Single parents to lose welfare payment when child turns 13

Offy

ntlbell wrote: »

I would suggest a huge amount of them are living with their partner enjoying the cheap rent and the flat screen tv while watching sky sports!!

This single parent is the father, he does have a 42" tv, cheap rent and social welfare but his wife is dead. Perhaps you would like to suggest I planned her death to get social welfare. Not every single parent is a scammer ntlbell. Thankfully I can block you and not have to read your hate filled posts anymore

Mike 1972

Dublenguy wrote: »

Some people are milking the state and playing the system for a easy life,.

Unfortunately not everyone can be a banker/developer/property speculator

Collie D

nicola09 wrote: »

lol I actually got 99% in English in my Leaving cert but that is beside the point! :rolleyes:

Completely off topic but how do you know your exact score?

Don't they still grade it as
A1 90-100%
A2 85-89...ETC?

Ms.Odgeynist

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

OMG!!

That's 18,000 people on this little island taking the p*ss. :eek: Taking YOUR money.




Sorry, 17,999 coz I'm honest. It's a lonely road...

Think hard and slow. OK - 90,000 and then 90,000 again gives us.........?

Jeanxx

Just my two cents on this debate.

To be honest some people on here have their mind's so made up about lone-parents that they're never going to agree with what anyone says. That goes for both sides of the argument.

Personally I find some people on the board to be so smug because they're paying taxes. That's brilliant, pat on the back there. I work, I go to college & I do volunteer work. Where's my medal?! Funnily enough I don't want one.

Yeah some people are a drain on the economy. The type of voluntary work I do involves me seeing some of the worst area's of Dublin where a lot of these 'spongers' live. Some of them are dare I say it... decent & not all stereotypes. :eek: :rolleyes:

You can't tar everyone to the same stick. Yeah there are some career single mothers, then there aren't. People can be propelled into situations not by choice. Some people do it with their eyes not quite so open.

Think of the government, the guys in Leinster House who essentially started this debate... They're ROLLING in it not the 'single mother who lives in Darndale with 3 kids from different fathers'. Yeah they may not be working but why do people who have jobs and are as smug as f**k get so wound up about this?! Haven't you got other things to be worrying about?!

Believe me I used to work in Mothercare & I saw the exact type of single parents some people in here are talking about & ya know what? I didn't moan or complain about it. I worried about real issues in my life & the world...

Again like I said at the start, that's just my two cents.

mikom

Collie D wrote: »

Completely off topic but how do you know your exact score?

Don't they still grade it as
A1 90-100%
A2 85-89...ETC?

Think some of the mocks release the exact figure.

TequilaMockingBird

Offy wrote: »

This single parent is the father, he does have a 42" tv, cheap rent and social welfare but his wife is dead. Perhaps you would like to suggest I planned her death to get social welfare. Not every single parent is a scammer ntlbell. Thankfully I can block you and not have to read your hate filled posts anymore

Sorry, and best of luck.

TequilaMockingBird

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Think hard and slow. OK - 90,000 and then 90,000 again gives us.........?

****e.

My mother was too busy WORKING to teach me.. ?

gurramok

Offy wrote: »

This single parent is the father, he does have a 42" tv, cheap rent and social welfare but his wife is dead. Perhaps you would like to suggest I planned her death to get social welfare. Not every single parent is a scammer ntlbell. Thankfully I can block you and not have to read your hate filled posts anymore

One or was it two on this thread have genuine entitlement. Are you seriously suggesting the rest of the 90,000 have either been bereaved or genuinely deserted?

nicola09

nicola09 wrote: »

lol I actually got 99% in English in my Leaving cert but that is beside the point! :rolleyes:

I'm wondering why on earth you responded with "rape" to that lady who was responsible enough not to get pregnant when she couldn't afford to pay for a child! I think if the government succeed in getting this bill into law then it might make the younger generation think twice about getting pregnant at a young age with no qualifications or job..!

+1

Isn't it very, very strange that in countries where there is little social welfare available to teenage and single mothers, there are very few of them? I used to live in Spain and the attitude towards sex and contraception is totally different. There isn't that mentality that the 'state' is going to look after you. I am not suggesting that many single mothers are genuinely in need through no fault of their own, but there is DEFINITELY an enormous sense of entitlement in this country. People are not responsible because they have the idea that there's always a back up to help them out.

nicola09

Collie D wrote: »

Completely off topic but how do you know your exact score?

Don't they still grade it as
A1 90-100%
A2 85-89...ETC?

