Why do people have children that they can't afford?

21-11-2019 12:59am

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Well might be no harm , Irish are very ugly more polish blood needed

Your ego is writing cheques your body can't cash.

Millionaire only not · 21-11-2019 1:09am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your ego is writing cheques your body can't cash.

Am I not right ? Lol

Strumms · 21-11-2019 1:11am

If you want to have 7 kids, go for it.. as long as you teach them right from wrong, educate them, give them a sense of value for themselves and everyone... that when they hit xx age and go out into the ‘big bad world’ they do so with not their hand out but with their shoulder to the collective wheel, not to the window of the social every week... contributing, working hard or smart...

One eyed Jack · 21-11-2019 1:19am

Strumms wrote: »

If you want to have 7 kids, go for it.. as long as you teach them right from wrong, educate them, give them a sense of value for themselves and everyone... that when they hit xx age and go out into the ‘big bad world’ they do so with not their hand out but with their shoulder to the collective wheel, not to the window of the social every week... contributing, working hard or smart...

I don’t think anyone who wants to have children cares one way or the other for what anyone else actually thinks tbh.

Padre_Pio · 21-11-2019 1:27am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think anyone who wants to have children cares one way or the other for what anyone else actually thinks tbh.

Course they don't.

If you want to have children then go for it.
Your tax money is wasted by the billions every year. I much prefer that it's going towards nappies than quangos.

Raconteuse · 21-11-2019 1:58am

People seem to be one extreme or the other - having children you can't afford is sponging behaviour no matter what the circumstances (despite the fact that relationships end, spouses/partners die, accidents happen, jobs are lost, best laid plans can fall apart) or "Have all the children you want".

What about the middle ground? Sure, people cannot be stopped from having as many children as they want - but it's not great in terms of responsibility if you can't provide a stable home for them. I'm thinking of the life the children will have first and foremost, not the tax payer.

blueshade · 21-11-2019 7:35am

Raconteuse wrote: »

People seem to be one extreme or the other - having children you can't afford is sponging behaviour no matter what the circumstances (despite the fact that relationships end, spouses/partners die, accidents happen, jobs are lost, best laid plans can fall apart) or "Have all the children you want".

What about the middle ground? Sure, people cannot be stopped from having as many children as they want - but it's not great in terms of responsibility if you can't provide a stable home for them. I'm thinking of the life the children will have first and foremost, not the tax payer.

Of course circumstances change for many parents. What doesn't change is that there are quite a few women out there having multiple kids with different daddies who don't seem to be in their children's lives or contribute financially to their upbringing. Realistically, there are a lot of those women out there who are more than happy to live a life on benefits with their free or subsidised Council or Social house, a few hundred euro a week in benefits topped up with a single parent allowance, child benefit and whatever other payments they're entitled to. They're happy not to bother working or to encourage their kids to better themselves.

Most decent parents want their kids to have a better life than they have and to work to reach their potential. People insist that there aren't many of them but there are and it's often a generational thing going back to their grandparents. A life of welfare dependency for healthy adults should never be a lifestyle option. Many of these people were unemployed during the boom years and they'll go through life on benefits. They'd laugh at you if you suggested they get a job. Why should the taxpayer pay for Anto and Jacinta or Lucky and his missus to sit on their arses reproducing while other people go out to work. We've a situation now where there's Social housing inserted in every new housing development.

Paddy and Mary are getting up and heading off to work to pay the mortgage and the bills while the slackers next door are paying feck all because Paddy and Mary's taxes are paying their rent, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. While Paddy and Mary are at work the other lot are asleep in bed.

Idbatterim · 21-11-2019 9:35am

Dah above post is races so it is! Me angles are me everythin!!!

Mad_maxx · 21-11-2019 9:39am

blueshade wrote: »

Of course circumstances change for many parents. What doesn't change is that there are quite a few women out there having multiple kids with different daddies who don't seem to be in their children's lives or contribute financially to their upbringing. Realistically, there are a lot of those women out there who are more than happy to live a life on benefits with their free or subsidised Council or Social house, a few hundred euro a week in benefits topped up with a single parent allowance, child benefit and whatever other payments they're entitled to. They're happy not to bother working or to encourage their kids to better themselves.

