Single parents to lose welfare payment when child turns 13

Collie D

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

Surely young women should think about those little details before they open their legs? Particularly in a post-feminst world where working mothers are the norm.

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

Women who go out and get pregnant when there's no father around, expecting the State to pick up the tab, are stupid. I have lots of sympathy for deserted women (particularly when they're married and committed to each other both legally and socially), but find it hard to have any sympathy for women who are pregnant multiple times with multiple fathers and then crib and moan about "poverty". Meanwhile they're sitting smugly in their city-centre flat and watch their flat screen telly with no intention of ever working a day in their lives.

Family values and responsible parents is what's needed. This prevailing nanny State mentality that exists in Ireland is a disaster and people who go on and on about it are pathetic weak excuses for human beings.

I grew up in a single parent family and believe me there was no "sitting smugly in a city centre flat" watching widescreen TVs. My mother worked hard and struggled to raise me and I am extremely thankful to her. Don;t try to bleat on that she's not a responsible parent just because my Dad couldn't be interested. I find your posts highly insulting.

omahaid

Splendour wrote: »

Problem with this is, the state don't make Dads pay even when there is the father is on the scene. I think before the government abolish lone parent payment, it should be mandatory for fathers to pay proper maintenance for their children.

Ya, thats pretty much what I meant (you phrased it better). If we're to cut off lone parents then we should also ensure that the absent parent should pay maintenance.

brianthebard

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Reasonable measure? It should be mandatory. In the case of all suddenly "vanished" fathers the old saying should apply: "He who dips his wick, must pay for the oil"

You've been watching too much Jeremy Kyle.

bogtotty

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

Surely young women should think about those little details before they open their legs? Particularly in a post-feminst world where working mothers are the norm.

Working mothers being the norm ≠ a post-feminist world, as your statement testifies. Some women might open their legs ill-judgedly, but you don't seem to have any issue with the men who fill the gap. As long as 'loose' women are blamed for the ills of modern society, we're about as 'post-feminist' as the Old Testament.

matrim

Splendour wrote: »

Problem with this is, the state don't make Dads pay even when there is the father is on the scene. I think before the government abolish lone parent payment, it should be mandatory for fathers to pay proper maintenance for their children.

And before it should be mandatory for fathers to pay proper maintenance they should have equal rights regarding guardianship and custody of the kid.

Splendour

matrim wrote: »

And before it should be mandatory for fathers to pay proper maintenance they should have equal rights regarding guardianship and custody of the kid.

Absolutely! I was thinking of it from a separated/divorced viewpoint, but you are spot on, can't expect guys to pay maintenance if they're not give equal guardian rights. It should start when filling out the birth cert; the fathers name printed on cert should mean he has all the rights and responsibilities that go with being a father...

up for anything

omahaid wrote: »

Why can't they get a part time job or something when the child turns 13?

Find me one please that doesn't have four hundred desperate applicants. I'm willing to travel.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'll say this now and hopefully it will be enough for the whole thread:

1. The recession won't last forever

No it won't but it will take the country years to recover from it especially in the area of employment.

Hyperbullet wrote: »

I agree, however if the parent is working for several years earning minimum wage and has 2 kids to look after, surely they deserve some assistance. I dont agree with parents who feckin live off the childrens allowance.

Child benefit is there to benefit the child. This can mean putting oil in the tank for central heating, paying the electricity bill, putting food on the table, shoes on their feet and clothes on their backs. What do you propose the parents should do with it?

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

Surely young women should think about those little details before they open their legs?

Perhaps young men should think twice before diving between a pair of opened legs. Also, why pick on 'young women'. There are single parents of all ages and both sexes.

omahaid wrote: »

My daughter is perfectly able to mind herself if I go shopping or whatever for a few hours and she's 11.

Tell that to the Judge when she has opened the door to some stranger or she has an accident or sets the house on fire or sits fretting about a noise she heard. She is a child at 11. She may know what to do in an emergency but when the chips are down, will she be capable of thinking rationally while panicking.

omahaid wrote: »

I suppose as a reasonable measure, surely all the vanished dads should be made pay child support as well.

Reasonable! Essential I would say. However, what percentage of the fathers' dole payments would you suggest as child support and who then will prevent the fathers from ending up on the streets.

pookie82 wrote: »

You need to ask if people should be entitled to these payouts for just having children.

Maybe not, but are you prepared to see the children in question suffer because their parents should not have had them or cannot manage?

