Changes to lone parent payment proposed

mariaalice

My younges daughter was 10 when my husband and i seperated...the child minding became a bit of an issue...so from the age of 11 my daughter walked home from school let her in and was on her own for 30 min ( she got out at 2.40 and i got home at 3.30 )...i wasn't a hundred present happy with that but i had no choice. The summer holidays we managed as best we could , it was a mixture of being on her own at times, her granny, my ex husband and i trying to maximize our holiday....


I think people are missing an important point in all this...social welfare including loan parent payments should be considered a form of temporary help when you need it and not form of long term income for anyone body, broadly speaking we should have a system that has at its philosophical base a belief that you work to provide for yourself and your family and the function of government and social welfare is to support people to do that.

mariaf24

mariaalice,I agree with everything you have said. I think the current social welfare payments are however seen as an easy option and a permanent income for alot (not all) of recipients.
I think the Government should cut welfare payments drastically and invest the money into education/training / childcare / jobs.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

mariaalice,I agree with everything you have said. I think the current social welfare payments are however seen as an easy option and a permanent income for alot (not all) of recipients.
I think the Government should cut welfare payments drastically and invest the money into education/training / childcare / jobs.

But thats not what this proposal is doing. It's saying it'll focus on training but there's no mention of housing, childcare etc which are the main problem areas in terms of a single parent returning to the work force.

It's not a well thought out proposal. It's being dressed up as a way of helping single parents but it's not addressing the main problems facing most.

mariaalice

Its a very complex area, i dont think people see it( social welfare) as a easy option and plan to stay on it for life, but the way the system is set it makes people make choices that they mightn't make other wise....after all every rational
person would make the choice that will maximize their income.

That why the system need to change to one that supports work...

Nevyn

And one which supports going back to work.
It is easier to put things in place when you have been working and have a job to go back to and a better income. If a lone parent is struggling it is hard for them to get together the resources for going back to work.

TargetWidow

I am married. I work a 44 hour week. My husband works a further 34 hours a week. My daughter spends 40 hours a week in a creche. We pay tax at the 20% rate because we don't make alot of money. I would love to have the option of deciding to be a stay at home parent. What person claiming LPA is gonna pay for me to do that?

I work in a post office. Off the top of my head there are about 15 LPA claimants in the town. I know them all personally. I know their circumstances well. I can think of only three who are legitimately claiming LPA, two of whom are women who became separated (both work on CE schemes and are upskilling to beat the band trying to get better work) and the third is a "lifestyle" LPA claimant. She has made the decision to have her children alone. Three kids, two fathers, never lived with either father, no intention of settling with any man. She actually uses the phrase "lifestyle choice" in reference to her stay at home parenthood!

The other 12 or so are all living with a partner who works. Most of them have cash jobs and two are actually self employed on the sly. About 10 of the 12 have council houses, given to them within a few years of having their first child. I say first because most of them have 4 or 5 kids, all born after beginning to claim LPA (by immaculate conception apparently if there was no man on the scene!)

I resent the hell out of working one hour out of every five to fund the likes of this. I have no problem with the idea of a LPA system. But not as it is currently is set up or not even with the forthcoming proposals. 13 years to get your act together? Are ye joking? 5 years tops. When a child starts primary the parent should be expected to start contributing financially to their offsprings rearing with part-time work. Maybe a mandatory CE scheme type system where they only work 4 hours a morning 5 days a week for two or three years, so that childcare is not an issue. All the while learning new skills and being trained for better more highly paid work. There are tonnes of jobs we need filling in this country that the govt say they cannot afford. Train up creche staff, special needs assistants etc and use the system to provide a decent govt childcare system.

And only pay for the children in existence at the time of the claim. If people want to have more kids, they need to get a job, or a partner prepared to pay to keep them.

And before you think I have no experience of the system and that I dont know what it is like to depend on Social Welfare, I do. I have been on Unemployment Assistance, Unemployment Benefit and CE Schemes in my youth. My husband was on the dole from 18-38!!!! He is the first one now to say that the system is NUTS and that they need to get much tougher because they need to build into the system more "encouragement" to get off Social Welfare. Like a deadline. He came off the dole and got a job when I refused to marry him and I told him straight up he wasn't marriage material - I wanted a man who could provide financially for his kids and that I would never voluntarily raise children on Social Welfare. So he got a job, just like that! Now we have one child and another on the way. Social welfare is not an option in this house anymore.

And so my neighbours on LPA DO have two cars outside their houses, AND flat-screen tellys. I have a banger of a telly that we got second hand 10 years ago. It cuts out regularly and I have the €80 satellite box from Lidl cos I cannot afford Sky or NTL, but I'm so busy working I don't get much time for TV anyway. Unlike the single mothers on the street who are on facebook and twitter all bloody day bitching about whats on Sky on their flat screen tellys. They stash hundreds of euro every week into secret savings accounts they have in my post office (the proceeds of their partners well paid wages!).I'm going on maternity leave next week and I will have to borrow money from the credit union to keep things going till I get back to work in Dec cos the state benefit won't cover the shortfall in my income.

Sorry for the rant but as usual this government is making an ass of everything and the greedy members of this society are only bitching about how "the govt" needs to pay to raise children they chose to have! Was Brian Cowen there are the conception? Get condoms or jobs people.:mad:

ash23

TargetWidow wrote: »

I am married. I work a 44 hour week. My husband works a further 34 hours a week. My daughter spends 40 hours a week in a creche. We pay tax at the 20% rate because we don't make alot of money. I would love to have the option of deciding to be a stay at home parent. What person claiming LPA is gonna pay for me to do that?

