Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Changes to lone parent payment proposed
Options
Comments
-
I know of a girl who recently had a baby. She is single but on/off (suits her better to be off). She has just been given a spang new apartment for free (ok very little rent) and 2,000euro to 'furnish' it. And the idiot is boasting about it on facebook.
So for girls like her,i think this new bill is a good thing and it will stop encouraging other girls to get pregnant with the view to getting such an apartment with LPA.
Of course i am not saying other single parents are like this or receive such luxuries,far from it. But it does happen and something needs to be done. It is ridiculous it goes on.
That doesn't just apply to single parents.
Anyone on welfare/in need of housing can go on a list for council housing. Anyone not working and renting privately can get rent allowance etc etc etc.
Grand if you think it's ridiculous, then suggest cutting it across the board. But as usual, the single parents are the ones with the bullseye on their back.0 -
I actually wish they'd cut the age limit to 5 not 13, its time to end the bleeding heart, do gooder mentality that exists towards people who have never worked in this country, stop giving houses to single mums under 30 and make them live at home with their parents, there's too much of a dependency culture in a lot of working class areas amongst a significant minority who live in council estates.
Its time for self sufficiency not dependency.0 -
That doesn't just apply to single parents.
Anyone on welfare/in need of housing can go on a list for council housing. Anyone not working and renting privately can get rent allowance etc etc etc.
Grand if you think it's ridiculous, then suggest cutting it across the board. But as usual, the single parents are the ones with the bullseye on their back.
The thread is about lone parents.0 -
The thread is about lone parents.
Yep and a cut that is being applied to them exclusively.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Indeed it is. So lets address the attitude that so many "young girls have babies to get a council house" BS.
Because the fact is that these "young girls" who get pregnant "to get houses", would get them, babies or no babies.
As I've said previously all single parents under 30 should live at home with their own parents, it wouls stop some young working class girls deliberately becoming pregnant simply to get a heavily subsidized house off the state.0 -
Indeed it is. So lets address the attitude that so many "young girls have babies to get a council house" BS.
Because the fact is that these "young girls" who get pregnant "to get houses", would get them, babies or no babies.
I personally think the above is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
If you want to discuss career mothers and council house BS, I suggest you start a thread on the topic so we can continue to discuss the OPFA in this one.
I'm no mod tho.0 -
Sorry guys,that is my fault for going off topic. I just gave an example of someone who will now have no choice but to work when her child is 13, who has been free riding til now. (literally,lol :eek:)0
-
Some will see it like that, some will see it as an opportunity to give their child some trust and responsibility.
Others will find alternative soloutions
and some will just complain about why they can't do A and why they can't do B and why doesn't the government do this for me and why doesn't the government do that for me.
Same as most things really.
well yes, the government has certain responsibilities towards our children, and no one likes seeing them trying to shirk those responsibilities. And then trying to put the blame for the resulting problems at the parents' door (as will undoubtedly happen - just wait for it).
how will the parent not being there help a child's 'trust and responsibility'? What alternative solutions can there be - should the children be offloaded onto relatives? Friends? Is that fair?
You are trying very hard to find a silver lining on a large grey cloud, but that silver lining does not exist.0 -
Advertisement
-
I know of a girl who recently had a baby. She is single but on/off (suits her better to be off). She has just been given a spang new apartment for free (ok very little rent) and 2,000euro to 'furnish' it. And the idiot is boasting about it on facebook.
So for girls like her,i think this new bill is a good thing and it will stop encouraging other girls to get pregnant with the view to getting such an apartment with LPA.
Of course i am not saying other single parents are like this or receive such luxuries,far from it. But it does happen and something needs to be done. It is ridiculous it goes on.
She is a mother, one of the most sacred things in our society. And bringing up a child is a job. So let's give people some bloody respect for doing that job.
I'd rather that girl gets the money than some rich barsteward or some white elephant project. You think that if those benefits are taken away you and me will see any of them in tax cuts? Dream on. The money will just disappear in the system.0 -
She is a mother, one of the most sacred things in our society. And bringing up a child is a job. So let's give people some bloody respect for doing that job.
I'd rather that girl gets the money than some rich barsteward or some white elephant project. You think that if those benefits are taken away you and me will see any of them in tax cuts? Dream on. The money will just disappear in the system.
She should live at home with her parents, In Italy as far as I'm aware it is government policy to encourage single parents to live at home with their parents, as a result there is a higher percentage of single parents working and less welfare junkies amongst single parents.0 -
rightwingdub wrote: »As I've said previously all single parents under 30 should live at home with their own parents, it wouls stop some young working class girls deliberately becoming pregnant simply to get a heavily subsidized house off the state.
why should their parents have to keep them until they are 30?