Most decent parents want their kids to have a better life than they have and to work to reach their potential. People insist that there aren't many of them but there are and it's often a generational thing going back to their grandparents. A life of welfare dependency for healthy adults should never be a lifestyle option. Many of these people were unemployed during the boom years and they'll go through life on benefits. They'd laugh at you if you suggested they get a job. Why should the taxpayer pay for Anto and Jacinta or Lucky and his missus to sit on their arses reproducing while other people go out to work. We've a situation now where there's Social housing inserted in every new housing development.

Paddy and Mary are getting up and heading off to work to pay the mortgage and the bills while the slackers next door are paying feck all because Paddy and Mary's taxes are paying their rent, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. While Paddy and Mary are at work the other lot are asleep in bed.

"Single mothers" are viewed as sacred cows by the media, much of the political class and all of the quangocracy, Joan Burton cut welfare for "single mothers"she was branded the devil ever since, it's impossible at this stage to publicly encourage fiscal consideration when it comes to family planning for certain demographics

LirW · 21-11-2019 9:39am

blueshade wrote: »

Paddy and Mary are getting up and heading off to work to pay the mortgage and the bills while the slackers next door are paying feck all because Paddy and Mary's taxes are paying their rent, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. While Paddy and Mary are at work the other lot are asleep in bed.

I'm not making excuses here for Jacinta and Anto but Paddy and Mary are able to get make a whole lot of choices that the first couple are never able to make.
Of course life would be cheaper if I'd live on welfare doing nothing all day and let the tablet raise my 5 kids but this sounds like a fairly sh*t life to be honest.
If you're on welfare you're always on an invisible leash that will allow you to live comfortably in a small frame if you're used to it.

But they never have the chance to travel to places of their choice. Or send their kids to good schools or have them participate in good after school activities. They basically have to live in the house they're given with little choice of where they want to live. No chance of uprooting and heading towards new exciting opportunities. No achievements in life to show for.
All they do is breed another generation of miserable people that have no perspective than hanging on the government's lifeline and maybe have a holiday in one of these sad knacker tourist places in Spain.

There's a single mother with two young kids living on my road, she has no education, 2 kids from 2 different fathers and she's the opposite of bright. She is afloat because of SW but I don't envy her, her life is absolutely miserable. Her days are empty, she has no goal in life.

Sounds like a pretty sh*t deal and not something I aspire to on any way.

Mad_maxx · 21-11-2019 9:42am

LirW wrote: »

I'm not making excuses here for Jacinta and Anto but Paddy and Mary are able to get make a whole lot of choices that the first couple are never able to make.
Of course life would be cheaper if I'd live on welfare doing nothing all day and let the tablet raise my 5 kids but this sounds like a fairly sh*t life to be honest.
If you're on welfare you're always on an invisible leash that will allow you to live comfortably in a small frame if you're used to it.

But they never have the chance to travel to places of their choice. Or send their kids to good schools or have them participate in good after school activities. They basically have to live in the house they're given with little choice of where they want to live. No chance of uprooting and heading towards new exciting opportunities. No achievements in life to show for.
All they do is breed another generation of miserable people that have no perspective than hanging on the government's lifeline and maybe have a holiday in one of these sad knacker tourist places in Spain.

There's a single mother with two young kids living on my road, she has no education, 2 kids from 2 different fathers and she's the opposite of bright. She is afloat because of SW but I don't envy her, her life is absolutely miserable. Her days are empty, she has no goal in life.

Sounds like a pretty sh*t deal and not something I aspire to on any way.

Bigotry of low expectations

Why do the left have so little faith in people and view them in need of minding like pets?

Majority of people in the 1950,s were much poorer than the vast majority on welfare today, they still had aspirations to better their own lives and those of their children

Idbatterim · 21-11-2019 9:43am

The people you want having kids holding off , not having them at all etc due to mainly financial concerns. The vermin breeding well... like vermin!

