. Obviously we need children for many reasons and I believe in providing support for them to grow into happy, healthy, productive adults. But the financial argument doesn't really stand up when you look at it this way.
Does anyone have any official figures on this?0 -
Senature wrote:Does anyone have any official figures on this?
Just on one of your figures. Child benefit ceases at 18 not 23.0 -
weldoninhio wrote:10% of the population of Ireland pay 90% of the tax.
90 of the highest net worth individuals in the state pay less tax than the average industrial wage earner . It's income tax you are soley referring to and not the myriad of taxes and charges everyone is subject to .0 -
My wife and I have four kids. The eldest is 12 and the other 3 are 5 and under. We receive €6720 in child benefit per year. We pay €26181 a year in PAYE, USC and PRSI. The vast majority of people receiving child benefit would be in a similar position to us, where they are still massive net contributors even after receiving child benefit.
This year we spoke to a number of banks about applying for a mortgage. We were approved by them all, but we were well below 3.5 times our income on the basis of affordability. Each child you have reduces your ability to pay by €250 per month, and they don't count child benefit as income. So banks are of the opinion that children cost €390 per month each, without factoring in childcare. Our childcare costs are just under €1000 per month, with my wife working part time. So in effect our outgoings for our children are estimated at €2560 per month while we receive €560. I don't think anyone can view having more children for the purpose of the child benefit have any idea how much children really cost.
It was interesting going through the process, because we currently have a 3 bedroom house and want to buy something bigger in the same area. The figures the banks were coming back to us with showed that we could afford our current mortgage, but not anything bigger, especially if interest rates went up. This feels correct to us as we are getting by OK but we don't have much spare every month. I think the banks have it correct in their view of how much children cost.You posted a lot of information, but I'm not sure what your point is exactly. To clarify, most of my point is to restructure child benefit in a way that I think would provide more assistance when it is more badly needed, along with placing some limit on the amount that is given to individual parents as was the original point on this thread.
Currently child benefit is €1680 per year per child. What I was suggesting would work out as follows each year.
Age 0-1 €1550
Age 1-2 €1300
Age 3-5 €1290
Age 6-15 €1030
Age 16+ €770
This focuses the majority of the benefit on the early years, which is the time when both parents and child need the most financial support. As I said, the savings made should be put towards free education and subsidised health care and childcare, which in turn, should reduce the ongoing financial burden on parents. This is already happening in the last few years with the introduction of free gp care, subsidised childcare etc.
If one parent family payments, or the additional social welfare payments for dependents, or lone parent tax credits etc are too low, that is a different issue. Personally I think the whole system needs an overhaul. There is a massive difference between a parent who is raising a child or children with no other parental support financial or otherwise compared to someone who is their child's primary carer but who receives regular, decent maintenance and the child is with the other parent a few days per week.
Finally, no need to get personal about commenting on my circumstances. I'm just making a suggestion. There's several pages of this thread where others have done the same?
You are very naive here when you say that children are more expensive when they are small. You have the initial upfront costs for cots, buggies etc. but the children still need a bed when they get older. Also when they get older they start doing other activities. Our eldest is in two sports clubs. That's €300 a year, plus €5 a week. She does music lessons at €20 per week. She has more social activities that need funding. Her clothes are more expensive.
I would say at least 95% of parents who receive child benefit are similar to us. They are net contributors but still need that benefit back each month. They need it.
Those who are purely on welfare will not see their standard of living increase with each child. They might get the extra income, they might be more likely to get a house, but children are expensive, and they are difficult to manage. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater to try and hurt a small subset of those in receipt of CB is not going to have any benefits for a society as a whole. All you'd do is put those sufferring poverty even further in trouble, which will have further societal consequences down the road.0 -
Hitman3000 wrote: »Just on one of your figures. Child benefit ceases at 18 not 23.
Oops my mistake so 30k approx per child
I'm convinced this used to still be paid until 23 if a child was in fulltime education? I'm sure my mother got it for me or have I got that totally wrong?0 -
Advertisement
-
Senature wrote:I'm convinced this used to still be paid until 23 if a child was in fulltime education? I'm sure my mother got it for me or have I got that totally wrong?