The government should be working their bollixes off to create employment and not just minimum wage employment. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic here but I'm fed up of them handing out my tax money that I have paid out over the years to prop up ailing banks with overpaid and bonused directors on one hand, and on the other then punishing me by cutting the benefit that I worked for all my life while 'demonising' me. PRSI is insurance to help you when you are in need. There is always condemnation and disgust when regular insurance companies try and swindle us on payouts but the government seems to get away with it.

I've been on social welfare now for six months and in my low moments, of which there are many, I have considered resorting to walking the ring road in search of casual employment in order to provide for my children. I don't see it as living on the pigs back but I may end up lying on my own back.

There are always so many 'I'm alright Jack' smug, self-satisfied posts on boards in relation to social welfare that I avoid these threads as a rule but I couldn't resist this one. I'm not usually a vindictive person but I hope all the posters on their moral high-horses come a cropper one of these days and maybe you'll see that any life choice can be a bad life choice when things go wrong. :mad:

changes

wobblyknees wrote: »

Is this payment for single/lone parents who aren't working and have children? So, if I understand it correctly, it's the standard jsa payment of €196 per week plus an extra €29.80 per child.

No. Of Children / Payment

1 / €225.80
2 / €255.60
3 / €285.40
4 / €315.20
5 / €345.00

Wow, seems to me your typical single parent is living the life of luxury alright.

It doesn't just stop at that. They will be entitles to either rent allowance or a council house, medical cards, Family Income Supplement (if they are bring in less than €500 per week).

Also of the 90,000 people in reciept of OPFP how many of those are co-habiting, how many have lied about not knowing the father and are either living with him or getting money off him without the knowledge of the state.

Its quite possible for a single parent to have her first child and 18, and her last at 43 and live out her entire adult life at the states expense.

Its only right this whole farce of a set up is finally being tackled.

Pauleta

Truley wrote: »

I suppose your kids wont be getting children's allowance, free dental care, eye checks, national primary education, university education, third level grants ... :rolleyes:

I dont have kids and i wont have a child because i cant afford to have a child. I use condoms. They cost less than children.

Noreen1

Hmm..........

Even during the "Celtic Tiger" era, there were long waiting lists for Fas Courses - now that "cutbacks" have been introduced, the waiting lists have, in some cases/areas gone beyond the point where they might reasonably be classed as ridiculous.

We have record levels of unemployment, where University graduates struggle to find employment at minimum wage.

Most people are aware of at least one case, where teenage children have misbehaved - sometimes seriously - where there is a lack of parental supervision, even for a few days, in some cases.

Yet single parents are expected to:

A: Find work in a hugely competitive market - despite the fact that there are necessarily huge restrictions on either the hours they can work, or the wages they can afford to work for. (Assuming they wish to be responsible parents, and not engage in the neglect of their children - Most parents do want to be responsible, IMO)

or

B: Find a course - ideally a Third level course - despite the fact that there are long waiting lists for most bog-standard courses, and, there are restrictions on the courses single parents can accept, due to travel restrictions, financial considerations, child-minding limitations etc.

What a typically practical solution from our illustrious Government!:rolleyes:

Oh, wait - maybe it's just another vicious cost-cutting exercise - by an inept, uncaring, unscrupulous bunch of people in suits............?? Hmmm.
That being the case, it's even more disgusting than their usual antics!

Noreen

Collie D

Pauleta wrote: »

I dont have kids and i wont have a child because i cant afford to have a child.

Yes, because all pregnancies are planned :rolleyes:

Spastafarian

omahaid wrote: »

Will do, know of a few part time jobs (shop assistant and the like) already.

You know of a few jobs going! Woohoo! I'll let the half a million unemployed know their troubles are over!

Ms. Captain M

Can I just jump in here with something a bit off topic. I'm a single parent who lives in a council house and I have a job. The rent I pay is only marginally less than if I rented privately, but I live in an small estate that's very quiet and I won't have to move house at the whim of a landlord. Sorry but I just see time and time again in these type of threads that some people think council house = free house, and that's not the case.

omahaid

Spastafarian wrote: »

You know of a few jobs going! Woohoo! I'll let the half a million unemployed know their troubles are over!

You must have been suspicious at all the people working in tesco, the petrol station, the banks, the pub, the hotel, the local chipper? There are still people working in this country, there are still jobs, there are still people getting jobs and losing them. We have never had 100% of the over 18 population in employment.

Sonnenblumen

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Good idea. All SW payments should move towards a model that promotes activity and punishes lifetime scrounging.

and how do you achieve this by targetting(punishing) 13yr old children?