GreeBo · 21-11-2019 9:53am

The answer is devastatingly simple....its because in Ireland we pay you to have children.

LirW · 21-11-2019 9:57am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Bigotry of low expectations

Why do the left have so little faith in people and view them in need of minding like pets?

Majority of people in the 1950,s were much poorer than the vast majority on welfare today, they still had aspirations to better their own lives and those of their children

Don't hate the player, hate the game. The real issue is that somehow living like this became a viable option.
For one, there are no mechanisms in place for job dodgers to get it together because the benefits stay the benefits.
The other is that housing policies are ridiculous, leases are infinite and every single council is doing their own thing. People can't really move to another council and apply for housing there, they'd get send back. Hell, Dublin alone has 4 councils.

This sort of stuff happens because there are loopholes to let it happen. On one hand I'm glad that if my family ever falls on hard times without any fault of our own that we have breathing room and the necessities are taken care of.
On the other hand exactly this system has nothing in place for long-term unemployed from disadvantaged areas and families. The government sees them as sorted and as long as they are sorted, they won't give them any trouble, doesn't matter if this is destroys local communities.

Just imagine a new government would drastically change the rules. The dole is no viable career anymore, these people are not employable elsewhere. Chances are that there would be roots and many would turn towards crime because crime has a lower entry requirement than the local Centra.

Complex issue really.

Igotadose · 21-11-2019 10:02am

marieholmfan wrote: »

Most important job a woman can do is be a mother (except maybe doctor).
Much more important than fund accounting or airplane lease structuring.

More important than Marie Curie? Susan B. Anthony? Countess Markiewicz?
Golda Meir? Margaret Thatcher?
Elena Kagan?

People have kids because they have a want. Usually, it's the mam has the want and the dad along for the ride. There's never a need to have a child.

Limpy · 21-11-2019 10:13am

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

Igotadose · 21-11-2019 10:31am

Limpy wrote: »

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

Choice. Like having a kid.

Deebles McBeebles · 21-11-2019 10:34am

Limpy wrote: »

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

Selfishness. Like having kids when you can't support them.

Western Lowland Gorilla · 21-11-2019 10:44am

Vasectomy for the win?

Raconteuse · 21-11-2019 10:53am

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Am I not right ? Lol

Nope, you're not. So don't be so hard on yourself.

Mad_maxx · 21-11-2019 11:34am

LirW wrote: »

Don't hate the player, hate the game. The real issue is that somehow living like this became a viable option.
For one, there are no mechanisms in place for job dodgers to get it together because the benefits stay the benefits.
The other is that housing policies are ridiculous, leases are infinite and every single council is doing their own thing. People can't really move to another council and apply for housing there, they'd get send back. Hell, Dublin alone has 4 councils.

This sort of stuff happens because there are loopholes to let it happen. On one hand I'm glad that if my family ever falls on hard times without any fault of our own that we have breathing room and the necessities are taken care of.
On the other hand exactly this system has nothing in place for long-term unemployed from disadvantaged areas and families. The government sees them as sorted and as long as they are sorted, they won't give them any trouble, doesn't matter if this is destroys local communities.

Just imagine a new government would drastically change the rules. The dole is no viable career anymore, these people are not employable elsewhere. Chances are that there would be roots and many would turn towards crime because crime has a lower entry requirement than the local Centra.

Complex issue really.

"hate the game"

The left invented the game and not only defend it robustly, demand more of the same game

The false assumption here is believing that travellers and rampant breeders do not like their lot but then the left always believe they know best

LirW · 21-11-2019 11:45am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

"hate the game"

The left invented the game and not only defend it robustly, demand more of the same game

The false assumption here is believing that travellers and rampant breeders do not like their lot but then the left always believe they know best

That was my point. Policies made it able in the first place. Some people live a cushy life, they are sorted. It's just not a high standard and it wouldn't appeal to me in the slightest.

s7ryf3925pivug · 21-11-2019 12:02pm

Why do people work, pay rent, save for a deposit, pay health insurance, delay having kids until they risk no longer being able to? That's a greater question.