You can view your transcripts, I went to look at my maths paper so I said I may as well look at the others! They need to give percentages for the awards and stuff. The winner of the English award got 99.5% lol.

Back on topic, I actually think it is unlikely that this bill will survive the Dail debates on it so I don't think it will actually succeed, look at what the opposition are saying already, "blunt and brutal", alliteration always gets you into the newspaper!

Ms.Odgeynist

Oh - you were home schooled? Interesting!

Offy

gurramok wrote: »

One or was it two on this thread have genuine entitlement. Are you seriously suggesting the rest of the 90,000 have either been bereaved or genuinely deserted?

No Im not suggesting that at all. What I am stating is that not all single parents are scammers AND there are a lot more that the one or two you suggest.

Collie D

gurramok wrote: »

One or was it two on this thread have genuine entitlement. Are you seriously suggesting the rest of the 90,000 have either been bereaved or genuinely deserted?

Are you seriously suggesting the other 89,998 haven't?

Collie D

nicola09 wrote: »

You can view your transcripts, I went to look at my maths paper so I said I may as well look at the others!

Fair enough

nicola09

[quote=[Deleted User];66129339]+1

Isn't it very, very strange that in countries where there is little social welfare available to teenage and single mothers, there are very few of them? I used to live in Spain and the attitude towards sex and contraception is totally different. There isn't that mentality that the 'state' is going to look after you. I am not suggesting that many single mothers are genuinely in need through no fault of their own, but there is DEFINITELY an enormous sense of entitlement in this country. People are not responsible because they have the idea that there's always a back up to help them out.[/QUOTE]

Completely agree, births outside marriage now account for half of all births. I'm not for one minute suggesting that other social factors do not add to this (decline of religion, fall in popularity of marriage etc) but I think it is a massive coincedence when the rates of social welfare paid to single parents have risen sharply in the last decade, especially compared to our European counterparts!

gurramok

Collie D wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting the other 89,998 haven't?

No. A majority of the 90,000 is defined as 45,001 recipients. I believe the majority are scammers, legally and illegally.

TequilaMockingBird

I can't believe anyone thinks that a massive amount of people are having babies for MONEY!

They cost a fortune, more than any SW payments will ever cover, your life is never the same again, and they are bloody hard work.

changes

Offy wrote: »

Lets punish every single parent because of the few bad apples, ya lets tar everyone with the same brush.

Not at all, but that does not mean that we continue with things as they are. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of government to give money where it is genuinely needed and fish out the scammers and fraudsters.

As nicola09 says we all know of people who are still living at home getting OPFP and earning up to 425 per week, or are living with a partner behind the states back and claiming all benefits available.

The state is failing if its better to spend 22 years on benefits than to go out and work after the child is at an age where they can come in from school and make themselves a slice of toast and watch TV till the mother gets home an hour or so later (i.e. at 13).

Jeanxx

gurramok wrote: »

No. A majority of the 90,000 is defined as 45,001 recipients. I believe the majority are scammers, legally and illegally.

Do you know a lot of these single-parent's yourself? Where are you getting this information from? Yeah I get they're your belief's but I'm just wondering what they are essentially based on.

ntlbell

Collie D wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting the other 89,998 haven't?

Why is a very simple basic concept seem to fail you?

We know not everyone is scamming.

We know some are.

Regardless of scamming or not, the payment is too large and as a country we cannot afford to sustain the levels of payment for OPF or any of the other benifits.

You're good with this part right?

Now if there's one person scamming, it's one person too many we good on this yea?

Because i'm really failing to see what point you have you just seem to randomly disagree with points but without failing to make one

can you clear up your stance on this matter or stop randonly butting it in with complete and utter nonsense

gurramok

Jeanxx wrote: »

Do you know a lot of these single-parent's yourself? Where are you getting this information from? Yeah I get they're your belief's but I'm just wondering what they are essentially based on.

Yes, a few as friends and friends of friends. They're everywhere in every city, town and village. There is nothing to stop an 18yrold girl having kids until she is out of child bearing age, having never worked and always receive her high 'entitlements' whether her partner is living with her or not.

Ms.Odgeynist

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I can't believe anyone thinks that a massive amount of people are having babies for MONEY!

They cost a fortune, more than any SW payments will ever cover, your life is never the same again, and they are bloody hard work.