The rates and time scale was changed by the last FF government when the recession hit. Oddly it's when your child is in further education you need the most help.0 -
You posted a lot of information, but I'm not sure what your point is exactly. To clarify, most of my point is to restructure child benefit in a way that I think would provide more assistance when it is more badly needed, along with placing some limit on the amount that is given to individual parents as was the original point on this thread.
You said that your suggestions were based on the reality of trying to work while having children. I was simply pointing out that they aren’t, they’re not even close to being a representation of the reality of working while having children in Ireland. The facts and figures I gave were a far more accurate representation of the reality of working while having children in Ireland.
Your point was certainly about placing some limit on the amount that is given to individual parents, I got that much, but you missed the point of child benefit completely in that it is given as a benefit for the child. It’s not given as a benefit for the parents. If your suggestion is that it be means tested, then according to the statistics I presented above, parents in employment would receive less than parents who are unemployed or are not in the labour market, and if we were to follow your suggestion, then those parents would need more assistance when it is more badly needed, than parents who are employed!Currently child benefit is €1680 per year per child. What I was suggesting would work out as follows each year.
Age 0-1 €1550
Age 1-2 €1300
Age 3-5 €1290
Age 6-15 €1030
Age 16+ €770
This focuses the majority of the benefit on the early years, which is the time when both parents and child need the most financial support. As I said, the savings made should be put towards free education and subsidised health care and childcare, which in turn, should reduce the ongoing financial burden on parents. This is already happening in the last few years with the introduction of free gp care, subsidised childcare etc.
But does this not suggest to you that these people are having children that they shouldn’t be having because they’re not able to afford to have children without support from the State? That’s the actual point of this thread - people complaining about other people having children when they cannot afford to have children! Now as far as my own personal circumstances go, I could afford to have had six children without any financial assistance from the State, and paid for their education, healthcare and welfare and so on, and not only that but I would have been able to afford childcare if my wife and I hadn’t chosen to raise our child ourselves, and chose not to avail of childcare. Our child’s early years cost us very little in comparison to what they cost now as a teenager, and the potential cost of their further education which will likely run into tens of thousands of euro by the time they’re finished their third level education.
It may have been a sponsored article by Bank of Ireland I was reading recently where they worked out that the cost of providing for a child from birth to their college graduation was somewhere in the region of €200,000. Even at current rates, child benefit in that time would only be €40,000, for one child. Under your restructuring of child benefit plan, that would be even less, and so parents would be able to provide even less for their children than they couldn’t afford to provide already. The ongoing financial burden you’re referring to is just that - ongoing, and as opposed to your suggestion that financial assistance is needed more in the early years, actually quite the opposite is true - it only gets even more expensive in later years, astronomically so!
Put simply, if I were the type of individual who supported the idea of viewing children solely in financial terms and shared the attitudes of some posters here that people should only have children when they can afford them, and only the number of children they can afford, with no assistance from the State... then according to that policy, a lot more people who view other people having children solely in financial terms, could very quickly find their own policy coming back to bite them, as they too would be compelled to adhere to the same policy.
In one way of course I would be entirely for that as it wouldn’t affect me negatively at all, and it would mean those same people banging on about personal responsibility would truly appreciate the meaning of personal responsibility. I don’t imagine it would lead to the reduction in income taxes that some people imagine it would though, people would still be paying the same amount in income tax, but it would simply be pissed down the drain on something else.If one parent family payments, or the additional social welfare payments for dependents, or lone parent tax credits etc are too low, that is a different issue.
No it’s the same issue, as people are concerned that their taxes are being used to fund what they imagine are the extravagant lifestyles of lone parents and their dependents, and they appear to be focusing particularly on women, suggesting that they should be ‘offered’ State sponsored sterilisation (they’re picking up the tab too for that of course, whereas male sterilisation would be a lot cheaper and more effective if the goal is to prevent the numbers of children born to lone parents!).
However, if you were to look at the statistics I provided again, rather than the common perception that is young women with loose morals having gaggles of children, it suggests that the vast majority of lone parents are women over 25 in employment on low incomes, and the vast majority of people who make up the figures for unemployment are men, and that figure is rising year on year. If the people complaining about where their tax money is being spent on funding people’s lifestyles actually looked at where their money is going, the vast majority of it is going on providing for unemployed single men’s lifestyle choices, whom it would actually be much cheaper to ‘offer’ voluntary sterilisation and much better value for the taxpayer and much better all round for society in preventing the numbers of children born to lone parents.