It would be interesting to see a study on outcomes for the private and public approaches to funding your life. Negative outcomes of the private approach are plenty - you just don't see them because most people don't like to talk about finding they can't have kids.

Personally you would take us as a positive outcome of the private approach, but I don't think we will have a second and we both always would have liked to. The possibility of age related fertility decline aside, there are emergent health issues and simply not having the energy we had ten or twenty years ago. So whether we were better off going what we thought of as the responsible route depends on the metric.

Strumms · 21-11-2019 12:06pm

Limpy wrote: »

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

People who have amassed serious wealth often do so through hard work. Almost always in fact.

If we are in a situation where we are penalizing and even more heavily taxing people who have wealth to ‘pay’ for people who don’t want to get out of bed and off their arses and directly contribute to society we are not giving any incentive for people to take responsibility for their own lives and wellbeing...

Social welfare isn’t going to bring you an excellent quality of life no, it’s meant as a stopgap to help people who are between jobs for whatever reason, people who have health issues, left or been forced out of jobs etc....

Social welfare is not designed or should it be as a lifestyle enabler, not too many people are jumping on planes to spend a five star week in Dubai off what they get on the dole.... if they want that lifestyle do they say... “ hey, there should be a holiday fund where I can reap the benefits of sitting on my hole and other people working hard to pay for my lifestyle “ OR... “this actually sucks, I’m going to get up, retrain, get a job, work hard, contribute and in a couple of years I’m going to be paying for my own holidays, nice car, own apartment AND making my own tax contributions that help pay for the running of the state and for the wellbeing financially and personally of people who fell on hard times like I did...

marieholmfan · 21-11-2019 12:37pm

Igotadose wrote: »

More important than Marie Curie? Susan B. Anthony? Countess Markiewicz?
Golda Meir? Margaret Thatcher?
Elena Kagan?

People have kids because they have a want. Usually, it's the mam has the want and the dad along for the ride. There's never a need to have a child.

Much more important than any of the above except Maria Sklodowskja (unlike sexists I use a woman's own name not her husband's).

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 12:37pm

beejee wrote: »

True, and the other side of that coin is that mothers who rarely see their own children because of work are hardly brilliant either. Ditto father's.

Did you have children to be raised in crèches the second you can get them out the door? Maybe they tune in after a few decades, they didn't want children but adults raised by strangers instead. Just rent a family like in Japan, far more efficient

I'd rather a mother who went out to work and set a good example than just sat around at home having child after child. You don't have to sit with your child 24/7 holding their hand. Eventually, they got to school etc. Also, there are so many parents juggling flexi time or part time work to spend time with their children while still bringing in money. They are also contributing to the social welfare for those who stay at home full time. It's not feasible nowadays for one parent (mother or father) to stay at home. For one thing, look at mortgage repayments. It's not like it was years ago. If all those working mothers that we judge were to stop working so they could sit at home with their children 24/7, there'd be a lot less money in the pot for those who choose to derive their self worth solely from procreation.

I'm due a child next year. I plan to come back to work after 7 months. I've worked hard for my career and I am not going to throw that away and lose all self identity besides being a pro-creator. People who advocate that women should stay at home clearly just see them as baby makers. This does them a disservice. Women are worth more than that.

marieholmfan · 21-11-2019 12:40pm

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society. In fact the much reviled Margaret Cash almost certainly works far harder than any of the so called captains of industry and certainly is living a far more meaningful life than any 'professional' woman failing to squeeze out an IVF at fifty.

[QUOTE=Strumms;111822234]People who have amassed serious wealth often do so through hard work. Almost always in fact.

If we are in a situation where we are penalizing and even more heavily taxing people who have wealth to ‘pay’ for people who don’t want to get out of bed and off their arses and directly contribute to society we are not giving any incentive for people to take responsibility for their own lives and wellbeing...

Social welfare isn’t going to bring you an excellent quality of life no, it’s meant as a stopgap to help people who are between jobs for whatever reason, people who have health issues, left or been forced out of jobs etc....

