Single Mothers and Housing

dsmythy

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I think you should have to pay a tax for having a kid

No point in punishing families with extra taxes. We need more families not less.

tudlytops

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Don't forget the banks, they made us all buy crap houses with huge mortgages

the banks didn't make you do anything you didn't want to.

RiverWilde

The daggers are out now. The party is over, the financial hangover is really beginning to bite those who squandered their money and did not prepare in any way for a rainy day.

We have a system that is so corrupt it's almost beyond reform and as usual we have the knee-jerk, it's all their fault, we're in this mess mentality.

The FF party and it's various iterations over the past number of years have the country in this bloody mess. Pay hikes, nice little tax free loopholes to benefit those with tons of borrowed cash to spend, junkets for civil servants from the lowly councillor to the prime minister. Oh the list is endless.

At the end of the day though it isn't the fault of Britain or the EU or the world economy that has this country in the mess it's in.
It's our fault - we the citizens who put up with the scandals (church and state) and vote like sheep when asked by the establishment and time after time FF and their cronies get into power and time after time they run the country to suit themselves and their friends.

Now that the party is over and the boys at the top who've made their cash and are sitting back enjoying the rewards some amongst us want to hammer people on social welfare?

So much for good Christian Ireland.

Riv

ei.sdraob

dsmythy wrote: »

No point in punishing families with extra taxes. We need more families not less.

why?

Pride Fighter

The_Minister wrote: »

I'm fairly sure people who live in social housing on average commit more crime.

I'd disagree.

I have lived near council estates all my life. Yes there is crime but it is not as bad as the crime that has happened from the offspring of rich kids. Look at the criminals in the banking sector, far worse than Micka from the flats robbing a few cars.

mikemac

tudlytops wrote: »

the banks didn't make you do anything you didn't want to.

True, but Fighting Irish was being entirely sarcastic. That's how I read it anyway

Joey the lips

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'd disagree.

I have lived near council estates all my life. Yes there is crime but it is not as bad as the crime that has happened from the offspring of rich kids. Look at the criminals in the banking sector, far worse than Micka from the flats robbing a few cars.

+ 1 well said. There may exist an element of social crime. But I cannot see the working class areas bringing down a nation like the white collar crime areas associated with sean fitz.....

Haveing said all this we are slightly off topic on this one and producing a social stigma

ie Single mothers live in Working class areas.... Its worth noteing Mirium o Callaghan became a single mother for a period of time when she finished with mcGuirk.

Its not what you are.... Its how you live...

gurramok

aurelius79 wrote: »

Damn these single mothers and their million dollar homes, their sports cars, and their 100 foot yachts!! Seriously, let's worry about the corrupt politicians and public servants before we start looking for scapegoats.

And then one wonders why the country is broke. Anyone from the top to the bottom who is milking the system should be targeted as its public money that pays public sector workers and genuine hardship welfare cases.

Tell me, why should a single mother who is milking the system for that free house and all the welfare entitlements stop having kids?

97i9y3941

coundnt they least be more stricter and make the fathers more accountable if they are earning,it is the taxpayer at end of day thats picking up the tab,surely since we are desperate to save money?...

legal-eagle

Anyone who is saying there is less crime in council areas is just a pinko liberal.
Drugs, Stabbings, Robberies and Violent behaviour is more common place in Darndale than Dalkey. Don't even try argue that.

The problem I have is Shakira has 3 kids by 21 and gets a house, in 21years time her Beyonce, Jacintha and Tenica have kids and they in turn get a house each and the cycles continues. I was speaking with an Indian friend of mine awhile back and he just thought we actively encourage it by providing a houses so readily.

It just isn't right, the Pearse street examle another poster gave earlier happens all the time and costs us all hundrerds of millions.

I'm thinking about setting up a political party, called the Left, Right Centre Party:D

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

coundnt they least be more stricter and make the fathers more accountable if they are earning,it is the taxpayer at end of day thats picking up the tab,surely since we are desperate to save money?...

Here is a little example.

My ex has a sister, she as claimed lone parents since her oldest was about 7, she now has 3 kids all from the some father and still claims lone parents.

Common do they seriously believe she is still a lone parent, what she just get together with him to make babies and then walk away.

Joey the lips

tudlytops wrote: »

Here is a little example.

My ex has a sister, she as claimed lone parents since her oldest was about 7, she now has 3 kids all from the some father and still claims lone parents.

Common do they seriously believe she is still a lone parent, what she just get together with him to make babies and then walk away.

Fcuk buddies

tudlytops

Joey the lips wrote: »

Fcuk buddies

yeah must be that, how could i not think of that, pity babies seam to pop up all over the place.

gurramok

And its more widespread than just a handful of cases. Its a perfectly legal way to scam the system.
Public sector posters should be angry at these scam artists as after all they share the same public money as those certain 'single' mothers who are not really single.

97i9y3941

its a taboo subject really,i was even surprised they cut the childrens allowance in the budget...

doubleglaze

I think a lot more pregnant sixteen year old females should be going the adoption route than is currently the case.

mikemac

gurramok wrote: »

Public sector posters should be angry at these scam artists as after all they share the same public money as those certain 'single' mothers who are not really single.