The same men are very likely though to simply tell you go and take a running jump as they have no concept of either personal nor social responsibility, and yet they don’t come in for nearly as much public criticism, but rather lately there appears to be a movement from some quarters about fathers rights with regard to being able to have access to their children without providing for them, and being able to avail of the rather stupid concept of ‘financial abortions’, for children that are born that they don’t feel they should have any responsibility for.Personally I think the whole system needs an overhaul. There is a massive difference between a parent who is raising a child or children with no other parental support financial or otherwise compared to someone who is their child's primary carer but who receives regular, decent maintenance and the child is with the other parent a few days per week.
I’m certainly in agreement with you that the system needs to be overhauled, and certainly there are numerous differences between a parent who is raising a child or children with no financial support from the other parent and someone who is their child’s primary carer who receives regular, decent maintenance and the other parent wants to spend time with their child or children and it is of benefit to the child (that is to say the other parent isn’t someone who views the child or children either as their ‘property’ or views their child or children solely in financial terms, or tries to use the child or children in a manipulative way against the other parent).
For example I receive no financial support from my wife and I am our child’s primary carer, but I also provide financial support for my wife to enable her to avail of third level education because it is of overall benefit to our child, not only that he sees his parents still have a good relationship even though they are no longer together, but also that my wife isn’t left having to depend upon the State to provide for her education and welfare, and she is able at some point to gain employment in her chosen field and our child isn’t visiting some dingy flat where his mother can’t even afford to take him out for the day because she can barely afford to feed herself.Finally, no need to get personal about commenting on my circumstances. I'm just making a suggestion. There's several pages of this thread where others have done the same?
I wasn’t commenting on your personal circumstances, because I simply don’t know your personal circumstances. I was commenting on your figures and what they appeared to be based upon. They weren’t based upon national statistics is all, and while there are several pages of this thread where others appeared to have done the same, at least to your credit, and the reason I took the time to reply to your post, is because you at least appeared to have put some thought and consideration into your idea as opposed to the torrents of pitchfork wielding rabble rousing nonsense.0 -
So banks are of the opinion that children cost €390 per month each, without factoring in childcare.
You are very naive here when you say that children are more expensive when they are small. You have the initial upfront costs for cots, buggies etc. but the children still need a bed when they get older. Also when they get older they start doing other activities. Our eldest is in two sports clubs. That's €300 a year, plus €5 a week. She does music lessons at €20 per week. She has more social activities that need funding. Her clothes are more expensive.
I would say at least 95% of parents who receive child benefit are similar to us. They are net contributors but still need that benefit back each month. They need it.
In relation to your points above
I'd broadly agree with the figures the bank consider in relation to the monthly cost of each child.
I'm not being naive. The most significant expense a parent has is either paid childcare, or the loss of income from not working due to taking care of their child. Before a child starts school, they basically need 24 hour care. Beyond that, they need care outside of school hours only. By 16, they should be broadly able to fend for themselves while their parent is working. This cost decreases over time. Also, I'm suggesting child benefit should cover or help towards essentials. Babies need specialist equipment, but only for a short time. A bed can be bought for a 4 year old that they can still sleep in when they're 20. I think it's great that you have your eldest involved in all those activities. If I had a child that age I'd be trying to do the same. However, along with expensive clothes, they are far from essential. Would I think it was ok to expect my neighbours, friends, relatives etc to pay for these expenses for my child via their taxes, no I wouldn't. I would prefer the savings from reduced child benefit in favour of better sports facilities and equipment in schools.
Not a particularly important point, and I don't know what the stats actually are, but I highly doubt 95% of parents in the state are net contributors.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You said that your suggestions were based on the reality of trying to work while having children. I was simply pointing out that they aren’t, they’re not even close to being a representation of the reality of working while having children in Ireland. The facts and figures I gave were a far more accurate representation of the reality of working while having children in Ireland.
Your point was certainly about placing some limit on the amount that is given to individual parents, I got that much, but you missed the point of child benefit completely in that it is given as a benefit for the child. It’s not given as a benefit for the parents.
