Should the upward scale of Child Benefit payments remain?

The Corinthian

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Really the only way to permanently cure their dependancy on welfare and the Govt is too make them so completely uncomfortable in their poverty that they finally decide to get a job and get off welfare.

I disagree - more correctly, I think what you propose in itself is insufficient and would likely cause more harm than good.

There are two other things that should also be done in conjunction with any move to make it less financially attractive to adopt such a lifestyle. The first is you need to make the alternative (that single parents are financially self-sufficient) more attractive. Addressing the issue of affordable child care is a major obstacle to this in Ireland.

And secondly, you need to make the culture where you can "brag about being on welfare" unacceptable. This does not simply apply to single parents, but to an entire subculture in Irish society, and until you can socially stigmatize it or foster a sense of social responsibility - a work ethic - within society, it will continue.

seahorse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about single mothers on welfare and then throw in an argument about child benefit increments to legitimise your rant - which is a benefit everyone gets from multimillionaires to families on the bread line - and you keep jumping between the two, I think that is what is confusing me.

To be honest much of what you said to me in your last post is not worth responding to, such as the first section of the quote above. It's not something that, if you knew me personally, you would even have dreamt of posting.

The term you’ve bandied about here more than once: “The most vulnerable in society” is a term you couldn’t possibly have any personal experience of (as I do, having been a lone parent & welfare recipient while I educated myself between the years ’98 & ’05) because if you did you’d recognise the difference between those who are genuinely vulnerable and working their way out of it and those who are deliberately and casually riding the system.

I feel that an upward sliding scale of Child Benefit payments is a bad idea for several reasons which I have already outlined. Some of those points are separate and do not relate to each other directly; if you're confused on any of them the posts are still there so feel free to re-read them.

You seem horrified at the thought of the children of larger families being paid less per child but see nothing wrong with the current situation whereby the children of smaller families have been in that situation for years. I wont even bother trying to wrap my mind around your reasoning here because there is no possibility of logic in it that I can see.

Good day to you Ickle Magoo. I was interested in having a discussion here; not being on the receiving end of an argument loaded with derogatory and misdirected insults.

Ickle Magoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Sorry for not being clearer. I was wasing the US [since I'm originally from there] as an example of why the Govt can't/shouldn't keep giving money to Welfare breeders.

But these people are in the minority. Child benefit is paid to everyone, it doesn't just impact people on social welfare, cuts in child benefit impact on all parents, even those who are doing their very best to work even when they barely make more than they could get chucking in work and claiming welfare, those that rely on the extra pennies so they can afford to go back to school or university, I'm not getting your logic.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Really the only way to permanently cure their dependancy on welfare and the Govt is too make them so completely uncomfortable in their poverty that they finally decide to get a job and get off welfare.....

That's simply not true, you also have to make it possible. I think you have it the wrong way round, I think you have to provide reasonable costing childcare, housing, education, etc - you have to have enough desirable and attainable alternatives as to make welfare unnecessary.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Years ago you did not brag about being on welfare. You didn't leave a job unless you already had another one. Welfare should be a privelege not an entitlement. As I previously stated nonbody wants to see children starving in the streets but that will happen if welfare goes completely bankrupt and the parents still don't have a work ethic to go and get work to support their children.

There are always going to be people who try and cheat the system, people who claim long term sick when they could work, etc, etc. I don't think plunging everyone who is on the breadline into ghettos and crime addled destitution in the vain hope some miraculously get the jobs or qualifications that would allow them to get off benefits is going to work or be a great help to society.

Ickle Magoo

seahorse wrote: »

To be honest much of what you said to me in your last post is not worth responding to, such as the first section of the quote above. It's not something that, if you knew me personally, you would even have dreamt of posting.

The term you’ve bandied about here more than once: “The most vulnerable in society” is a term you couldn’t possibly have any personal experience of (as I do, having been a lone parent & welfare recipient while I educated myself between the years ’98 & ’05) because if you did you’d recognise the difference between those who are genuinely vulnerable and working their way out of it and those who are deliberately and casually riding the system.

