Changes to lone parent payment proposed

ntlbell

ash23 wrote: »

Maybe, but the alternative might not necessarily be better.

Or it might be event better. two sides to every coin.

ash23 wrote: »

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.

then I guess it's something to think about now before having kids. if they're unplanned it's something to think about for the next 13 years.

ash23 wrote: »

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?
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.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything? You're proving my point. kids will get into trouble for any number of reasons, most of the time it has nothing to do with if their parents are home or not. and above proves this point. thanks

ash23 wrote: »

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.
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.

And the current welfare system is very generous

ash23 wrote: »

Again, see my point about single parents working part time. They aren't "spongers".

No idea what you're talking about, I never mentioned anyone being a sponger?

ash23 wrote: »

So are/were most single parents.

Well you have stated previously that the jobs most single parents get are low paid or part time.

considering 50% of the work force is not paying tax, they can't be paying too much, and as I said many times, the idea is not to pay tax and then take it back

for example someone on FIS are they paying tax on the wages? then taken a money back on FIS what's not exactly contributing to exchequer, given it one hand taken it back with the other

rightwingdub

Moomoo1 wrote: »

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.



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.

I don't see why I should as a taxpayer have to pay for a lifetime of permanent welfare sponging, welfare should be for people who have lost their jobs as a temprary measue not a form of permanent addiction, In America in 1996 the US government aided by a Republican Congress reformed the welfare state and between 1996-2006 the number of single parents who returned to employment increased by 54%, also before the recession hit America roughly 2 out of 3 single parents in the US worked full time so welfare reform proved to be very sucessful in the US, I hate permanent able bodied welfare spongers (these are people who have never or hardly ever worked in their people NOT people who have lost their jobs in the last 3 years and are desperately looking for work), these permanent able bodied spongers are a cancerous affliction on Irish society.

The state should do more to promote marriage, okay there are relationships that are irreconciable for various reasons ie domestic violence, adultery etc. I also believe that marriage is becoming more of a middle class institution and is gradually diminishing in working class areas. Back to welfare kids are more likely to work themselves if their parent or single parent provider is working instead of living a lifetime of permanent drudgery off the state. Its time for a conservative counter revolution as regards permanent welfare dependency in this country.

ash23

Moonbeam wrote: »

A married couple is probably what you meant there,and a single low income working parents can claim fis and a medical card too.

I know. But if you have a couple with one parent choosing to stay at home, should they be entitled to those benefits?

Simple maths really.

Single parent earning 25k. Can't earn any more than that so they get FIS and medical card.

Married couple with one parent staying at home while the other earns 25k. Getting the same benefits as the single parent on 25K. But the one staying at home could go back to work and earn 20K once child is 13. So why should that parent be subsidised to stay at home when the single parent can't anymore?

ntlbell

ash23 wrote: »

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?

If they're doing all that, what's going to stop them doing it when the parent is at home all day? chain them up in the house? the above happens because of many different variables, a parent being at home during the summer holidays won't prevent the above.

some kids with parents at home skip school :eek:

some kids with parents at home have sex :eek:

some kids with parents at home experiment with drugs.

kids will be kid, some good some bad, OPFA isn't the cause of it one way or the other, this is such a ridiculous argument

ash23 wrote: »

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?

Maybe start a thread on this and discuss it, again, this is not about married couples it's about lone parents.

mariaf24

I don't know of any co-habiting or married couples receiving any sort of benefits,especially benefits which would encourage them to have even more children...

Nevyn

mariaf24 wrote: »

I don't know of any co-habiting or married couples receiving any sort of benefits,especially benefits which would encourage them to have even more children...

Then you need to look around.

Yes people scam the system, be they married or not, or parenting alone or not.

As for all that righteous indignation, the majority of lone parents have worked and will go back to work and their children will work so the money gets paid back.

For those who see is as a career then there should be checks and balances and education to deal with that and stop situations where 3 generations or more of the same family have not worked.

But that should not be used to throw the baby out with the bath water or to put kids at risk

ash23

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything? You're proving my point. kids will get into trouble for any number of reasons, most of the time it has nothing to do with if their parents are home or not. and above proves this point. thanks

I haven't proved your point. You've ignored mine. Which is, what is a parent who is single, supposed to do now if their child goes off the rails?
They cannot be there as they have to work/ So they have to go off to work and hope that the child goes to school that day?

Don't you agree that if a child BEGINS to go off the rails then parental supervision is a must in order to have some chance of getting them back on track?
But the removal of OPFA means that anyone with a child over 13 cannot give up their job in order to be there for their child if needed.

And the current welfare system is very generous

I wouldn't say "very". It's adequate.