This FF Gov is full of FFers who are expert at black art of screwing innocent vunerable people.

gurramok

up for anything wrote: »

Perhaps young men should think twice before diving between a pair of opened legs. Also, why pick on 'young women'. There are single parents of all ages and both sexes.

Ever hear of condoms? It takes two to tango.

up for anything wrote: »

I've been on social welfare now for six months and in my low moments, of which there are many, I have considered resorting to walking the ring road in search of casual employment in order to provide for my children. I don't see it as living on the pigs back but I may end up lying on my own back.

Why is the father of your kids not providing? Have you informed the authorities of his existence??

dlofnep

omahaid wrote: »

You must have been suspicious at all the people working in tesco, the petrol station, the banks, the pub, the hotel, the local chipper? There are still people working in this country, there are still jobs, there are still people getting jobs and losing them. We have never had 100% of the over 18 population in employment.

I'm not sure if you're either ignorant, or being purposefully obtuse.

The current employment rate is 13.4% - This time, 3 years ago it was only 4.5%. 1 in 4 of those under 25 are without work. There are insufficient jobs out there. Are you attempting to attribute the high levels of unemployment to people being suddenly lazy?

christina_x

ok i could sort of understand if the child was able to work and help bring an income into the house, but you cant work until your 16?

up for anything

gurramok wrote: »

Ever hear of condoms? It takes two to tango.

I heard of all forms of contraception and used most of them. What is your point?

Why is the father of your kids not providing? Have you informed the authorities of his existence??

I'm surprised there that you didn't ask about the fathers of my kids! :rolleyes: Not that it is any of your business, but we separated and he has been diagnosed with severe depression and was sacked from his part-time job for taking two weeks off sick because he wasn't able to cope. Yes, we made hundreds of bad life decisions during the the 30 years we were together but they seemed reasonable at the time and who knew they would lead to this situation. Anything else you would like to know, Mr Condescending?

mikom

Pauleta wrote: »

I dont have kids and i wont have a child because i cant afford to have a child. I use condoms. They cost less than children.

Collie D wrote: »

Yes, because all pregnancies are planned :rolleyes:

No, carrying johnnys or taking the pill are though.

Takes a bit more effort then deciding between the blue or red WKD granted....

danbohan

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're either ignorant, or being purposefully obtuse.

The current employment rate is 13.4% - This time, 3 years ago it was only 4.5%. 1 in 4 of those under 25 are without work. There are insufficient jobs out there. Are you attempting to attribute the high levels of unemployment to people being suddenly lazy?

of course their are insufficient jobs out there , nobody is denying that we have a major unemployment problem here , but in 2006 / 2007 there still their was 160000+ unemployed , we have a major long term unemployment / unemployable problem here , this country is broke , their has to be major cuts and social welfare in its many guises is one area that has to be cut , get used to it, theirs a lot more on the way

brianthebard

gurramok wrote: »

Ever hear of condoms? It takes two to tango.

Two condoms won't really increase their contraceptive abilities, especially if you're doing kinky foreign stuff.

Collie D

mikom wrote: »

No, carrying johnnys or taking the pill are though.

Takes a bit more effort then deciding between the blue or red WKD granted....

No contraception is 100% reliable but I'm sure you knew that. I'll ignore your second "sentence"

gurramok

up for anything wrote: »

I heard of all forms of contraception and used most of them. What is your point?

I'm surprised there that you didn't ask about the fathers of my kids! :rolleyes: Not that it is any of your business, but we separated and he has been diagnosed with severe depression and was sacked from his part-time job for taking two weeks off sick because he wasn't able to cope. Yes, we made hundreds of bad life decisions during the the 30 years we were together but they seemed reasonable at the time and who knew they would lead to this situation. Anything else you would like to know, Mr Condescending?

You are not the typical case, 30 yrs together and then separation is not the section of single parents have I distaste for.

I am talking about the career single mothers who are quite some number who blatantly drain the system.

mikom

Collie D wrote: »

No contraception is 100% reliable but I'm sure you knew that. I'll ignore your second "sentence"

No welfare system is 100% reliable.

omahaid

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're either ignorant, or being purposefully obtuse.

The current employment rate is 13.4% - This time, 3 years ago it was only 4.5%. 1 in 4 of those under 25 are without work. There are insufficient jobs out there. Are you attempting to attribute the high levels of unemployment to people being suddenly lazy?