Social welfare is not designed or should it be as a lifestyle enabler, not too many people are jumping on planes to spend a five star week in Dubai off what they get on the dole.... if they want that lifestyle do they say... “ hey, there should be a holiday fund where I can reap the benefits of sitting on my hole and other people working hard to pay for my lifestyle “ OR... “this actually sucks, I’m going to get up, retrain, get a job, work hard, contribute and in a couple of years I’m going to be paying for my own holidays, nice car, own apartment AND making my own tax contributions that help pay for the running of the state and for the wellbeing financially and personally of people who fell on hard times like I did...[/QUOTE]

marieholmfan · 21-11-2019 12:40pm

How is that setting a good example?

Antares35 wrote: »

I'd rather a mother who went out to work and set a good example than just sat around at home having child after child. You don't have to sit with your child 24/7 holding their hand. Eventually, they got to school etc. Also, there are so many parents juggling flexi time or part time work to spend time with their children while still bringing in money. They are also contributing to the social welfare for those who stay at home full time. It's not feasible nowadays for one parent (mother or father) to stay at home. For one thing, look at mortgage repayments. It's not like it was years ago. If all those working mothers that you judge were to stop working so they could sit at home with their children 24/7, there'd be a lot less money in the pot for those who choose to derive their self worth solely from procreation.

I'm due a child next year. I plan to come back to work after 7 months. I've worked hard for my career and I am not going to throw that away and lose all self identity besides being a pro-creator. People who advocate that women should stay at home clearly just see them as baby makers. This does them a disservice. Women are worth more than that.

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 12:42pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

How is that setting a good example?

By showing your child that you have to work for nice things? That you will never get beyond a certain point in life if you just sit at home with your hand out?

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 12:44pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society. In fact the much reviled Margaret Cash almost certainly works far harder than any of the so called captains of industry and certainly is living a far more meaningful life than any 'professional' woman failing to squeeze out an IVF at fifty.

So you think a woman's self worth is solely derived from her ability to pro-create, while simultaneously leveraging a cruel and unnecessary jibe at women who struggle with IVF? What a nice person you must be...

Mad_maxx · 21-11-2019 12:48pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society. In fact the much reviled Margaret Cash almost certainly works far harder than any of the so called captains of industry and certainly is living a far more meaningful life than any 'professional' woman failing to squeeze out an IVF at fifty.

Do you seriously believe that?

Unless you have a degree in sociology or such, I'd be deeply worried

chuck eastwood · 21-11-2019 1:24pm

I had a similar conversation based on this topic while away with a few mates two weeks ago. 6 guys and all but 1 of us have kids under the age of two. The subject came up about having more kids and I said at two in done, can't afford anymore as my wife only works two days a week. A choice we made so we could raise our kids and spend time with them. We are week to week money wise and still save.
One of the lads couldn't get his head around the idea of letting money stop you but his father in law paid off their mortgage and their mother in law looks after thete kids. Fair play, life is good for them.
Then my brother adds that he wants a third child as it's great. When I pointed out to him that a creche has his kids from 7.30 am until 6pm Monday to Friday he's not really raising them to the degree he could if they stopped putting money first and spent time with his kids. Both he and his wife are high earners and could do a 3/4 day week but in his own words "it's easier to be in work than home with the kids" . Make no mistake they are all great parents but few of them have had to really think about being able to afford kids now and in their college years.
My partner and I both come from large hard working families and it gauls us to see the welfare families with kids whom they can't provide more than a basic existence for. It's actully sad but society doesn't prioritise children's welfare to that degree. Sometimes a roof and food isn't enough to make a child into a successful and useful adult

Strumms · 21-11-2019 2:19pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society.QUOTE]

That’s quite a broad generalization and one that doesn’t ring too true. An example.... I have a cousin in the US who is a lawyer. Late 50’s... ‘seriously’ well off and now a partner in the firm which he joined in his 20’s but nobody who ever knew him would begrudge him because they saw him work his way up it was up at 7.30 am for a 50 minute drive to work, and wouldn’t be back until 7.30 pm... I saw myself when I spent a the odd summer there. In addition he coached a football team and was a dedicated father and husband and still is.