No idea what you're talking about, I never mentioned anyone being a sponger?

You said "sponging" which would make them spongers.

Well you have stated previously that the jobs most single parents get are low paid or part time.

No I didn't. I always use minimum wage as an example as it's the baseline. Also most people on more than minimum wage/not part time, will not be claiming OPFA. I've explained that to you before.

considering 50% of the work force is not paying tax, they can't be paying too much, and as I said many times, the idea is not to pay tax and then take it back

for example someone on FIS are they paying tax on the wages? then taken a money back on FIS what's not exactly contributing to exchequer, given it one hand taken it back with the other

I get FIS. I also pay tax.

mariaf24

Thaedydal wrote: »

Then you need to look around.

Yes people scam the system, be they married or not, or parenting alone or not.

As for all that righteous indignation, the majority of lone parents have worked and will go back to work and their children will work so the money gets paid back.

For those who see is as a career then there should be checks and balances and education to deal with that and stop situations where 3 generations or more of the same family have not worked.

But that should not be used to throw the baby out with the bath water or to put kids at risk

Yes,I agree and appreciate what you are saying but my view is that stopping this payment at 13 is a good thing as it will encourage parents to go back to work.

ash23

ntlbell wrote: »

Maybe start a thread on this and discuss it, again, this is not about married couples it's about lone parents.

No, it's about OPFA being removed which is a support for single parents.
And part of my concern about this bill is why just single parents?

Why are they and their kids being singled out?

mariaf24

ash23 wrote: »

No, it's about OPFA being removed which is a support for single parents.
And part of my concern about this bill is why just single parents?

Why are they and their kids being singled out?

I would imagine they are the main expense on welfare? Others have/will be cut accordingly. Parents who are no longer entitled to OPFA will be eligible to receive JSB and various other benefits.

ntlbell

ash23 wrote: »

I haven't proved your point. You've ignored mine. Which is, what is a parent who is single, supposed to do now if their child goes off the rails?
They cannot be there as they have to work/ So they have to go off to work and hope that the child goes to school that day?

How is being at home going to make them go to school?

Drop them off at the gate? they pretend to go in, call their mates and head off for their day, how is being at home going to prevent that?

It's an absolute ridiculous point, some kids bunk of school, some don't some have parents at home, some don't it's irrelevant. Try to instill an interest in education from an early age and hope for the best. at home not at home, if they dislike school that much, they will bunk. it's the nature of kids, not kids that has parents that work.

As you keep bringing up two parent families who both work, how do they make sure their kid goes to school?

ash23 wrote: »

Don't you agree that if a child BEGINS to go off the rails then parental supervision is a must in order to have some chance of getting them back on track?
But the removal of OPFA means that anyone with a child over 13 cannot give up their job in order to be there for their child if needed.

I don't think giving up ones job is the answer to a child going off the rails.

Unless you plan to lock the child up in the house all day.

ash23 wrote: »

I wouldn't say "very". It's adequate.

Well if it was adequate before, and we have had 6% deflation, then it's more than adequate

ash23 wrote: »

You said "sponging" which would make them spongers.

I said if i wasn't working and let the state be financial responsible for my kids, I would be a sponger, I didn't call anyone a sponger

ash23 wrote: »

No I didn't. I always use minimum wage as an example as it's the baseline. Also most people on more than minimum wage/not part time, will not be claiming OPFA. I've explained that to you before.

So how are OPFA paying so much tax?

ash23 wrote: »

I get FIS. I also pay tax.

yes you give it one hand, and take it back in the other.

= not controbuting

Nevyn

This whole thread is becoming very circular, much like the one in AH which was locked and it seems some posters have just moved from that thread to this one rehashing thier posts.

Some posters think 13 is too young to be left at home alone.
Some posters don't.

Some posters think latch key kids are at greater risk.
Some posters don't.

Which is what it boils down to and pushining everyone for the sake of a scaming minority.

If this thread keeps going around and around and is nothing but people picking apart each other posts for the sake of arguing it will be locked.

mariaf24

Can we go back to discussing the original topic,about stopping payment when the child reaches 13?

ntlbell

ash23 wrote: »

No, it's about OPFA being removed which is a support for single parents.
And part of my concern about this bill is why just single parents?

Why are they and their kids being singled out?

We don't know why, we can only speculate that it's some sort of FF PR stunt, who knows.

So what's the point?

mariaf24

ntlbell wrote: »

We don't know why, we can only speculate that it's some sort of FF PR stunt, who knows.

So what's the point?