Good grief! *palms head* Do you really think the only people that are in receipt of child benefit are women trying to have as many babies as they can? There are lots of parents who are not very well off doing their absolute damnedest to keep their heads above water & they get some small help from child benefit or people on disability or people with children with disabilities, why punish them? If you wish to do something about people who stay indefinitely on benefit and make no effort to get back to work then I would be the first in the line to support you. To suggest cutting a universal benefit for parents of multiple children is the best method of doing anything about people who get by far of the majority of their income from a completely different welfare source just doesn't make sense.

seahorse wrote: »

I feel that an upward sliding scale of Child Benefit payments is a bad idea for several reasons which I have already outlined. Some of those points are separate and do not relate to each other directly; if you're confused on any of them the posts are still there so feel free to re-read them.

You seem horrified at the thought of the children of larger families being paid less per child but see nothing wrong with the current situation whereby the children of smaller families have been in that situation for years. I wont even bother trying to wrap my mind around your reasoning here because there is no possibility of logic in it that I can see.

Good day to you Ickle Magoo. I was interested in having a discussion here; not being on the receiving end of an argument loaded with derogatory and misdirected insults.

Horrified? I'm not horrified, I just think it's a silly argument for all the reasons I've outlined above.

That's fine, you seem to want to wilfully ignore any opposition to your "reasoning" and claim you are getting derogatory and misdirected insults when your posts are full of "women like that" and "pushing out child after child" and "baby production business". LOL. :rolleyes:

JohnMc1

The Corinthian wrote: »

I disagree - more correctly, I think what you propose in itself is insufficient and would likely cause more harm than good.

There is no other means to get these lifetime welfares off the system than to make it so they end up taking themselves off it and go to work. Obviously they should not do that in this economic times but if Ireland ever comes out if this recession they should make some cuts to entice people off it.

There are two other things that should also be done in conjunction with any move to make it less financially attractive to adopt such a lifestyle. The first is you need to make the alternative (that single parents are financially self-sufficient) more attractive. Addressing the issue of affordable child care is a major obstacle to this in Ireland.

You don't think Back to Education, VEC and free education isn't already enough incentive for them?

And secondly, you need to make the culture where you can "brag about being on welfare" unacceptable. This does not simply apply to single parents, but to an entire subculture in Irish society, and until you can socially stigmatize it or foster a sense of social responsibility - a work ethic - within society, it will continue.

Sadly due to Politcal Correctness gone absurd that will never happen.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

That's simply not true, you also have to make it possible. I think you have it the wrong way round

As I asked Corinthian I'll ask you. You don't think Back to ED, VEC and free education [God only knows for how much longer though] is not enough? If they are underskilled they can go back and learn new skills and get a better job.

I think you have to provide reasonable costing childcare, housing, education, etc - you have to have enough desirable and attainable alternatives as to make welfare unnecessary.

This is where you are completely wrong. You are confusing a privelege for an entitlement. If you can barely take care of yourself and your partner you have absolutely no right bringing children into this world and then expecting the tax payers to foot the bill for you. Personal Responsibility like Common Sense is so rare now its almost a real life Super power.

The Corinthian

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There is no other means to get these lifetime welfares off the system than to make it so they end up taking themselves off it and go to work.

I do not disagree that disincentivising those who are 'comfortable' in long-term social welfare, should not be done; only that only doing so is not enough.

You don't think Back to Education, VEC and free education isn't already enough incentive for them?

Depends. Incentives like Back to Education, etc. may be sufficient to those who need to both up-skill, after a prolonged period out of work, and who have children over five, but you cannot lump them all in as one group. For example, if the children are young, this means they will require care when the single parent is studying or working. Even when older, they will require some level of care (school and business hours, let alone holidays, are not in sync), so you have to address this barrier. If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see that I gave a rough example that illustrates how things like childcare can kill off any incentive to get a job.

Additionally, going on a course is all very well, but really it just reclassifies you as one type of unemployed person to another. It's not a job and after it ends, there is no guarantee that it will translate to one.

For me single parents who rely on welfare are simply unemployed, single people, with kids. It might mean that they have different or even greater obstacles to getting employment, but there is no reason to see them as anything other than that.