Is this another case of the government shirking responsibility for the future generation? Trying to pass it on to someone else?
I can see the scenario here. Mothers are unable to parent their kids when they are older than 13, leaving them open to all sorts of outside influences. If they get pregnant as a result then the parents will have to provide housing for them for the next 17 years!
So on one hand your ability to bring your children up is affected by having to work, and then you are punished for the resulting problems in bringing your children up! It's just staggering that this can go on in a civilised country...0 -
well yes, the government has certain responsibilities towards our children, and no one likes seeing them trying to shirk those responsibilities. And then trying to put the blame for the resulting problems at the parents' door (as will undoubtedly happen - just wait for it).
how will the parent not being there help a child's 'trust and responsibility'? What alternative solutions can there be - should the children be offloaded onto relatives? Friends? Is that fair?
You are trying very hard to find a silver lining on a large grey cloud, but that silver lining does not exist.
How will the government put the blame at the door of the parents, I really don't get this?
There is anti social behavior in many parts of the country from various age groups from various backgrounds who have parents at home and some who's parents are at work.
When does the government in the above cases ever put the blame anywhere? when does it ever do anything about it? so this argument is not really sinking in with me.
The child is 13 for one set of holidays, one, they're 13 once, there's 13 years of parenthood before this time comes. If they're going to go off the rails because they're parent is working during one set of holidays then really, There is bigger issues to worry about than one losing their OPFA.
You're trusting them to look after themselves for a few hours a day for a few weeks, to be responsible for themselves. That they know you don't think they'll burn the house down or become a heroin addict if left alone for a few hours.
Depending on your circumstances the money you earn etc, you may well be able to afford child care during this time, maybe you can get a part time job when they start primary school and you know, save, some financial planning.
As I said before, some people won't be able to help themselves and will moan and groan, others will find solutions and alternatives. It's the difference between the doer's and the do it for Me's0 -
She should be encouraged to educate herself and become employed. This will not be achieved by providing her with luxury FREE housing.
Yes being a mother is a job but doesn't the mother and the child both deserve a life outside and beyond welfare. Providing council housing and numerous benefits will only act as an incentive to this girl to remain on welfare. The new idea to cut this benefit will address this 'poverty trap'.
As i said at the start of this thread,parents who cannot find employment will be able to claim jobseekers benefit so i really don't see what all the fuss is about.0 -
why should their parents have to keep them until they are 30?
Is this another case of the government shirking responsibility for the future generation? Trying to pass it on to someone else?
I can see the scenario here. Mothers are unable to parent their kids when they are older than 13, leaving them open to all sorts of outside influences. If they get pregnant as a result then the parents will have to provide housing for them for the next 17 years!
So on one hand your ability to bring your children up is affected by having to work, and then you are punished for the resulting problems in bringing your children up! It's just staggering that this can go on in a civilised country...
No legislation is perfect but why should the state have to encourage a life of drudgery on state handouts, as I've said already It works in Italy, now how many 13 year old girls get pregnant in Ireland each year, very few I doubt it.0 -
why should their parents have to keep them until they are 30?
Is this another case of the government shirking responsibility for the future generation? Trying to pass it on to someone else?
I can see the scenario here. Mothers are unable to parent their kids when they are older than 13, leaving them open to all sorts of outside influences. If they get pregnant as a result then the parents will have to provide housing for them for the next 17 years!
So on one hand your ability to bring your children up is affected by having to work, and then you are punished for the resulting problems in bringing your children up! It's just staggering that this can go on in a civilised country...
Maybe so people who are out working earning a crust don't end up paying for other people's lifestyle choices?
I can't afford to have another child at the moment, I would love to. But I simply cannot afford to, and nor do I really fancy paying for every other tom, dick and harry to be having them either.
You seem to think it's the government and the tax payers responsibility to pay for their financial needs of other peoples children and their parents simply because they're parents.
Again, what is this "punishment" who is punishing people? I really have no idea what you're talking about with this0 -
rightwingdub wrote: »She should live at home with her parents, In Italy as far as I'm aware it is government policy to encourage single parents to live at home with their parents, as a result there is a higher percentage of single parents working and less welfare junkies amongst single parents.
How can they be working when there are no jobs around, when the unemloyment is so high?
Once again, it is wrong of a government to make parents take care of their children until they are 30. Wrong, and an example of the government passing responsibility onto someone else. Maybe instead of attacking women and children next time they should tighten up financial regulations so they won't have to bail out banks and waste many times the money that single parents ever cost this country...0 -
How can they be working when there are no jobs around, when the unemloyment is so high?