Well i think they targeted single parents as they are one of the only groups in receipt of welfare who can physically work and are able to work. You cannot expect this from those with disabilites or the elderly so single parents are the obvious choice.

And as Ned Flanders said, there's folk who don't feel like workin, bless em...:pac:

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

I would imagine they are the main expense on welfare? Others have/will be cut accordingly. Parents who are no longer entitled to OPFA will be eligible to receive JSB and various other benefits.

Not true.

According to
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408872.html

According to the department’s statistical information on social welfare services, 87,840 people were in receipt of the one-parent family payment in 2008. Just over 1,800 were men. Expenditure on the payment increased by 10.9 per cent last year to more than €1 billion, while the number of recipients rose by 2,756, an increase of 3.2 per cent on 2007.

The welfare bill for 2009 was 19.5billion according to http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2008/Pages/pr141008.aspx

So OPFA made up 5% of total welfare spending.

From http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/06/an-bord-snip-eile-public-sector-cuts-part-1/

Social Affairs
The Irish taxpayer will spend €11bn in 2009 on ‘Social Assistance’, and a further €10bn on ‘Benefits’. In ‘Social Assistance’, the two biggest ticket items are child benefit (€2.5bn) and job seekers’ allowance (€2.2bn).

Other items costing in the region of one billion euro each include the State pension, the one-parent family allowance and the disability allowance.

Various supplementary welfare allowances, such as rent, mortgage interest relief and back-to-school clothing cost a further €1bn in total, while all the other Assistance schemes (such as the Carer’s Allowance, Free Schemes, etc) come to a further €2bn.
To this must be added money spent under the ‘Benefits’ heading. The biggest items here are €3.3bn spent on State pensions, €2.4bn on Jobseekers’ Benefit, and a further €1.4bn on widow(er)s pension. About €1.5bn is spent on illness and invalidity.

mariaf24

Jobseekers benefit will get alot more expensive,as parents who's child reaches 13 will move onto this.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

Jobseekers benefit will get alot more expensive,as parents who's child reaches 13 will move onto this.

Exactly.
So this move isn't actually saving money at all.
It's merely a PR stunt because of the attitudes out there towards single parents.
And it's worked.

Everyone thinks this is a marvellous idea, great to see the government doing something about those sponging single parents etc etc.

It bothers me that the government are feeding the idea that most single parents are Vikki Pollard types. It's all smoke and mirrors but at the end of it all, all it does is fuel the usual stereotypical attitude towards single parents and their children.

I've encountered it, my daughter has encountered it. I'm sure others have aswell.

mariaf24

ash23 wrote: »

Exactly.
So this move isn't actually saving money at all.
It's merely a PR stunt because of the attitudes out there towards single parents.
And it's worked.

Everyone thinks this is a marvellous idea, great to see the government doing something about those sponging single parents etc etc.

It bothers me that the government are feeding the idea that most single parents are Vikki Pollard types. It's all smoke and mirrors but at the end of it all, all it does is fuel the usual stereotypical attitude towards single parents and their children.

I've encountered it, my daughter has encountered it. I'm sure others have aswell.

I don't know why we've bothered to argue about it all this time,we both agree parents will just move over to Job seekers allowance. I said that at the start.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

I don't know why we've bothered to argue about it all this time,we both agree parents will just move over to Job seekers allowance. I said that at the start.

But they'll be defrauding the system then as JSA is for people who are "available for work".
So someone who genuinely wants/needs to be at home will be forced into benefit fraud.
Also, it isn't just about the money. It's about the negativity being fed, towards single parents.
It is basically saying children of single parents don't have the same rights as children of married couples. The constitution respects a mothers right to work in the home. Just not if you're single.
The government helps married parents to stay at home with their children. But single parents don't have that right.
Our children don't need us once they hit 13. But the children of married couples can claim their benefits with one parent at home until their children are 18.

So why are the children of single parents less deserving of a parent in the home? They're already lacking one parent.

mariaf24

ash23 wrote: »

But they'll be defrauding the system then as JSA is for people who are "available for work".
So someone who genuinely wants/needs to be at home will be forced into benefit fraud.
Also, it isn't just about the money. It's about the negativity being fed, towards single parents.
It is basically saying children of single parents don't have the same rights as children of married couples. The constitution respects a mothers right to work in the home. Just not if you're single.
The government helps married parents to stay at home with their children. But single parents don't have that right.
Our children don't need us once they hit 13. But the children of married couples can claim their benefits with one parent at home until their children are 18.

