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
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    ash23 wrote: »
    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.



    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.

    Not that it would even cross my mind to seek welfare, my partner is self employed which i am sure means we are not entitled to FIS and other benefits.

    Staying at home with your child in my opinion is a luxury.


  • Options
    #123
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    But do you not think it is unfair on the tax payer? Families who work hard? Etc etc...


    So stay at home parents don't work hard?

    What is the difference between a single mother who stays at home and claims and a married couple where one parent stays at home, and they claim their entitlements?


  • Options
    #124
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    ash23 wrote: »
    So stay at home parents don't work hard?

    What is the difference between a single mother who stays at home and claims and a married couple where one parent stays at home, and they claim their entitlements?

    Of course they work hard,i'm saying it is a luxury to be able to afford to stay at home.


  • Options
    #125
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    Of course they work hard,i'm saying it is a luxury to be able to afford to stay at home.

    Since when?

    It's all about the lifestyle choices that people make. If you'd no mortgage, rented a cheap place, cut back on spending etc and your partner was earning 25k per year, it'd be do-able.

    Most families where both parents claim they "have to work" have bought property and have mortgages.

    Most single parents on benefits don't do that.

    Staying at home with your kids is not a luxury.


  • Options
    #126
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    ash23 wrote: »
    Since when?

    It's all about the lifestyle choices that people make. If you'd no mortgage, rented a cheap place, cut back on spending etc and your partner was earning 25k per year, it'd be do-able.

    Most families where both parents claim they "have to work" have bought property and have mortgages.

    Most single parents on benefits don't do that.

    Staying at home with your kids is not a luxury.

    ash i'm sorry,but you are sounding like a 14 year old. As parents,it was our dream to own our own home,and we did it.

    You would advise parents to 'rent a cheap place' in order for one of them to stay at home. :confused:

    I am sorry and do not wish to offend you but i've lost you way back...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    ash i'm sorry,but you are sounding like a 14 year old. As parents,it was our dream to own our own home,and we did it.

    You would advise parents to 'rent a cheap place' in order for one of them to stay at home. :confused:

    I am sorry and do not wish to offend you but i've lost you way back...


    Great for you. Sorry you've lost me, I don't see how I'm sounding like a 14 year old?

    It was your dream to own a home. It might be anothers dream to be a stay at home parent. And if s/he places this above owning a home, then it's very do-able.

    If a single parent chooses to forsake a career and owning a home in order to be a stay at home parent, then that is their call.
    If a couple choose to forsake owning their own home in order to have one stay at home then that is their call.

    You chose owning a home over being a stay at home parent. Your call. But that doesn't mean that being a stay at home parent is a luxury.

    If someone is on benefits they will not own a home.

    Benefits are also not exclusively for single parents. Anyone can choose to lower their standard of living and have one parent at home if that is their priority.
    Any working single parent can choose to give up their job and claim benefits.

    We all have the choice. Just because benefits are there, doesn't mean each and every person will use or abuse them.

    Getting rid of OPFA will do nothing but remove options from single parents.


  • Options
    #128
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    ash23 wrote: »
    Getting rid of OPFA will do nothing but remove options from single parents.

    Parents shouldn't have the option to have the tax payer pay for their lifestyle choices.


  • Options
    #129
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    ash23 wrote: »
    Great for you. Sorry you've lost me, I don't see how I'm sounding like a 14 year old?

    It was your dream to own a home. It might be anothers dream to be a stay at home parent. And if s/he places this above owning a home, then it's very do-able.

    If a single parent chooses to forsake a career and owning a home in order to be a stay at home parent, then that is their call.
    If a couple choose to forsake owning their own home in order to have one stay at home then that is their call.

    You chose owning a home over being a stay at home parent. Your call. But that doesn't mean that being a stay at home parent is a luxury.

    If someone is on benefits they will not own a home.

    Benefits are also not exclusively for single parents. Anyone can choose to lower their standard of living and have one parent at home if that is their priority.
    Any working single parent can choose to give up their job and claim benefits.

    We all have the choice. Just because benefits are there, doesn't mean each and every person will use or abuse them.

    Getting rid of OPFA will do nothing but remove options from single parents.

    We didn't choose one over the other. I am not here to discuss my private business. I can't speak for every parent but i would imagine the majority of parents would like to own their own home,rather than 'rent a cheap place'. As a parent you think of the long run not the immediate future. I personally never felt secure in rented accommodation. Again,that's just my belief.

    And i still believe that removing OPFA will give a whole range of new options to people who would never have even considered doing courses or seeking employment. I wish you could see the good in it.


  • Options
    #130
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    ntlbell wrote: »
    Parents shouldn't have the option to have the tax payer pay for their lifestyle choices.


    You could apply that to the entire system.
    Pensions, disabilities, education, healthcare, tax breaks etc etc


  • Options
    #131
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    ash23 wrote: »
    You could apply that to the entire system.
    Pensions, disabilities, education, healthcare, tax breaks etc etc

    I would, if the thread wasn't about lone parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    ash23 wrote: »
    You could apply that to the entire system.
    Pensions, disabilities, education, healthcare, tax breaks etc etc

    What?