Once again, it is wrong of a government to make parents take care of their children until they are 30. Wrong, and an example of the government passing responsibility onto someone else. Maybe instead of attacking women and children next time they should tighten up financial regulations so they won't have to bail out banks and waste many times the money that single parents ever cost this country...
The grandparents aren't taking care of their children till they are 30, I know a couple of single parents who lived at home with their parents while their kids were aged between 1-5 respectively including an ex girlfriend of mine (I'm not the father of her child BTW), by doing this they were able to go out and work and able to provide financial support to their kids and able to build up their careers.
Your not going to change my views as I don't believe that the state should sponsor a life of drudgery sponging off the state with the likelihood that the kids will follow suit because the white trash single mom won't bother to better herself, sad but true It happens a lot in working class areas.
I know about the bankers everyone knows they are a disgrace, we are discussing the lone parent family payment, my auntie was a single parent in the late 70's-early 80's in England and she went out to work so don't expect any sympathy from me. The government should have reformed the welfare state years ago when there were plenty of jobs available but as usual the do gooders got in the way of meaningful reform.0 -
rightwingdub wrote: »The grandparents aren't taking care of their children till they are 30, I know a couple of single parents who lived at home with their parents while their kids were aged between 1-5 respectively including an ex girlfriend of mine (I'm not the father of her child BTW), by doing this they were able to go out and work and able to provide financial support to their kids and able to build up their careers.
Your not going to change my views as I don't believe that the state should sponsor a life of drudgery sponging off the state with the likelihood that the kids will follow suit because the white trash single mom won't bother to better herself, sad but true It happens a lot in working class areas.
I know about the bankers everyone knows they are a disgrace, we are discussing the lone parent family payment, my auntie was a single parent in the late 70's-early 80's in England and she went out to work so don't expect any sympathy from me. The government should have reformed the welfare state years ago when there were plenty of jobs available but as usual the do gooders got in the way of meaningful reform.
Yes that is true,the system should have been reformed years ago.0 -
Advertisement
-
How can they be working when there are no jobs around, when the unemloyment is so high?
Once again, it is wrong of a government to make parents take care of their children until they are 30. Wrong, and an example of the government passing responsibility onto someone else. Maybe instead of attacking women and children next time they should tighten up financial regulations so they won't have to bail out banks and waste many times the money that single parents ever cost this country...
There is jobs, there's a lot less jobs earning big doing nothing. But if you're willing to work there's jobs. Also, we're going through some re-adjustment, it won't last forever.
You're absoloutley right, it is wrong of a goverment to pass the repsonnibility to someone else THE PARENTS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBILE.
You're talking like we put guns to people head force them to have kids, then leave them out to dry :rolleyes:
I guess there's no room for personal accountability.0 -
Sorry guys,that is my fault for going off topic. I just gave an example of someone who will now have no choice but to work when her child is 13, who has been free riding til now. (literally,lol :eek:)
By the sounds of it, if the perks are that good, she'll just have another child before the first turns 13. This measure will not do much in that regard.rightwingdub wrote:Your not going to change my views as I don't believe that the state should sponsor a life of drudgery sponging off the state with the likelihood that the kids will follow suit because the white trash single mom won't bother to better herself, sad but true It happens a lot in working class areas.
Hopefully this measure may stop that, I doubt it though. Even if it does, you are still left with the other white trash as you so eloquently put it, the married couples who sponge of the state.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
How will the government put the blame at the door of the parents, I really don't get this?
There is anti social behavior in many parts of the country from various age groups from various backgrounds who have parents at home and some who's parents are at work.
When does the government in the above cases ever put the blame anywhere? when does it ever do anything about it? so this argument is not really sinking in with me.
The child is 13 for one set of holidays, one, they're 13 once, there's 13 years of parenthood before this time comes. If they're going to go off the rails because they're parent is working during one set of holidays then really, There is bigger issues to worry about than one losing their OPFA.
You're trusting them to look after themselves for a few hours a day for a few weeks, to be responsible for themselves. That they know you don't think they'll burn the house down or become a heroin addict if left alone for a few hours.
Depending on your circumstances the money you earn etc, you may well be able to afford child care during this time, maybe you can get a part time job when they start primary school and you know, save, some financial planning.
As I said before, some people won't be able to help themselves and will moan and groan, others will find solutions and alternatives. It's the difference between the doer's and the do it for Me's
sometimes there really aren't any 'solutions and alternatives'. I could equally say: some people will just turn round and let the powers that be have their way with them, and some will actually have the balls to stand up and fight for their rights.