Again ash i respect what you are saying. In an ideal world every parent should have the right/choice to stay at home. But that is not reality. For Married and co-habiting couples where one parent who chooses to stay at home,it is often a very difficult decision,financially and otherwise. The economy would fall to the ground if every single parent could stay at home indefinitely and let the tax payer pay for it. Why would some people work so hard to provide for their families,just about break even,which is usually the case,while others choose to stay at home at the expense of the tax payer.

So why are the children of single parents less deserving of a parent in the home? They're already lacking one parent.

Again ash i respect what you are saying. In an ideal world every parent should have the right/choice to stay at home. But that is not reality. For Married and co-habiting couples where one parent who chooses to stay at home,it is often a very difficult decision,financially and otherwise. The economy would fall to the ground if every single parent could stay at home indefinitely and let the tax payer pay for it. Why would some people work so hard to provide for their families,just about break even,which is usually the case,while others choose to stay at home at the expense of the tax payer.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

The economy would fall to the ground if every single parent could stay at home indefinitely and let the tax payer pay for it.

Point is that majority of single parents don't choose to stay at home.
The majority of those actually claiming OPFA ARE working part time because of childcare etc. All single parents CAN stay at home and let the taxpayer pay for it at the moment. Most choose not to.

mariaf24

Also, why is work viewed with such negativity? A good work ethic is a brilliant example any parent can set to their children. 13 year olds spend 6-8 hours a day in school anyway,which are qite suitable hours for working parents.

mariaf24

ash23 wrote: »

Point is that majority of single parents don't choose to stay at home.
The majority of those actually claiming OPFA ARE working part time because of childcare etc. All single parents CAN stay at home and let the taxpayer pay for it at the moment. Most choose not to.

Well you said single parents should be entitled to remain at home. Please include if you mean working part time etc.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

Also, why is work viewed with such negativity? A good work ethic is a brilliant example any parent can set to their children. 13 year olds spend 6-8 hours a day in school anyway,which are qite suitable hours for working parents.

I don't view working as a negative thing.
I view single parents being made an example of as negative. Of stripping single parents of their parenting choices once their youngest is 13, as negative. Of leaving 13 and 14 year olds home alone for long periods as negative.
Of feeding the prejudice against single parents as negative.

Cut all additional income for kids at 13. That'll save money and be fair. But it won't be popular. This move is popular but won't save money.
Political games and the public are lapping it up.

mariaf24

Well you are confusing me now. You said that single parents should have the right to remain at home,at the expense of the tax payer (I presume,who else is going to pay for it)
They will still get to do so for 13 years,which is a luxury,alot of working parents (single and married) can only dream about.

13 years to educate themselves and think about future employment and childcare issues when their child reacers 13.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

Well you said single parents should be entitled to remain at home. Please include if you mean working part time etc.

I believe that a person should be able to do what they feel is best for their child. Be that stay at home, work part time or work full time.

Parents who stay at home and those who work part time are both being affected by this move.

it's not just affecting those who don't work at all. And there is nothing in place to facilitate those who are working part time during school hours.
They either go full time or give up work and get job seekers.

mariaf24

ash23 wrote: »

I believe that a person should be able to do what they feel is best for their child. Be that stay at home, work part time or work full time.

Parents who stay at home and those who work part time are both being affected by this move.

it's not just affecting those who don't work at all. And there is nothing in place to facilitate those who are working part time during school hours.
They either go full time or give up work and get job seekers.

But do you not think it is unfair on the tax payer? Families who work hard? Etc etc...

gurramok

ash23 wrote: »

According to
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408872.html

The welfare bill for 2009 was 19.5billion according to http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2008/Pages/pr141008.aspx

So OPFA made up 5% of total welfare spending.

From http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/06/an-bord-snip-eile-public-sector-cuts-part-1/

OPFA recipients get it generous as it is. They also get Rent Supplement of various amounts as well as child benefit. No-one, especially able bodied people is special when the country is in dire straits.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

Well you are confusing me now.

I don't see how. I think if a single parent wants to work, they should. If they want to work part time they should. If they want to stay at home they should.
If these choices are to be removed from them, by way of the support to do so being removed, then it should be the same across the board and ALL people who are staying at home should have their support from the government removed once their child is 13.

You said that single parents should have the right to remain at home,at the expense of the tax payer (I presume,who else is going to pay for it)
They will still get to do so for 13 years,which is a luxury,alot of working parents (single and married) can only dream about.

For a start not everyone becomes a single parent at the childs birth. Many become so much later into the game.

On the "luxury many dream about" I don't understand.
Any single parent can choose to be a stay at home parent on social welfare.
Any married couple can choose to have one parent stay at home and claim social welfare in terms of FIS and medical cards etc.

Why is it such a dream? It's available to everyone at the moment?Now, the standard of living is a different matter.