    People choose to have disabilities, get old and be sick as a lifestyle?!:eek::eek:


  • Options
    #133
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    And i still believe that removing OPFA will give a whole range of new options to people who would never have even considered doing courses or seeking employment. I wish you could see the good in it.

    I would agree if there were procedures in place to back it up or if it wasn't exclusively aimed at single parents.

    But merely saying that a 13 year old is less expensive (in other words doesn't require childcare), or not putting support in place for those who work part time at the moment. Or not factoring in those who become single parents after their youngest is 13.
    Or letting married couples claim in order to have a parent stay at home after the child is 13.

    These are all the problems I have with the proposal.


  • Options
    #134
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    gurramok wrote: »
    What?

    People choose to have disabilities, get old and be sick as a lifestyle?!:eek::eek:


    No but if the argument is that the parents should plan or will have 13 years to plan etc....well, shouldn't we all be planning for our retirements rather than relying on state pensions? Shouldn't we all be paying into personal illness and accident policies from the day we start working, rather than relying on benefits?
    Shouldn't we be paying for private education rather than letting the state educate our children. Shouldn't we be paying for medical treatment rather than relying on the state etc etc.

    Being a person parenting alone is rarely a lifestyle choice.
    It's usually not the path a person chooses, but rather something that happens.


  • Options
    #135
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    ash23 wrote: »
    No but if the argument is that the parents should plan or will have 13 years to plan etc....well, shouldn't we all be planning for our retirements rather than relying on state pensions? Shouldn't we all be paying into personal illness and accident policies from the day we start working, rather than relying on benefits?
    Shouldn't we be paying for private education rather than letting the state educate our children. Shouldn't we be paying for medical treatment rather than relying on the state etc etc.

    Being a person parenting alone is rarely a lifestyle choice.
    It's usually not the path a person chooses, but rather something that happens.

    Yes if you're working you should be planning for your retirement? You say this like it's a strange thing to do. 50% of the country pay their own private health insurance. The tax payer pays plenty in taxes so the government can hire people to educate the country.

    a lot of people do pay for their own other medical bills and medications etc.

    This is what normal working people do.

    you think people have a problem with socialism here, that's not a problem.

    The problem is the system is overpaying people, we cannot afford to do it anymore, so we need cut it.

    Around and around we go.


  • Options
    #136
    Moonbeam
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭Moonbeam


    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.

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


    Single parents get single parents tax credit and a higher tax ceiling -
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax-credits-and-reliefs/one-parent-family-tax-credits-and-reliefs

    Married couples get - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/taxation_of_married_people and http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax-credits-and-reliefs/home-carers-tax-credit

    co-habiting couples get nothing.


  • Options
    #137
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    People need to stop using excuses like childcare costs etc. Such a cop out lazy attitude. I know so many single parents who work hard and have to provide childcare for more than one child,including babies and toddlers. I have never once heard them moan about what they should and shouldn't get.


  • Options
    #138
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Moonbeam wrote: »
    Single parents get single parents tax credit and a higher tax ceiling -
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax-credits-and-reliefs/one-parent-family-tax-credits-and-reliefs

    Married couples get - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/taxation_of_married_people and http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax-credits-and-reliefs/home-carers-tax-credit

    co-habiting couples get nothing.

    Co habiting couples and married couples have the earning power of two. Or the option of one staying at home while the other works, ergo, no childcare costs.
    A persons cost of living doesn't double if they co-habit. Many expenses are still the same as a single parent however a single parent pays them from one wage aswell as childcare.
    It's very expensive to be a working single parent but lots of us do it.

    And for those less fortunate than us (the ones who don't earn enough to pay the bills and survive), there is OPFA.


  • Options
    #139
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    People need to stop using excuses like childcare costs etc. Such a cop out lazy attitude. I know so many single parents who work hard and have to provide childcare for more than one child,including babies and toddlers. I have never once heard them moan about what they should and shouldn't get.

    In fairness, childcare costs are a fairly genuine problem.


  • Options
    #140
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    ash23 wrote: »
    In fairness, childcare costs are a fairly genuine problem.

    Why do you assume single parents will have such a low income job that they will not be able to afford childcare? And as i said,it's not costly when teenagers are in school for 6-8 hours every day.


  • Options
    #141
    Moonbeam
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭Moonbeam


    childcare costs are a huge problem for everyone.

    The subvention scheme is there for people on social welfare to help them afford to work or return to education but is only available in community creches.

    http://bccg.ie/subvention/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    Why do you assume single parents will have such a low income job that they will not be able to afford childcare? And as i said,it's not costly when teenagers are in school for 6-8 hours every day.

    I've answered this already.

    Someone on a higher income will not be eligible for OPFA.
    It won't be a concern for them.

    Any single parent who is able to earn enough to pay for childcare and living cost will be on a decent salary and it will pay them to work.

    Again, there are holidays from school. And I've already stated that I do not agree with leaving a young teen to their own devices for long periods of time.