The money; the identity that comes with it; the perception of themselves as having a role in life; feeling grown up; bumped up the housing list; a focus for the emotions that have as yet found a healthy outlet. There are lots of reasons why a dysfunctional young person might decide to get pregnant. Maybe calling it money is over simplifying it.

nicola09

In general, I think this is an area where the problems of having a 86% male Dail become glaringly obvious. If we had more women in power, then they could change the system to reflect what single parents actually want. I don't have children myself obviously but when I imagine what I would want if I had the misfortune of becoming a single mother at 19 (and we need to start seeing it as a bad thing!!) then I would want an adequete state-run childcare system so I could get a decent job/continue my degree, not for the government to mindlessly throw money at me until the child reaches 22!

brianthebard

gurramok wrote: »

They are legally scamming it by their huge entitlements.

Legally scamming, I've heard it all now. Decided to leave all doubt out of it and just let everyone see your bigotry and disdain for those less fortunate than you have you? Must have been hard to keep the façade up this long.

Mike 1972

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I can't believe anyone thinks that a massive amount of people are having babies for MONEY!

They cost a fortune, more than any SW payments will ever cover, your life is never the same again, and they are bloody hard work.

Yeah but they give you a really cool TV and whats more its got this great screen thats really flat :rolleyes:

Collie D

ntlbell wrote: »

Why is a very simple basic concept seem to fail you?

We know not everyone is scamming.

We know some are.

Regardless of scamming or not, the payment is too large and as a country we cannot afford to sustain the levels of payment for OPF or any of the other benifits.

You're good with this part right?

Now if there's one person scamming, it's one person too many we good on this yea?

Because i'm really failing to see what point you have you just seem to randomly disagree with points but without failing to make one

can you clear up your stance on this matter or stop randonly butting it in with complete and utter nonsense

Don't patronise me please. It's one thing I won't tolerate from anybody and I wouldn't stoop to do it to you. We're both intelligent literate adults so please treat me like one, thanks.

Both yourself and gurramok have stated numerous times that the majority of single parents are getting pregnant to make a living. I disagree with this. I have said previous times that I think this opinion is complete and utter crap to put it bluntly. I have made no comments on how much is being paid. I'm no economics expert to I won't go there. I'm here because I find the single mother bashing quite irritating. Now which part do you find "complete and utter nonsense"?

Ms.Odgeynist

Mass sterilization is the future! Everyone temporarily sterilized at birth. When two people decide they would like to have a baby, they can then apply to the department of family planning to have the procedure reversed. Providing of course they both pass the psychometric test. Dun-dun-dun!!! Big Brother is on his way

mikom

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Yeah but they give you a really cool TV and whats more its got this great screen thats really flat :rolleyes:

Perfect for watching Supernanny on......

ntlbell

brianthebard wrote: »

Legally scamming, I've heard it all now. Decided to leave all doubt out of it and just let everyone see your bigotry and disdain for those less fortunate than you have you? Must have been hard to keep the façade up this long.

Your another one, randomly popping in with some nonsense.

Can you add something useful to the debate, what would you like to see done?

how much do you think it costs to raise a child?

how much do you think they should receive?

and less crap talk

Collie D

nicola09 wrote: »

In general, I think this is an area where the problems of having a 86% male Dail become glaringly obvious. If we had more women in power,

Oh, FFS...what?

Ms.Odgeynist

nicola09 wrote: »

In general, I think this is an area where the problems of having a 86% male Dail become glaringly obvious. If we had more women in power, then they could change the system to reflect what single parents actually want. I don't have children myself obviously but when I imagine what I would want if I had the misfortune of becoming a single mother at 19 (and we need to start seeing it as a bad thing!!) then I would want an adequete state-run childcare system so I could get a decent job/continue my degree, not for the government to mindlessly throw money at me until the child reaches 22!

Well, you really are an intellectual. You think a government would be more equipped to handle this crisis due to similar genitalia!!!!
Why didn't we think of it before.
By the way - your opinion sums up the feminist thrash that pollutes public discourse on a regular basis. The Dail is elected. By women and men

brianthebard

ntlbell wrote: »

Your another one, randomly popping in with some nonsense.

Can you add something useful to the debate, what would you like to see done?

how much do you think it costs to raise a child?

how much do you think they should receive?

and less crap talk

Randomly popping in? Should I have been allocated debating times. What nonsense.
I think it costs a fecking lot to raise a child, which you don't seem to grasp.

Jeanxx

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, a few as friends and friends of friends. They're everywhere in every city, town and village. There is nothing to stop an 18yrold girl having kids until she is out of child bearing age, having never worked and always receive her high 'entitlements' whether her partner is living with her or not.