Yes the benefit should be for the child, which I why I suggested that the savings from reducing and capping the payments be put towards actually free education, and free or subsidised healthcare and childcare.
In relation to working while having children, childcare is by far the most significant expense for parents, often much more significant than college. Many people don't consider that if a parent gives up work to care for a child or children, that household is likely to lose upwards of 20k per year. Once a child is in school, either childcare costs are reduced, and/or there are improved opportunities for employment, so the household should be under a lot less financial pressure.
Regarding capping the payments, the notion that someone just gets handed 500 or more per month, every month, without question seems crazy to me. Of course kids cost more than child benefit pays, but I just think it's wrong to just hand out cash at that kind of level. It's enabling people to be dependent, which can't really be good for them in the long run, or be setting a good example for their kids. There is also an element of whether you have 8 kids or 2 kids, your rent and heating bill for the house will be roughly the same. And you'll have hand me downs for most clothes, school uniforms, sports gear, toys, some school books etc.
At least I'm not coming across as a pitchfork wielding rabble rouser!0 -
I have seen these figures posted a lot on FB over the last few days and it has also been posted on the Claire Byrne live thread
Does anybody know if these figures are accurate?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=463447&d=15391775000 -
Advertisement
-
KrustyUCC wrote:Does anybody know if these figures are accurate?
Why what's the issue with the figures if they are accurate. 16 k is for rent 1000,s upon 1000,s get this payment each month and have to top it up. Back to school allowance is also availed of by working people I know several that claim it. Child allowance is a universal payment. Even Michael O Leary claims it.0 -
Hitman3000 wrote: »Why what's the issue with the figures if they are accurate.
I presume the issue most would have with it is that she has an income greatly higher than the average industrial wage without having to do any work at all.
What's interesting to me is that the one parent family plus dependent child payments, along with Christmas bonus look very low. In contrast child benefit and HAP look very high.
I've already addressed child benefit on this thread so I won't go into it again.
HAP however, is a ridiculous payment that should only be in place for under a year while someone is waiting to be housed by the council. That figure just illustrates how crazily expensive that system is and how we need long term viable social housing in place.0 -
What's interesting to me is that the one parent family plus dependent child payments, along with Christmas bonus look very low. In contrast child benefit and HAP look very high.
HAP is actually very low in that example. A family that size in Dublin is looking at around €2 per month0 -
Hitman3000 wrote: »Why what's the issue with the figures if they are accurate. 16 k is for rent 1000,s upon 1000,s get this payment each month and have to top it up. Back to school allowance is also availed of by working people I know several that claim it. Child allowance is a universal payment. Even Michael O Leary claims it.
What would you need to earn to take home 51K? 80 or 85K maybe??
Do you not think there's maybe something a bit askew with a system which rewards work shy leeches more or less the same as it does doctors or engineers?0 -
Senature wrote:What's interesting to me is that the one parent family plus dependent child payments, along with Christmas bonus look very low. In contrast child benefit and HAP look very high.
What I actually find curious us how Stephen Kearon could give a HAP figure as her accommodation situation has changed several times. Although I do like how he has given once off payments such as the BTS A. as a weekly amount I guess it helps drum up the outrage he is hoping for. Further I find it amusing that Mr Kearon makes so much of the social welfare system eventhough he supports a party which is responsible for much of the largesse he even ran as a FF candidate .0 -
PirateShampoo wrote: »Do they yeah, I was a welfare kid to a single mother, I started work on building sites at 17 and I've worked the majority of days ever since. That was 20 years ago. Same can be said about my siblings.
Cash into the hand or do you pay prsi, paye etc .
The building trade is notorious for cash into cash for employees.0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »What would you need to earn to take home 51K? 80 or 85K maybe??
Do you not think there's maybe something a bit askew with a system which rewards work shy leeches more or less the same as it does doctors or engineers?
97k excluding pension contributions etc0 -
Yes the benefit should be for the child, which I why I suggested that the savings from reducing and capping the payments be put towards actually free education, and free or subsidised healthcare and childcare.