    I fully anticipate that I will be paying childcare for my child until she is 15, during the summer at least.

    monnbeam wrote:
    childcare costs are a huge problem for everyone

    But are more managable in a two income household.

    As for the community creches, I did state that I think the proposal would be fine if proper procedures are put in place to support the return to work instead of the current attitude which is that children of 13 don't cost as much as a smaller child.
    In terms of feeding and clothing them, they cost more.
    In terms of childcare, personally I still think it is a necessary cost up to 14 or 15.


  • Options
    #143
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    People should seek to improve their employment prospects by upskilling and doing courses etc,13 years is a long time to do so. Then they will be able to seek higher wage jobs.

    Holidays from school are 3 months for 2 years (assuming a 15 year old does not require child care). SO those 6 months should not be an excuse for a parent to remain on welfare because they cannot 'afford to work'.


  • Options
    #144
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    People should seek to improve their employment prospects by upskilling and doing courses etc,13 years is a long time to do so. Then they will be able to seek higher wage jobs.

    I agree and I think most would but doing courses while the kids are smaller? Again, childcare issues if it's full time. Are the government going to sort out that issue before telling them all to go and do a course?

    Holidays from school are 3 months for 2 years (assuming a 15 year old does not require child care). SO those 6 months should not be an excuse for a parent to remain on welfare because they cannot 'afford to work'.


    More like 4 months in total with christmas, easter, mid-terms etc.
    So what do you suggest parents do for those 8 months? Pack in work for the summer?
    Seriously. I'm intrigued to know.


  • Options
    #145
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    ash23 wrote: »
    I agree and I think most would but doing courses while the kids are smaller? Again, childcare issues if it's full time. Are the government going to sort out that issue before telling them all to go and do a course?





    More like 4 months in total with christmas, easter, mid-terms etc.
    So what do you suggest parents do for those 8 months? Pack in work for the summer?
    Seriously. I'm intrigued to know.

    Excuses excuses. Parents will have 13 years to save for those months. People work,married and single and pay for childcare,thats something all parents face.
    The very few weeks/months teenagers have free from school should not be reason enough for a parent not to work. It's ridiculous.


  • Options
    #146
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    ash23 wrote: »
    I agree and I think most would but doing courses while the kids are smaller? Again, childcare issues if it's full time. Are the government going to sort out that issue before telling them all to go and do a course?





    More like 4 months in total with christmas, easter, mid-terms etc.
    So what do you suggest parents do for those 8 months? Pack in work for the summer?
    Seriously. I'm intrigued to know.


    I'm sick and tired of the excuses typical Irish mentality where people expect the state to do everything for them, its time a lot of Irish people got off their lazy arses and used their own personal initiative.


  • Options
    #147
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    People should seek to improve their employment prospects by upskilling and doing courses etc,13 years is a long time to do so. Then they will be able to seek higher wage jobs.
    Whilst I agree with you, this is a spurious argument. Regardless of what the individuals do, there will always be low paid jobs. There are jobs that society places little value on - you know the ones, the people who look after our children, our elderly parents and our disabled relatives are generally on or about minimum wage for a start. Regardless of how well individuals develop and climb the ladder, there will still be those individuals whose wages don't come near to covering childcare costs for the hours worked.


  • Options
    #148
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    Whilst I agree with you, this is a spurious argument. Regardless of what the individuals do, there will always be low paid jobs. There are jobs that society places little value on - you know the ones, the people who look after our children, our elderly parents and our disabled relatives are generally on or about minimum wage for a start. Regardless of how well individuals develop and climb the ladder, there will still be those individuals whose wages don't come near to covering childcare costs for the hours worked.

    Yes but that's not reason enough to sit at home at the expense of the tax payer.


  • Options
    #149
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    Whilst I agree with you, this is a spurious argument. Regardless of what the individuals do, there will always be low paid jobs. There are jobs that society places little value on - you know the ones, the people who look after our children, our elderly parents and our disabled relatives are generally on or about minimum wage for a start. Regardless of how well individuals develop and climb the ladder, there will still be those individuals whose wages don't come near to covering childcare costs for the hours worked.

    No excuses, a job gives someone a sense of purpose even it is stacking shelves in Tesco for a living or working in a shop, there's too much snobbery in this country about doing certain jobs, anyone who turns down 2 job offers should lose all welfare benefits.


  • Options
    #150
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    rightwingdub wrote: »
    No excuses, a job gives someone a sense of purpose even it is stacking shelves in Tesco for a living or working in a shop, there's too much snobbery in this country about doing certain jobs, anyone who turns down 2 job offers should lose all welfare benefits.

    Thanks for missing the point entirely.
    mariaf24 wrote: »
    Yes but that's not reason enough to sit at home at the expense of the tax payer.
    How about the reason of not being able to have kids minded while you are at work?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    How could you not have kids minded? The child will be 13,will spend most of the day in school. The parent will still be able to stay at home for 13 years and figure out child care etc.

    What rubbish excuses.

    And yes childcare is costly,and if you only have a tenner left at the end of the week,so what,that's a reality for alot of parents.


Advertisement