It would appear that you completely missed my point so I will try and explain it. If lone parents with children over 13 cannot find jobs and they are being paid maintenance from the absent parent and they still cannot make ends meet then the state should consider assisting them. However, if like you, their excuse is "there are zero jobs" then I would scrutinize their situation. As I already mentioned I believe both the state AND the lone parent have a responsibility of ensuring the absent parent provide adequate maintenance.

I hope this makes my point clearer.

Collie D

mikom wrote: »

No welfare system is 100% reliable.

Not once in this thread have I mentioned the rights or wrongs of the social welfare system. I responded to tasteless, crass comments such as your WKD one.

mikom

Collie D wrote: »

I responded to tasteless, crass comments such as your WKD one.

Thought you were ignoring it.

Collie D

mikom wrote: »

Thought you were ignoring it.

Wish I had now if that's the pinnacle of your argument.

billy the squid

This is rather a divisive proposal, but I think it is a distraction. keep an eye out for something more sinister being pushed through at the same time in order for it to be buried.

remember that famous individualisation budget that charlie mccreevey came out with. it was commended to the house on the same day that Ireland signed up for Partnership for Peace. yet despite there being much protests over the latter, because of this controversial budget, the P4P story received little or no coverage.

dlofnep

omahaid wrote: »

It would appear that you completely missed my point so I will try and explain it.

Actually, I didn't. You attempted to assert that there are sufficient jobs available.

omahaid wrote: »

If lone parents with children over 13 cannot find jobs and they are being paid maintenance from the absent parent and they still cannot make ends meet then the state should consider assisting them.

If they cannot make ends meet, the state should consider assisting them?

omahaid wrote: »

However, if like you, their excuse is "there are zero jobs" then I would scrutinize their situation.

It's not an excuse. Let me break it down for you how this all works.

2007 - Unemployment rate, 4.5%.

2009-2010 - Businesses closing across the country. Jobs lost on a mass scale (2000 in Dell for example). Unemployment rate shoots up to 13.4%.

What this means is that, there are far less jobs - and the minimal jobs that are available are extremely competitive. This means, that work is much more difficult to obtain. Ever see someone with a masters degree, flipping burgers at McDonalds? That's how competitive the environment is.

The reality of the matter is, there is insufficient work available. You can scrutinize whatever you want, but it's not going to change that reality.

omahaid wrote: »

As I already mentioned I believe both the state AND the lone parent have a responsibility of ensuring the absent parent provide adequate maintenance.

Two assumptions you've made.

• That the other parent has work. (Remember, 13.4%)
• That the other parent hasn't jumped ship.

omahaid wrote: »

I hope this makes my point clearer.

No, it makes it even more ridiculous.

brianthebard

gurramok wrote: »

You are not the typical case, 30 yrs together and then separation is not the section of single parents have I distaste for.

I am talking about the career single mothers who are quite some number who blatantly drain the system.

There's no typical case, which you and the government don't seem to be able to grasp.

gurramok

brianthebard wrote: »

There's no typical case, which you and the government don't seem to be able to grasp.

Yes there is. Tell me, why should a 'single' mother stop having kids when she has the following benefits PER WEEK?

No. Of Children / Payment

1 / €225.80
2 / €255.60
3 / €285.40
4 / €315.20
5 / €345.00

Plus Rent Supplement of 1100 per month in the Dublin area. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/supplementary-welfare-schemes/rent_supplement

Plus medical card.

Why on earth should she work with all this money and benefits?

Collie D

gurramok wrote: »

Yes there is.

Tell us what it is then.

wobblyknees

changes wrote: »

It doesn't just stop at that. They will be entitles to either rent allowance or a council house, medical cards, Family Income Supplement (if they are bring in less than €500 per week).

Also of the 90,000 people in reciept of OPFP how many of those are co-habiting, how many have lied about not knowing the father and are either living with him or getting money off him without the knowledge of the state.

Its quite possible for a single parent to have her first child and 18, and her last at 43 and live out her entire adult life at the states expense.

Its only right this whole farce of a set up is finally being tackled.

Firstly, you have hijacked the point I made. I don't agree with what you are saying.

Secondly, out of interest, do you have any facts or figures to back your statement? For example. You suggest that 90000 people are currently in receipt of the one parent family allowance. This is about 2% of the population. How many, as a % of this do you know, factually, are in receipt of these benefits, at the same time, as you seem to suggest is possible:

Job seekers/One parent family
Rent allowance or a council house
Medical cards
Family Income Supplement

dlofnep

gurramok - let's hear how much you feel they should get, and please quantify it with cost of living analysis per child.

gurramok

Collie D wrote: »

Tell us what it is then.