Public sector works who work in fraud detection for DSFA need to start doing their jobs!
If they don't have the support or technology or the integration then need from Revenue they demand it.

Having said that, being an inspector who does home visits seems a pretty tough job to me. You may end up getting assaulted over it

tudlytops

mikemac wrote: »

Public sector works who work in fraud detection for DSFA need to start doing their jobs!
If they don't have the support or technology or the integration then need from Revenue they demand it.

Having said that, being an inspector who does home visits seems a pretty tough job to me. You may end up getting assaulted over it

In most cases all they had to do was watch the home, if he comes in and doesn't leave nite after nite, then he is living in the house.

besides I think lone parents (and I was one) should only get more in terms of child care cost if they are working and that is it.

Why should a single parent have more rights to social housing then a couple?

Why should a woman that is living at home with her parents become pregnant and because of it she is now entitle to social housing?

Why can't she rent a property like everyone else?

Why isn't she asked about finding work? Once you a single parent no one bothers you about finding work.

Be responsible for your actions, if you want a kid, make sure you can provide for the kid.

97i9y3941

prime time investages did bring it up,as the inspector said its very hard to prove if the father was living there or just visting...

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

prime time investages did bring it up,as the inspector said its very hard to prove if the father was living there or just visting...

Not hard at all, how long does one visit for, 1 week, 2 weeks????, common separated people don't stay with their ex for 1 or 2 at a time, even to visit the kids.

In the end, make them go to work and there won't be any need to claim.

97i9y3941

im sure its down to money aswell,paying the inspectors,and the awful embargo we have on the moment in recruitment..

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

tudlytops

Iolar wrote: »

What would you like a Gestapo Irish style?imagine what that would cost?

It would be paid by the false claimants, it would if they were actually made to pay it back at a rate of more then a fiver a week

tudlytops

Fred83 wrote: »

im sure its down to money aswell,paying the inspectors,and the awful embargo we have on the moment in recruitment..

And if we keep on using the cost as an excuse, then this will continue to happen at a mush higher cost.

And it was going on when the going was good, there was money then to recruit etc, so why was it allowed then.

AlekSmart

I think it`s worth studying this chapter from the Dept`s 2000 review paper.......

SOCIAL WELFARE PROVISION FOR LONE PARENTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES (CHAPTER 4)

9. The growth in the number of lone parents is a worldwide phenomenon and social welfare regimes have responded to the needs of this group in different ways depending on how these needs are viewed. Some regimes see the need for support as temporary, i.e. until the person can return to employment, while others are prepared to support lone parents working full-time in the home while at the same time encouraging them to seek employment as a means of improving theirs and their children's standard of living. This chapter sets out the social welfare provisions for lone parents in a number of countries to indicate the different approaches.

10. The UK, Australia and New Zealand support lone parents to stay at home, if that is their wish, while at the same time actively encouraging them to consider employment/training as a way of improving their situation. Both the UK and Australia have very active programmes, New Deal and JET respectively, designed to help lone parents to join the labour market while in New Zealand a lone parent is required to start actively planning his/her future and be available for part-time work from the time the youngest child is seven years of age.

11. In Sweden it is assumed that everyone aims to be in employment and lone parents are no exception. There is no income support scheme aimed specifically at lone parents and while there is a very high percentage of lone parents at work (80%) almost 70% still receive some State support. (It is important to note that much of this support could be in the form of subsidised childcare, paid parental leave etc. and therefore it is not directly comparable with the position in Ireland.)

12. In France lone parents can receive basic income support with a special scheme of support (Allocation de Parent Isole) applying during pregnancy, for the first year after separation and/or until the youngest child is 3 years of age. In the Netherlands income support will be paid until the youngest child reaches 5 years of age. In the USA special lone parent schemes have been abolished with lone parents now eligible to apply for welfare support in the same way as other families and subject to the same conditions, e.g. "workfare", time limits on claiming etc.

13. It is generally agreed that taking up paid employment is the most effective way of lifting a lone parent and his/her children out of poverty. However, the manner in which this is achieved can vary from country to country. In some cases it is assumed that lone parents will work as soon as possible and social welfare supports reflect this attitude. Some, like the USA require a claimant to work or train as a condition of receiving benefits. Others will encourage and assist lone parents to consider employment as an option to improve their circumstances, while at the same time recognising their right to choose to work in the home full-time.

It really is interesting to note how the European examples of Single Parent supports tend to be time limited and generally biased towards either the Pregnancy (In the case of female LP`s) or towards early childcare.

The Swedish model must resemble the work of the Devil in many ways,especially to persons who have managed to rear a family on our payments and who may now be proudly watching a generation of grandchildren being equally provided for by the State.

It is striking that the European models mentioned all focused quite directly on the NEED to get the recipients back into the labour market and the very real reality that the Single Parents payments would not continue in perpetuity as is the case here.