On the other hand at what you and others refer to as the ‘bottom’ you have ‘some’ people who have only ever known ‘hand out’ and ‘give me’... it’s YOUR life, want something to happen, want to make things better, go out, MAKE it happen don’t expect it like everything else to be GIVEN to you.

marieholmfan · 21-11-2019 2:56pm

Not much work compared to the people at the bottom of society and of course your cousin's work was almost certainly socially strongly negative.

He was almost certainly making life worse for many many people while sucking up to the people above him.

Strumms wrote: »

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society.QUOTE]

That’s quite a broad generalization and one that doesn’t ring too true. An example.... I have a cousin in the US who is a lawyer. Late 50’s... ‘seriously’ well off and now a partner in the firm which he joined in his 20’s but nobody who ever knew him would begrudge him because they saw him work his way up it was up at 7.30 am for a 50 minute drive to work, and wouldn’t be back until 7.30 pm... I saw myself when I spent a the odd summer there. In addition he coached a football team and was a dedicated father and husband and still is.

On the other hand at what you and others refer to as the ‘bottom’ you have ‘some’ people who have only ever known ‘hand out’ and ‘give me’... it’s YOUR life, want something to happen, want to make things better, go out, MAKE it happen don’t expect it like everything else to be GIVEN to you.

marieholmfan · 21-11-2019 2:57pm

Antares35 wrote: »

By showing your child that you have to work for nice things? That you will never get beyond a certain point in life if you just sit at home with your hand out?

Dumb advice.
There is little connection between work and reward.

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 3:01pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Dumb advice.
There is little connection between work and reward.

Explain?

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 3:03pm

Strumms wrote: »

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society.QUOTE]

That’s quite a broad generalization and one that doesn’t ring too true. An example.... I have a cousin in the US who is a lawyer. Late 50’s... ‘seriously’ well off and now a partner in the firm which he joined in his 20’s but nobody who ever knew him would begrudge him because they saw him work his way up it was up at 7.30 am for a 50 minute drive to work, and wouldn’t be back until 7.30 pm... I saw myself when I spent a the odd summer there. In addition he coached a football team and was a dedicated father and husband and still is.

On the other hand at what you and others refer to as the ‘bottom’ you have ‘some’ people who have only ever known ‘hand out’ and ‘give me’... it’s YOUR life, want something to happen, want to make things better, go out, MAKE it happen don’t expect it like everything else to be GIVEN to you.

This. Some people want to be on the bottom. Problem is the chances are their kids will end up there too.

Raconteuse · 21-11-2019 3:19pm

Don't feed!

And I doubt the sincerity of the usually genuine posters too who are saying keep having children. Think they're just being contrarian because of being afraid that they'll look right-wing if they acknowledge what we all know full well - it's irresponsible and unfair to bring children into a world lacking security, education, sometimes proper sanitation. I mean for instance we can all see the consequences for traveller society.

Mad_maxx · 21-11-2019 3:35pm

Antares35 wrote: »

Explain?

How do you explain what is a political statement?

HorrorScope · 21-11-2019 3:51pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.

The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society. In fact the much reviled Margaret Cash almost certainly works far harder than any of the so called captains of industry and certainly is living a far more meaningful life than any 'professional' woman failing to squeeze out an IVF at fifty.

This has to be one of the most ****ing brain dead posts I have ever read on this site, you are trolling or you are actually as deluded as you come across.

Margaret Cash is nothing but a ****ing parasite, a drain on the country. She wouldn’t know what work is if it ran up and smacked her in to the ****in head. You are either another waster just like her or you have no sense of the real world at all.

GreenandRed · 21-11-2019 4:04pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

What is prejudiced about saying I don’t want my taxes drained indefinitely by some walking pregnancy machine? 2 kids and allowance for both is more than enough for most families, someone on the dole who has never and will never contribute a cent to the country popping out 7 kids and potentially more (and watching their payments stack up) is simply unacceptable. Why should we pay for those people to lie on their back and take take take?