But that's beside the point. The point being, we all know very well that when a child misbehaves in a serious way the blame is put at the parents' door...
Let's give an example: in the UK there's constant talk of parents being jailed if the child plays truant. It's probably the same in Ireland. But how can a lone parent ensure the child attends school if they have to earn their living?Maybe so people who are out working earning a crust don't end up paying for other people's lifestyle choices?
I can't afford to have another child at the moment, I would love to. But I simply cannot afford to, and nor do I really fancy paying for every other tom, dick and harry to be having them either.
You seem to think it's the government and the tax payers responsibility to pay for their financial needs of other peoples children and their parents simply because they're parents.
Again, what is this "punishment" who is punishing people? I really have no idea what you're talking about with this
our prime responsiblity is the children. If you cut money to single parents you hurt the children first and foremost...
and it's tragic that you can't afford another child, truly tragic. In a more fair society (like a Scandinavia country) you would have been able to using state help. Something else to fight for I guess...
plus, the money that goes to single mothers isn't paid by you: it's paid by the state. That's a key difference.There is jobs, there's a lot less jobs earning big doing nothing. But if you're willing to work there's jobs. Also, we're going through some re-adjustment, it won't last forever.
You're absoloutley right, it is wrong of a goverment to pass the repsonnibility to someone else THE PARENTS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBILE.
You're talking like we put guns to people head force them to have kids, then leave them out to dry
I guess there's no room for personal accountability.
what about government accountability? Why do they always try to pass the buck to individual people for what they should be doing (supporting people in need)?
there are 500k people unemployed. Surely we should make sure that all able-bodied people with no dependents, or with a full family get jobs before pushing single mum out to work?0 -
rightwingdub wrote: »No legislation is perfect but why should the state have to encourage a life of drudgery on state handouts, as I've said already It works in Italy, now how many 13 year old girls get pregnant in Ireland each year, very few I doubt it.
precisely: no legislation is perfect! So yes, whilst there are women who get pregnant just to milk the system, you cannot blame the rules for that: the rules are designed to help single mothers in genuine need. And they do that. The fact some people exploit them doesn't mean they are bad rules.
most single parents are not the 'get pregnant to get a house' type. We cannot abandon the many to stop the few.rightwingdub wrote: »The grandparents aren't taking care of their children till they are 30, I know a couple of single parents who lived at home with their parents while their kids were aged between 1-5 respectively including an ex girlfriend of mine (I'm not the father of her child BTW), by doing this they were able to go out and work and able to provide financial support to their kids and able to build up their careers.
Your not going to change my views as I don't believe that the state should sponsor a life of drudgery sponging off the state with the likelihood that the kids will follow suit because the white trash single mom won't bother to better herself, sad but true It happens a lot in working class areas.
I know about the bankers everyone knows they are a disgrace, we are discussing the lone parent family payment, my auntie was a single parent in the late 70's-early 80's in England and she went out to work so don't expect any sympathy from me. The government should have reformed the welfare state years ago when there were plenty of jobs available but as usual the do gooders got in the way of meaningful reform.
I am sorry, but it's any single woman's right to stay home with the child if she wishes to, because bringing up children is a full-time job. And I know there are many brainwashed people out there who think that we should hurt the most poor and vulnerable in our society just because we can, but this will just increase the gap between the rich and the poor, and hurt the country in the long run.
What you will get under this cut, and even more so under what you are suggesting, is poverty resulting in more poverty. What you will also get is parents being afraid to become single: staying in abusive relationships, staying in relationships for financial reasons - because welfare provision for them is not good enough. You suggest people moving to their parents: I suggest you read the personal issues forum and you will see plenty of stories of absolutely dreadful parents and of people being told to move out of the family home asap. Most importantly, you will hurt our children by this, through parental stress and through diminishing their opportunities in life, and that's the single most criminal thing that cutting welfare will accomplish.0 -
-
sometimes there really aren't any 'solutions and alternatives'. I could equally say: some people will just turn round and let the powers that be have their way with them, and some will actually have the balls to stand up and fight for their rights.
there's always an alternative, The majority will find one, the rest will complain. and "fight for their rights" and by fight I mean probably have a little moan at the local coffee morning or somethingBut that's beside the point. The point being, we all know very well that when a child misbehaves in a serious way the blame is put at the parents' door...
right, so it's in our interest to do our best to raise them to the best of our ability, I don't see how it's relevant to the OPFALet's give an example: in the UK there's constant talk of parents being jailed if the child plays truant. It's probably the same in Ireland. But how can a lone parent ensure the child attends school if they have to earn their living?