Of course not, I agree.

You see (& this isn't aimed at just you) I can talk about the whole single-parent situation from many valid perspectives.

Personally because my mother is a single-parent. Theologically, psychologically and from a social/law perspective as I'm involved in the study &/or involved of all of these.

So I ask the people who are staunch opposers to lone-parents, can you totally 'rip apart' single parents based on anything valid or just an uneducated opinion?

I'm not tearing anyone down, everyone is entitled to their own opinion however educated or uneducated. I'm just wondering.

mikom

brianthebard wrote: »

I think it costs a fecking lot to raise a child, which you don't seem to grasp.

I think she is rearing one.

nicola09

Collie D wrote: »

Oh, FFS...what?

What part of it did you not understand? Or did you just read far enough to make that quote?

I said we have a situation where our parliament with a male majority is attempting to ascertain what single parents (of whom the majority of women) actually want, i.e. decent childcare. If you read back through this thread you will see that the one thing all the single parents are describing as a crippling cost is childcare!

Ramirez

Join No more Social Welfare cuts on Facebook.com. Time the younger members of society exercised their Democratic rights.

ntlbell

Collie D wrote: »

Don't patronise me please. It's one thing I won't tolerate from anybody and I wouldn't stoop to do it to you. We're both intelligent literate adults so please treat me like one, thanks.

Both yourself and gurramok have stated numerous times that the majority of single parents are getting pregnant to make a living. I disagree with this. I have said previous times that I think this opinion is complete and utter crap to put it bluntly. I have made no comments on how much is being paid. I'm no economics expert to I won't go there. I'm here because I find the single mother bashing quite irritating. Now which part do you find "complete and utter nonsense"?

You can disagree on the majority, because i don't have any figures on it and nor do you, so I'll agree to re-tract my "majority" statement to "some"

I'm not bashing anyone, I'm trying to point out why it needs to be reduced and maybe offer some alternatives ways to spend the money than keeping people in a relatively comfortable lifestyle with no encouragement to get out and work

now there will be individual cases that will have some non "typical" situation and most will have their excuses, but the system needs to change the hand outs need to be reduced, not just for OPF but for everything. I'm assuming if there's no single parent bashing (which i might be, you never asked) are we agreed that the payment is too high, if not, what do you think is a reasonable weekly support for single parents?

Ms.Odgeynist

Jeanxx wrote: »

Theologically, psychologically and from a social/law perspective as I'm involved in the study &/or involved of all of these.

WTF does that mean? You sure you've ever studied.....anything?

Pretty sure if you'd studied the back of a cereal box you'd be able to muster something more coherent than that!

ntlbell

brianthebard wrote: »

Randomly popping in? Should I have been allocated debating times. What nonsense.
I think it costs a fecking lot to raise a child, which you don't seem to grasp.

Well as a father I have a very good grasp on how much it costs.

Can you tell us how much you think it costs per week?

Collie D

nicola09 wrote: »

What part of it did you not understand? Or did you just read far enough to make that quote?

I said we have a situation where our parliament with a male majority is attempting to ascertain what single parents (of whom the majority of women) actually want, i.e. decent childcare. If you read back through this thread you will see that the one thing all the single parents are describing as a crippling cost is childcare!

No I read the lot but the piece I quoted summed it up to be honest. Probably the least intelligent statement I have heard in a long time. If you want elect a TD because she's not a man, go ahead and waste your vote. I'll give my vote to whichever candidate appeals me, regardless of their possesion or lack of a penis.

Demonon

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I can't believe anyone thinks that a massive amount of people are having babies for MONEY!

They cost a fortune, more than any SW payments will ever cover, your life is never the same again, and they are bloody hard work.

They don't cost more than the payouts handed to the parent(s) by the state. Example:

Single mother with 3 children:

LPA = €285.40 / week
Child benefit = €487 / month
Early childcare supplement (say 2 of the children are under 5) = €83 / month
Rent supplement = (1 single parent with 3 children) = max rate of €1110 / month
Medical card = ? hard to gauge an exact value to the state but it is still money moving from the state into private doctors on behalf of the lone parent

All that adds up to €2917 / month or a yearly salary of €35,006 which actually equates to a pre-tax "salary" for a working person of roughly €42,000.