When you find the person who lets us allocate our taxes they way we'd like you should post the contact details here. No-one will ever be happy with how our taxes or other charges are spent. I want a say in how my TV licence fee is allocated rather than prop up up an our of date television station that should have been closed years ago. Now that is a waste of money.

Not much chance probably, but maybe one of Ms Cash's (not her real name???) offspring could make a meaningful contribution to society. Either way try managing any number of children, never mind seven, for more than a few weeks and you'd rip the door down to try getting out to work at anything.

HorrorScope · 21-11-2019 4:08pm

GreenandRed wrote: »

Not much chance probably, but maybe one of Ms Cash's (not her real name???) offspring could make a meaningful contribution to society. Either way try managing any number of children, never mind seven, for more than a few weeks and you'd rip the door down to try getting out to work at anything.

I think the figure of welfare payments she is getting is somewhere in the region of 55k a year? Sure why you would bother your hole trying to find a job when you get free money like that - you'd need to be earning about 85k before tax to have that sort of money. And on top of that, she now has a free house (something most of us can only dream of BUYING after working our arses off for years on end).

This country is a ****ing jokeshop.

Pmacv1 · 21-11-2019 4:09pm

GreenandRed wrote: »

maybe one of Ms Cash's (not her real name???) offspring could make a meaningful contribution to society.

Hahahahahahha!!!!

Deebles McBeebles · 21-11-2019 4:10pm

Raconteuse wrote: »

Don't feed!

+100

freshpopcorn · 21-11-2019 5:39pm

Basically because people can and despite people complaining about the government they know they'll get by.

GreenandRed · 21-11-2019 10:05pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

I think the figure of welfare payments she is getting is somewhere in the region of 55k a year? Sure why you would bother your hole trying to find a job when you get free money like that - you'd need to be earning about 85k before tax to have that sort of money. And on top of that, she now has a free house (something most of us can only dream of BUYING after working our arses off for years on end).

This country is a ****ing jokeshop.

I think the figure of welfare payments she is getting is somewhere in the region of 55k a year?

That's fairly definite then. Were you queueing up to buy her particular house? Some of us are lucky enough to have kids and a house after working our arses for years and will work them for more years to pay same mortgages. It's called life and we just get on with it. If you grow up and stop the self pity you'll find you'll get a house but even getting a house isn't the be all and end all.

HorrorScope · 21-11-2019 10:19pm

GreenandRed wrote: »

I think the figure of welfare payments she is getting is somewhere in the region of 55k a year?

That's fairly definite then. Were you queueing up to buy her particular house? Some of us are lucky enough to have kids and a house after working our arses for years and will work them for more years to pay same mortgages. It's called life and we just get on with it. If you grow up and stop the self pity you'll find you'll get a house but even getting a house isn't the be all and end all.

I’m not even going to write a reply to that condescending bull**** you wrote. There’s no self pity here.

Padre_Pio · 21-11-2019 10:26pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

I’m not even going to write a reply to that condescending bull**** you wrote. There’s no self pity here.

For all your moaning about welfare, would you want Margaret Cash's life?

Would you throw it all in, quit your job, have a rake of kids and live on the dole, in an estate in Tallaght with horses galloping around on the green? No you wouldn't. Not a hope. Because you know its not a nice life.

HorrorScope · 21-11-2019 10:28pm

Padre_Pio wrote: »

For all your moaning about welfare, would you want Margaret Cash's life?

Would you throw it all in, quit your job, have a rake of kids and live on the dole, in an estate in Tallaght with horses galloping around on the green? No you wouldn't. Not a hope. Because you know its not a nice life.

No simply because I’m not a born and bred scumbag like she is. Not a bad life tho - she never has to work, is able to buy all sorts of extravagant items including ponies and crystal, and now has a free house.

GreenandRed · 21-11-2019 10:35pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

I’m not even going to write a reply to that condescending bull**** you wrote. There’s no self pity here.

There there child.

Why do people have children that they can't afford?

Comments