Part of the problem is that even classifying them as 'single parents' somehow sets them apart. Almost as if the rules that apply to everyone else who is unemployed should not apply to them. This is a far greater impediment than the levels of benefits that they get, because there is, AFAIK, no effort whatsoever made to get them to look for a job. Do they even have to 'sign on' once a month, for example?

Certainly there is need for reform in benefits for single parents - some of the payouts that have been mooted here sound insane. However, it is simplistic to think that this alone will work and other measures need to be employed to encourage it - the stick generally works better in conjunction with the carrot.

But most of all, we need to change our mindset and stop considering them as something other than a group of job-seekers. If we don't do that, what hope is there that they will?

Ickle Magoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

As I asked Corinthian I'll ask you. You don't think Back to ED, VEC and free education [God only knows for how much longer though] is not enough? If they are underskilled they can go back and learn new skills and get a better job.

That really depends where you are, what is actually available & who "they" are. Stating ALL people in receipt of benefits are in a position to do a free course which will lead to a better job is oversimplifying the issues some people face.

I tutor some people on welfare that are completely illiterate, I don't think an ECDL is going to do them much good. I know another woman with four children on her own after her husband died, she has absolutely no local support or transport - how do you suggest she gets to & from classes & who looks after her kids while she does?

It's called a poverty trap for a reason, some people need a little help to get on their feet, rather than have the little money they do have cut until they have no hope of improving their situation. I don't think the solution is to assume everyone on benefits or with multiple children is lazy & cheating the system and treat them like a scourge on society.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

This is where you are completely wrong. You are confusing a privelege for an entitlement. If you can barely take care of yourself and your partner you have absolutely no right bringing children into this world and then expecting the tax payers to foot the bill for you. Personal Responsibility like Common Sense is so rare now its almost a real life Super power.

Again, you are only thinking about one kind of welfare recipient. There are people who lose their partner, there are people whose partners walks out on them, there are people illiterate because the education system failed them, people who have paid into the countries tax coffers for years and now find themselves out of work, etc, etc, etc. It seems compassion is another superpower.

The Corinthian

From today's Irish Times:

MINISTER FOR Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin has signalled the possibility of an additional social welfare cut by saying the lone-parents allowance should be phased out when children reach the age of 13.

Long overdue, IMHO.

The logic behind LPA continuing until 18 (or 22 if in full-time education) is to support a child that cannot support itself. What I find bizarre is the assumption that the single parent cannot support themselves, let alone the child.

Naturally there are problems with being a working parent - inadequate, and exorbitant, child care being one I raised earlier, but by the time a child is 13 this is no longer an issue. They are in school most of the day and even if not at 13 they no longer need a babysitter.

Why do we think it makes sense to maintain single parents of 20 year old college students? More correctly why do we think it makes sense to classify them at that stage as anything more than a jobseeker?

johnnyskeleton

The Corinthian wrote: »

From today's Irish Times:

Long overdue, IMHO.

The logic behind LPA continuing until 18 (or 22 if in full-time education) is to support a child that cannot support itself. What I find bizarre is the assumption that the single parent cannot support themselves, let alone the child.

Naturally there are problems with being a working parent - inadequate, and exorbitant, child care being one I raised earlier, but by the time a child is 13 this is no longer an issue. They are in school most of the day and even if not at 13 they no longer need a babysitter.

Surely then when the child starts going to school then both parents can resume full time work?

Better yet, why don't we move to school being 8am-4pm for all school kids, with afterschool activities from 4-6 e.g. sports, art, music etc which would keep the kids occupied coursey of the state while freeing up both parents for the 9-5 slog. The additional costs would be fairly low as we could require the existing teachers to either work these longer hours or else give up their holiday pay and use it to pay for subs.

Also there should be a lot more done to encourage flexi time working. A lot of single parents even if they can't work a full day, could work 10-2 and still have enough time to take care of their kids. However, such jobs as can be worked between 10-2 (e.g. bank, supermarket, callcentre) would probably be at the lower end of the payscale, and probably lower than the SW payments made if the person doesn't work.