The simple fact is, with that sort of system in place , it encourages a lifestyle dependent on the state. As someone already mentioned, the number of lone parents in Spain is very low in comparison to ours. I have lived in Germany and that is another good example. 65% of mothers there are in employment. Germany are one of the most powerful nations on earth and will continue to be because their social policies encourage people to educate themselves and gain employment, and not become dependent on the state. The standard of life in Germany (healthcare, education, transport, police, etc) is brilliant and would put Ireland to shame. If the single mothers there were given €35,000/year , what incentive would they have to educate themselves and look for employment when it would probably mean actually taking a pay cut.

gurramok

brianthebard wrote: »

Legally scamming, I've heard it all now. Decided to leave all doubt out of it and just let everyone see your bigotry and disdain for those less fortunate than you have you? Must have been hard to keep the façade up this long.

Oh we have it now, its called bigotry to oppose welfare abuse.

You have some cheek calling me 'more fortunate' pal. I grew up in a sh1thole area of Finglas where I have seen nasty things growing up.

I worked hard to get out of there. I did not touch drugs nor did I go on the dole for a career.

Jeanxx wrote:

So I ask the people who are staunch opposers to lone-parents, can you totally 'rip apart' single parents based on anything valid or just an uneducated opinion?

We live with them in our communities while we work and we see it every day and we know what their huge entitlements are.

Read my posts on how much money they get. Based on the amount of kids they have, they can earn alot more net pay than your average worker gets.

Jeanxx

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

WTF does that mean? You sure you've ever studied.....anything?

Pretty sure if you'd studied the back of a cereal box you'd be able to muster something more coherent than that!

Hold on... I'm going to make this clear for ya because you seem to have problems with what I've just said. I go to college, I study Theology & Psychology... That's what I meant?!

& you're a bit off topic, what does your post have to do with lone parents?

nicola09

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Well, you really are an intellectual. You think a government would be more equipped to handle this crisis due to similar genitalia!!!!
Why didn't we think of it before.
By the way - your opinion sums up the feminist thrash that pollutes public discourse on a regular basis. The Dail is elected. By women and men

Yes but people can only vote on who the parties put forward as candidates. The parties put forward more men than women. I think that representative democracy cannot really be representative if half of the population isn't represented!
By the way the key word here is "opinion", I am entitled to believe that issues such as the provision of state run pre-schools would be dealt with more quickly if more women were in government, just as you are of the opinion that everyone should be sterilised if they happen to be working class...! I'm against teenage mothers milking the system as much as the next person but I think that idea was abandoned along with eugenics..!:rolleyes:

MagicMarker

[quote=[Deleted User];66128662]How odd then that I was left to mind my siblings from the age of 12 with not a bit of bother.[/QUOTE]

I was left home along long before I turned 10, and hey presto I'm still alive! That must mean all children under 10 can look after themselves. So why don't we save a bit more money and cut SPA when a child turns 8?

I think the parent is the best person to decide when the child can be left alone all day/night. Not the government.

Ms.Odgeynist

Jeanxx wrote: »

Hold on... I'm going to make this clear for ya because you seem to have problems with what I've just said. I go to college, I study Theology & Psychology... That's what I meant?!

& you're a bit off topic, what does your post have to do with lone parents?

What does theology have to do with anything? The mind boggles that it is still being taught!

ntlbell

Jeanxx wrote: »

Of course not, I agree.

You see (& this isn't aimed at just you) I can talk about the whole single-parent situation from many valid perspectives.

Personally because my mother is a single-parent. Theologically, psychologically and from a social/law perspective as I'm involved in the study &/or involved of all of these.

So I ask the people who are staunch opposers to lone-parents, can you totally 'rip apart' single parents based on anything valid or just an uneducated opinion?

I'm not tearing anyone down, everyone is entitled to their own opinion however educated or uneducated. I'm just wondering.

wut?

No one is against lone parents, their against the huge payments paid to them?

ntlbell

MagicMarker wrote: »

I was left home along long before I turned 10, and hey presto I'm still alive! That must mean all children under 10 can look after themselves. So why don't we save a bit more money and cut SPA when a child turns 8?

I think the parent is the best person to decide when the child can be left alone all day/night. Not the government.

and the parent can decide.

Jeanxx

gurramok wrote: »

We live with them in our communities while we work and we see it every day and we know what their huge entitlements are.

Read my posts on how much money they get. Based on the amount of kids they have, they can earn alot more net pay than your average worker gets.

I know it's your opinion & I can see where people are coming from but why are you so against single parent's getting social welfare payments? Why is it something that bothers you & others so much? Like I said I work, it's not something that bothers me & that's my personal opinion. I don't weep over my payslip when I see the tax.