It is highly unlikely for example that the situation as described as folows in the DSFA report would occur in those countries mentioned....

Para 28. The fact that the OFP will support a lone parent until, in some cases, the youngest child is 22 years of age can create the conditions for such long-term dependency on social welfare and the Group considered that this was not desirable.

It is equally important to note the differentiation between recipients who have suffered spousal bereavment rendering them a lone parent and those who,for whatever reasons,elect to utilize the DSFA benefit schemes to fund their lifestyles into the future.

LookingFor

I think with single mothers under a certain age there should be a system whereby the mother and child, if they need a house, are moved under their parents - where their parents are still alive and have reasonable accomodation.

That is - parents of said mothers would have a legal responsibility toward the care of both the mother and child while they are under a certain age.

I wonder how many single mothers this would take off the housing list. And I wonder if you'd see any reduction in teenage and young single motherhood. I wonder how it would improve parental guidance and involvement on sex education and so on. I wonder how it would improve the educational and employment prospects of women who've had a chance to mature in these roles before worrying about kids. If these young women see significant financial and other repercussions for their parents, and see that having a child at this stage would actually diminish their independence, I think it could be an effective deterrent without impacting the welfare of the child.

RiverWilde wrote: »

The daggers are out now. *snip*

It's natural for people to be more acutely aware of public spending when times are tough and cuts therein are affecting them. But some of us, at least, have been unhappy with what's been going on here for a lot longer. The system as set up has been open to abuse and been abused for a long time, and has effectively seen 'charity'/welfare stolen from those who genuinely need it - or more correctly, from those who haven't wilfully put themselves in a situation where they need it.

rohatch

The_Minister wrote: »

I'm fairly sure people who live in social housing on average commit more crime.

You can use the crime and education statistics to back this up.

The percentage of young 18-35 men from inner city dublin areas that have criminal records is equal to the same age group from foxrock with degrees.

gurramok wrote: »

Tell me, why should a single mother who is milking the system for that free house and all the welfare entitlements stop having kids?

My next door neighbour has 9 kids under 18, is 47 obese, diabetic and preggers again. Other half living with her.
Her dole 800 a month,
his dole 800 a month,
kids allowance 1400 per month,
rent paid by dole 800 per month (tallaght),
free fuel phone, medical card and transport passes.

The parents are uneducated twats, the kids have been involved in drugs and crime since they could, this is what is being bred in this country, kids rearing kids with no skills whatsoever.


they have a 42 plasma screen, blu ray, dvd, state of the art stereos, 2 cars, no shortage of fags, she is down to 40 a day now and he is a stoner. they both smoke in the gaff so thats 9 kids lungs destroyed for the health system in a few years. The food they feed the kids is also the worst kind and even during last week their 4 year old was out playing at 1am on a school night.

doubleglaze wrote: »

I think a lot more pregnant sixteen year old females should be going the adoption route than is currently the case.

They need education 1st. A 50 hour course on parenting to run along lemasss classes. In depth sex ed in school from 5 years of age.

walrusgumble

gurramok wrote: »

Come down to Pearse St, Dublin and I will show you the baby generating single mothers whose only purpose in life is to get that house\flat and keep the benefits as a career.
Of course, the father is not on the birth certs of said children. Taxpayers should not be responsible for these single mother con artists, only genuine hardship cases.

if you feel so strongly about it and/or feel that a crime/fraud is being committed do the following
1. report to the police
2. report to social welfare
3. campaign to local TD


you have made an extremely serious allegation without little or no hard facts. you don't even know these people. - kevin myers is that you?

respectively, put up or shut up

walrusgumble

SLUSK wrote: »

Why should the responsible have to pay for the mistakes of those who behave irresponsibly? There are no incentives to behave like a responsible adult if you get punished for it buy having pay for the irresponsible people. There are lots of incentives to become a single teenage mum if you get lots of handouts for it.

very arrogant comment. Behaving irresponsible? mistakes? what? although you may not be saying so, but it sounds as if you share the old times idea of children born out of wedlock should be shunned. very very very few babies are planned.

what is a reasonable adult, in this context? you aware that every one is suppose to be treated equal before the eyes of the law? would you have this attitude if the mother orginally came from a respectful address/family?

regardless of backgrounds, sex/family planning morals/ideals have gone out the window compared to the past.ii believe though, in reality there was not much change in single mothers etc. the only difference is that today with the madelene laundries etc now gone, and children born out of wedlock are no longer treated like scum, this issue is more noticable.

what are the incentives for single motherhood?, lost of youth, careers, being left alone, screwed up kids, absence of supporting family?

on a lighter note
http://www.youtube.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

http://www.youtube.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8

ei.sdraob

walrusgumble wrote: »

if you feel so strongly about it and/or feel that a crime/fraud is being committed do the following
1. report to the police
2. report to social welfare
3. campaign to local TD


you have made an extremely serious allegation without little or no hard facts. you don't even know these people. - kevin myers is that you?

respectively, put up or shut up

i think @gurramok mentioned before that hes a Guard...