The State isn’t actually saving anything then, but merely diverting funds from children who need it, to provide for services for other parents lifestyle choices? Who are you suggesting education and healthcare be subsidised for exactly other than children who need it? And if they need subsidised education and healthcare, they obviously need the child benefit too rather than having it capped, and they receive no benefit, and therefore their welfare, health and education suffers. Childcare is the parents responsibility, and subsidising the cost of childcare is still costing the State money, and providing for childcare alone which is the parents personal responsibility would swallow up the savings the State will have made by capping child benefit.In relation to working while having children, childcare is by far the most significant expense for parents, often much more significant than college. Many people don't consider that if a parent gives up work to care for a child or children, that household is likely to lose upwards of 20k per year. Once a child is in school, either childcare costs are reduced, and/or there are improved opportunities for employment, so the household should be under a lot less financial pressure.
It’s not. Childcare is only an expense in the first place if parents choose to outsource childcare, and then it’s only as expensive as the parents themselves choose to pay. We didn’t pay anything for outsourcing childcare for example, and in that same vein, children attending third level education is only as expensive as parents want it to be. There’s a world of a difference in terms of the financial cost of placing a child in a crèche funded by the State, and the cost of providing for a child’s third level education by the time you also factor in funding their accommodation and so on. If parents are already struggling to provide for their children’s early education, they’re in for a rude awakening if they haven’t accounted for their children’s third level education. For people on on low incomes who are dependent upon child benefit, a third level education for their children is but a pipe dream.
Once a child is in school, childcare costs aren’t reduced, they are only transferred - the State still has to provide funding for education, and as fantastic as they are, teachers don’t act in loco parentis providing education to children for free. They still have to be paid. In terms of parents who choose to leave employment to care for their children, they are saving the State far more than €20k per year in terms of what the State would have to pay for childcare otherwise.
Whether parents choose to leave employment to care for their children or not is entirely their responsibility. It’s certainly not as simple as the household losing out on €20k per year when they are saving €20k per year in terms of not having to pay for childcare, as well as the many other intangible benefits to children, and to the State that people who choose to work in the home are providing.
I don’t enjoy the sort of doublethink employed by people who want to encourage more women into the workplace, and more men to take up working in the home as they argue the great benefits to children and to society of a parent working in the home. I don’t expect that to become a reality any time soon in Irish society though given that 98% of people working in the home are women (or 450,000 women, to put a figure on that percentage).Regarding capping the payments, the notion that someone just gets handed 500 or more per month, every month, without question seems crazy to me. Of course kids cost more than child benefit pays, but I just think it's wrong to just hand out cash at that kind of level. It's enabling people to be dependent, which can't really be good for them in the long run, or be setting a good example for their kids.
You’re arguing that funding for child benefit is enabling people to become dependent, while arguing that the savings should instead fund subsidised childcare? That to me at least just sounds like enabling people to become dependent upon subsidised childcare as opposed to funding childcare for their children themselves! People aren’t handed €500 or more per month, every month without question either btw. People with four or more children to support might be though, but that money is intended for their children, not for them personally. It’s their children are dependent upon the payment, not their parents.
Now for what it’s worth, I agree with you that being dependent upon the State for anything is not good for anyone, but whether or not parents are setting a good example for their children depends upon a number of factors, not just what their parents receive in financial assistance from the State, or whether or not their parents expect that the State should be providing for their subsidised childcare, healthcare and education, or their parents attitudes to employment and unemployment, or people living in poverty, or people who are less fortunate than they are.
You’re still arguing basically that the State shouldn’t fund the lifestyle choices of people you perceive to be morally bankrupt, while ignoring just how morally bankrupt your argument actually is! I’ve never supported the Welfare State, but at least I’m consistent in the fact that I believe that nobody should have their lifestyle choices funded or subsidised by the State, because as you quite rightly pointed out - it enables people to become dependent, rather than fostering independence and taking personal responsibility for their own lifestyle choices, such as choosing to have children they simply cannot afford in the first place, and choosing to place those children in childcare which they also cannot afford without it being subsidised by the State.There is also an element of whether you have 8 kids or 2 kids, your rent and heating bill for the house will be roughly the same. And you'll have hand me downs for most clothes, school uniforms, sports gear, toys, some school books etc.