Constant "talk" right. so how many parents have been punished in an irish court so far for their kids misbehaving?our prime responsiblity is the children. If you cut money to single parents you hurt the children first and foremost...
No, it's the parents prime responsibility to financially support their children. not the tax payer.and it's tragic that you can't afford another child, truly tragic. In a more fair society (like a Scandinavia country) you would have been able to using state help. Something else to fight for I guess...
I don't want other hard workers of this country to pay for me to have kids, you don't seem to understand this. If I wanted to I could give up my job now and live of welfare have a few kids and at current pay levels live comfortably. Why would be a sponger not contribute to society and have other people pay for that? this is not about fighting for a right it's about personal responsibilityplus, the money that goes to single mothers isn't paid by you: it's paid by the state. That's a key difference.
It's paid by the tax payer. I am one.what about government accountability? Why do they always try to pass the buck to individual people for what they should be doing (supporting people in need)?
You mean why should people be accountable for their own lifestyle choices and be responisble to raise their own kids? do I really need to answer this?there are 500k people unemployed. Surely we should make sure that all able-bodied people with no dependents, or with a full family get jobs before pushing single mum out to work?
Why do you say single mums?
This is about single parents :rolleyes:0 -
Maybe, but the alternative might not necessarily be better.there's always an alternative
If a parent believes that their child needs them at home, even if it's part time, then it's relevant as taking away OPFA means taking away that choice.right, so it's in our interest to do our best to raise them to the best of our ability, I don't see how it's relevant to the OPFA
How many children have been taken into care? Gotten pregnant as teens? Left school early with no qualifications? Do you really believe that every single child who gets into trouble does so because their parents are not good parents? Because they spend their time in the pub?Constant "talk" right. so how many parents have been punished in an irish court so far for their kids misbehaving?
Many teenagers suffer from mental illnesses, personality disorders, educational problems etc.
Left to their own devices they may get themselves into serious trouble. If my daughter had problems at 13 and needed me, I'd pack in my job and go on welfare. No doubt about it.
If she were going off the rails I'd be on her back 24/7. I'd be driving her to school and collecting her. I'd handcuff myself to her if I had to.
I would do everything in the realms of possibility to make sure she didn't end up in serious trouble, that she got the help she needed and that she made something of her life. Most parents would.
Where possible. It's not always possible. That's why we pay PRSI. Because we live in a country where there IS a social welfare system in place. Most single parents are/were taxpayers.No, it's the parents prime responsibility to financially support their children. not the tax payer.
What about the ones working part time and claiming OPFA? They will end up having to pack in their part time jobs and go on JSA.
No provisions for them.
Again, see my point about single parents working part time. They aren't "spongers".want other hard workers of this country to pay for me to have kids, you don't seem to understand this. If I wanted to I could give up my job now and live of welfare have a few kids and at current pay levels live comfortably. Why would be a sponger not contribute to society and have other people pay for that? this is not about fighting for a right it's about personal responsibilityit's paid by the tax payer. I am one.
So are/were most single parents.0 -
Ah ash you can't really believe that it's ok for a parent of a teenager to receive OPFA just because they choose to stay at home with their 'child'?0
-
Ah ash you can't really believe that it's ok for a parent of a teenager to receive OPFA just because they choose to stay at home with their 'child'?
Yes I do, particularly if they are working part time.
I have seen kids from some of the best families go totally off the rails. I've seen families destroyed by drugs.
Are you telling me that if your child was 14, skipping school, sleeping around, getting into trouble, taking drugs and generally being totally disfuctional that you would leave him/her to their own devices while you toddled off to work all day?
Are they going to bring in cuts for married couples with one income once their child turns 13, if one or both isn't in full time employment?
A couple with one parent at home can claim tax credits for carers, FIS, medical card....will they lose their benefits too?
Should they?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 18482
Yes I do, particularly if they are working part time.
I have seen kids from some of the best families go totally off the rails. I've seen families destroyed by drugs.
Are you telling me that if your child was 14, skipping school, sleeping around, getting into trouble, taking drugs and generally being totally disfuctional that you would leave him/her to their own devices while you toddled off to work all day?
Are they going to bring in cuts for married couples with one income once their child turns 13, if one or both isn't in full time employment?
A couple with one parent at home can claim tax credits for carers, FIS, medical card....will they lose their benefits too?
Should they?
A married couple is probably what you meant there,and a single low income working parents can claim fis and a medical card too.0
Advertisement