I did, careerists.

edellc

up for anything wrote: »

Find me one please that doesn't have four hundred desperate applicants. I'm willing to travel.

The government should be working their bollixes off to create employment and not just minimum wage employment. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic here but I'm fed up of them handing out my tax money that I have paid out over the years to prop up ailing banks with overpaid and bonused directors on one hand, and on the other then punishing me by cutting the benefit that I worked for all my life while 'demonising' me. PRSI is insurance to help you when you are in need. There is always condemnation and disgust when regular insurance companies try and swindle us on payouts but the government seems to get away with it.

I've been on social welfare now for six months and in my low moments, of which there are many, I have considered resorting to walking the ring road in search of casual employment in order to provide for my children. I don't see it as living on the pigs back but I may end up lying on my own back.

There are always so many 'I'm alright Jack' smug, self-satisfied posts on boards in relation to social welfare that I avoid these threads as a rule but I couldn't resist this one. I'm not usually a vindictive person but I hope all the posters on their moral high-horses come a cropper one of these days and maybe you'll see that any life choice can be a bad life choice when things go wrong. :mad:

I couldn't agree more with you I'm so sick of reading the smug posts about social welfare it does come down to our government or lack of it not one of them it seems have ever fallen on bad times yet its through their bad decision making (and obviously the greed of other nations) that we find ourselves in this situation
again the poorest get punished and the richest get a hand out it makes me sick
my sister is a lone parent she is in college studying while her little one is in school and i have never seen anyone work so hard to keep everything going its a very fine line people walk between just hanging in there and falling off
brian cowan and his cronies need a serious pay cut and need to stop the bail outs and focus on job creation rather than punishing people who helped build this country up in the good years

Ms. Captain M

gurramok wrote: »

Yes there is. Tell me, why should a 'single' mother stop having kids when she has the following benefits PER WEEK?

No. Of Children / Payment

1 / €225.80
2 / €255.60
3 / €285.40
4 / €315.20
5 / €345.00

Plus Rent Supplement of 1100 per month in the Dublin area. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/supplementary-welfare-schemes/rent_supplement

Plus medical card.

Why on earth should she work with all this money and benefits?

Because she wants to get back into the workforce? Because she wants a little bit of self esteem back? Because she wants to give her child more than a life of living off benefits? Because she's tired of being made to feel like she's a second class citizen? Or maybe all of the above.

NTMK

omahaid wrote: »

It would appear that you completely missed my point so I will try and explain it. If lone parents with children over 13 cannot find jobs and they are being paid maintenance from the absent parent and they still cannot make ends meet then the state should consider assisting them. However, if like you, their excuse is "there are zero jobs" then I would scrutinize their situation. As I already mentioned I believe both the state AND the lone parent have a responsibility of ensuring the absent parent provide adequate maintenance.

I hope this makes my point clearer.

The state do **** all for lone parents. its all well and good saying if they are being paid maintenance but alot are not and the state dont do a thing. My so called father owes the bones €120,000 in maintenance and all that can be done about it is a petty court order that states which is nothing more than an idle threat.

It should be assessed on a person by person basis and the scum that dont pay maintenance should be hunted down but knowing the corrupt half-wits that run this country it wont

gurramok

dlofnep wrote: »

gurramok - let's hear how much you feel they should get, and please quantify it with cost of living analysis per child.

Funny man. Since when did it cost a grand a month to raise 2 kids? Hint: they free accommodation.

Ms. Captain M wrote: »

Because she wants to get back into the workforce? Because she wants a little bit of self esteem back? Because she wants to give her child more than a life of living off benefits? Because she's tired of being made to feel like she's a second class citizen? Or maybe all of the above.

Eh no. In real life, money rules. The benefits as you can see are sky high. If she went to work full time and throw the kids into childcare, she would have to pay rent(900+ in Dublin) on her own and possibly a grand a month for childcare.

In other words, she'd have to land a top earning job salaried at 60k+ to make it worthwhile working. And the careerists who have a partner 'living on the quiet' with them will never get married as they would lose everything.

Mardy Bum

Ireland is one of the best countries in the world in terms of benefits per capita. Try heading somewhere else for a better life if you think this is bad.

wobblyknees

Ms. Captain M wrote: »

Because she wants to get back into the workforce? Because she wants a little bit of self esteem back? Because she wants to give her child more than a life of living off benefits? Because she's tired of being made to feel like she's a second class citizen? Or maybe all of the above.