I don’t get what you mean here tbh. It varies wildly from one household to another depending upon their circumstances. I’m aware of parents who have four and five children in two bedroom apartments, and parents who live in four and five bedroom houses who have two children. The amount they pay in rent and other costs clearly isn’t the same, and hand-me-downs are generally a thing of the past. More people now are dependent upon the charity of other people who provide them with items for their children like clothes, bedding, books and toys, things which many parents cannot afford for their children. I’ve worked with many of those families, and the idea that they and their children are living an extravagant lifestyle is the stuff of fantasy and rabble rousing nonsense.0 -
I have seen these figures posted a lot on FB over the last few days and it has also been posted on the Claire Byrne live thread
Does anybody know if these figures are accurate?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=463447&d=1539177500
Nobody can tell you whether or not the figures are accurate without knowing Ms. Cash’s personal circumstances and what she is or isn’t entitled to, what she qualifies for, what she is claiming for, what she is or isn’t receiving in cash into her hand, or what is being paid for her by either the council or the DEASP, the HSE, or anyone else involved in her particular case.0 -
HAP however, is a ridiculous payment that should only be in place for under a year while someone is waiting to be housed by the council. That figure just illustrates how crazily expensive that system is and how we need long term viable social housing in place.
HAP is generally paid to private landlords on behalf of the council for people who are already in private accommodation, as a way to encourage people into private accommodation because the council simply doesn’t have any properties available. People who are employed may also qualify for HAP. It was introduced as a way to save councils the cost of having to build new houses, and so that’s why the payment isn’t dependent upon the length of time people are waiting to be housed by the council. We do of course need long term viable social housing, but Governments aren’t known for that kind of foresight, they can barely see past the next election.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes they are accurate and it shows the benefit of not working and pumping out children instead.I have seen these figures posted a lot on FB over the last few days and it has also been posted on the Claire Byrne live thread
Does anybody know if these figures are accurate?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=463447&d=1539177500
You'd have to earn above 90k to bring home 51k net into your hand.0 -
-
Be better off cutting pensions after the age of 75 and offering a free trip to Dignitas.0
-
Yes they are accurate and it shows the benefit of not working and pumping out children instead.
How can you possibly say that it’s accurate when you simply have no way of actually knowing whether it is or not?You'd have to earn above 90k to bring home 51k net into your hand.
What has that got to do with anything?0 -
marieholmfan wrote: »Vastly more important work for the future of the Irish nation than working as a 'Fund Accountant' or a 'Software Engineer'. To cite only two ridiculous non-jobs
Shhh, my employer doesn’t know that :pac:0 -
Well let me ask you these two questions:marieholmfan wrote: »Vastly more important work for the future of the Irish nation than working as a 'Fund Accountant' or a 'Software Engineer'. To cite only two ridiculous non-jobs.
1 - Which of the aforementioned can exist without funding from the other?
2 - What use is a population grown in an environment where paid employment is not the norm, but handouts and life in bed is?0 -
The figures were discussed at length here some weeks back and verified as accurate. There was a megathread on it.One eyed Jack wrote: »How can you possibly say that it’s accurate when you simply have no way of actually knowing whether it is or not?One eyed Jack wrote: »What has that got to do with anything?
The amount one has to earn in order to get what ms cash gets for free.0 -
The figures were discussed at length here some weeks back and verified as accurate. There was a megathread on it.
I think the point is that the figures for each scheme may be correct but as others say we don't know what she actually gets
As she is in emergency accommodation for example, she is not going to be in receipt of HAP and unlikely to be getting fuel allowance0 -
The mother of course exists independent of the 'Fund accountant'.Well let me ask you these two questions:
1 - Which of the aforementioned can exist without funding from the other?
2 - What use is a population grown in an environment where paid employment is not the norm, but handouts and life in bed is?
The survival of the Irish race is facilitated by spending time in bed not by ridiculous 'careers' and 'paid employment'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wow.marieholmfan wrote: »The mother of course exists independent of the 'Fund accountant'.
The survival of the Irish race is facilitated by spending time in bed not by ridiculous 'careers' and 'paid employment'.
Are you ms cash?
The mother may exist but she will not exist if there were no paid employment to fund her leeching existence.
What's next, is de guibbernmehnt robin yes all r whah ami roi0
Advertisement