Or to put it another way, people seem to think a single mother receives rent allowance and heads off to a party. The rent allowance is there to help provide those in need with accomodation. It's either that or offer council housing. It's the same thing. After this the facts are a single mother with one child will receive €228 a week. If she was to go out and work a 37.5 hour week it would be the equivalent of earning €6 an hour. You tell me how on earth this provides for in any way a comfortable life. It doesn't. As I said, there will be some who need to be helped and pushed to get back to work, if it's available, but in the main, I firmly believe most in need want to be able to help themselves and provide for their own children.

I honestly wonder what kind of Ireland some people want to live in.

Collie D

gurramok wrote: »

I did, careerists.

By typical I am assuming you mean the majority? That the majority of Ireland's single mothers intentionally get pregnant to claim cash from the social? As a way of setting themselves up for life? Kevin Myers springs to mind.

dlofnep

gurramok wrote: »

Funny man. Since when did it cost a grand a month to raise 2 kids? Hint: they free accommodation.

Why don't you tell us how much it costs to keep two children?

nicola09

I agree with this, because I don't know what kind of places you are all from but in my town a lot of girls my age (19) and younger have babies and are living the high life...!:rolleyes: They mostly live at home so don't pay rent and don't pay for childcare either as their own parents look after the child if needed. I know some of these girls personally, so this isn't speculation. I think there is a difference between a "single mother" such as these girls who have the full support of their own parents and a "lone parent" which I certainly wouldn't classify these girls as, especially as half the time they are still in a relationship with the father, just not in the eyes of the state (but thats another story)! I might seem cynical but it is frustrating when you see girls who were in your class at school driving around in new cars, going off on holidays all the time and going out every weekend just because they got pregnant so young. I don't think a genuine lone parent could live that kind of life, as they genuinely do have to do everything for themselves.

The part I disagree with is the age; 13 seems a strange choice as from my own experience being in secondary school is a more expensive time than primary school, and going to college even more so. Babies aren't that expensive, there is no way a 6 month old baby has the same needs as a 16 year old! I think if the government truly does want to stamp out the poverty trap, they should ensure that children from single income families can afford to get a good secondary education and go on to college, it would surely be more difficult for a lone parent to afford this especially when the allowance is cut from age 13 up. I think they should cut/reduce from age 3-13, because there is already a free year at pre-school at age 3 and then the child would be going to school at age 4-5 anyway, which would allow the parent free time from 9-3 five days a week, surely this (under normal circumstances) would be a window to get back into the workforce if they so wished?

gurramok

Collie D wrote: »

By typical I am assuming you mean the majority? That the majority of Ireland's single mothers intentionally get pregnant to claim cash from the social? As a way of setting themselves up for life? Kevin Myers springs to mind.

Ah yes, the majority of 90,000 single mothers have intentionally fallen on hard times through desertation/widowing, pull the other one. And no, i'm not that Kevin Myers character, i'm a working man sick of the system been abused.

dlofnep wrote: »

Why don't you tell us how much it costs to keep two children?

Eh lets see. Two of the biggest costs are accommodation & medical bills which are free. What does that leave, education and food?

You honestly saying it costs 1,000 euro to raise 2 children a month??:eek:

Collie D

gurramok wrote: »

Ah yes, the majority of 90,000 single mothers have intentionally fallen on hard times through desertation/widowing, pull the other one.

That doesn't fit in with the point you're making but I know what you're saying. I never said that...but it's ironic you tell me to pull the other one when your own idea of a "typical" single mother is somebody breeding for profit.

mikom

gurramok wrote: »

Eh lets see. Two of the biggest costs are accommodation & medical bills which are free. What does that leave, education and food?

You honestly saying it costs 1,000 euro to raise 2 children a month??:eek:

That's a lot when you say it like that.

Ms. Captain M

gurramok wrote: »

Funny man. Since when did it cost a grand a month to raise 2 kids? Hint: they free accommodation.



Eh no. In real life, money rules. The benefits as you can see are sky high. If she went to work full time and throw the kids into childcare, she would have to pay rent(900+ in Dublin) on her own and possibly a grand a month for childcare.

In other words, she'd have to land a top earning job salaried at 60k+ to make it worthwhile working. And the careerists who have a partner 'living on the quiet' with them will never get married as they would lose everything.

Well those were my reasons. But then I suppose you'll say I'm not a "typical case" either