I work in a post office. Off the top of my head there are about 15 LPA claimants in the town. I know them all personally. I know their circumstances well. I can think of only three who are legitimately claiming LPA, two of whom are women who became separated (both work on CE schemes and are upskilling to beat the band trying to get better work) and the third is a "lifestyle" LPA claimant. She has made the decision to have her children alone. Three kids, two fathers, never lived with either father, no intention of settling with any man. She actually uses the phrase "lifestyle choice" in reference to her stay at home parenthood!

The other 12 or so are all living with a partner who works. Most of them have cash jobs and two are actually self employed on the sly. About 10 of the 12 have council houses, given to them within a few years of having their first child. I say first because most of them have 4 or 5 kids, all born after beginning to claim LPA (by immaculate conception apparently if there was no man on the scene!)

I resent the hell out of working one hour out of every five to fund the likes of this. I have no problem with the idea of a LPA system. But not as it is currently is set up or not even with the forthcoming proposals. 13 years to get your act together? Are ye joking? 5 years tops. When a child starts primary the parent should be expected to start contributing financially to their offsprings rearing with part-time work. Maybe a mandatory CE scheme type system where they only work 4 hours a morning 5 days a week for two or three years, so that childcare is not an issue. All the while learning new skills and being trained for better more highly paid work. There are tonnes of jobs we need filling in this country that the govt say they cannot afford. Train up creche staff, special needs assistants etc and use the system to provide a decent govt childcare system.

And only pay for the children in existence at the time of the claim. If people want to have more kids, they need to get a job, or a partner prepared to pay to keep them.

And before you think I have no experience of the system and that I dont know what it is like to depend on Social Welfare, I do. I have been on Unemployment Assistance, Unemployment Benefit and CE Schemes in my youth. My husband was on the dole from 18-38!!!! He is the first one now to say that the system is NUTS and that they need to get much tougher because they need to build into the system more "encouragement" to get off Social Welfare. Like a deadline. He came off the dole and got a job when I refused to marry him and I told him straight up he wasn't marriage material - I wanted a man who could provide financially for his kids and that I would never voluntarily raise children on Social Welfare. So he got a job, just like that! Now we have one child and another on the way. Social welfare is not an option in this house anymore.

And so my neighbours on LPA DO have two cars outside their houses, AND flat-screen tellys. I have a banger of a telly that we got second hand 10 years ago. It cuts out regularly and I have the €80 satellite box from Lidl cos I cannot afford Sky or NTL, but I'm so busy working I don't get much time for TV anyway. Unlike the single mothers on the street who are on facebook and twitter all bloody day bitching about whats on Sky on their flat screen tellys. They stash hundreds of euro every week into secret savings accounts they have in my post office (the proceeds of their partners well paid wages!).I'm going on maternity leave next week and I will have to borrow money from the credit union to keep things going till I get back to work in Dec cos the state benefit won't cover the shortfall in my income.

Sorry for the rant but as usual this government is making an ass of everything and the greedy members of this society are only bitching about how "the govt" needs to pay to raise children they chose to have! Was Brian Cowen there are the conception? Get condoms or jobs people.:mad:

Report them

https://www.welfare.ie/EN/Secure/Pages/ReportSuspectFraud.aspx

TargetWidow

And I don't mind paying tax but I would much prefer to see it being used to fund

• A proper childcare system
• A properly funded and run Social Services to make sure that the likes of the little child killed in Tralee a few years ago for just wetting the bed, never happens again.... too many children are living miserable lives.
• A properly funded and run system to help separated or single parents work out how to co-parent WITHOUT having to resort to the courts. The family courts system in this country is a tragedy waiting to happen.
• A healthcare system where people do not wait on trolleys.
• An education system not farmed out to clergy who then hold the country by the balls in exchange.

We should be ashamed that schools and hospitals in this country need to fundraise with begging bowls.
These are very basic things that should be in place in any country. When someone seeks to claim any Social Welfare Payment without genuine need these are the problems to which they are contributing.

TargetWidow

ash23 wrote: »

Report them

https://www.welfare.ie/EN/Secure/Pages/ReportSuspectFraud.aspx

I did. Nothing happenned.;)

Moomoo1

Thaedydal wrote: »

T
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.

exactly. That's the point yourself and Ash are making that's lost on everyone.

my mother was a single mother. She tried to go to work as soon as she could. Why? Because the lifestyle you get on benefits is really really bad. Simple as. And this was in the 90's, when the attack on welfare wasn't quite so advanced...

that's your incentive. Enough people will not be pleased with the low quality of life on benefits and as a result seek work for the system to not be overloaded...

Moomoo1

rightwingdub wrote: »

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.

And do you know how many people in the US live below poverty line? Millions and millions. That's the 'success' of your welfare reform. The US is one place we really do NOT want to end up like.

I don't want that here. It's basically a way for the government to absolve itself of any responsibility for the weak and the vulnerable in this society. We are a far more civilised society than that.

What you need to understand is that bringing up children is in itself a job. A very difficult job. So in effect single parents are expected to do TWO jobs instead of one?

Moomoo1

ntlbell wrote: »

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 something

No, there is not. That's what the powers that be want you to believe 'oh, no matter how bad we are screwing you, it's always your fault because you are not taking the many alternatives'. Well guess what, that's baloney, this idea that alternatives _always_ exist is simply false.

Fighting means taking to the streets. At some point people need to say that enough is enough: the state needs to stop taking away our rights and spend the resulting money on God knows what. I'd say we are getting close to that point.

ntlbell wrote: »

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

lack of OPFA affects that ability

ntlbell wrote: »

No, it's the parents prime responsibility to financially support their children. not the tax payer.

It's the responsibility of the state to make sure all children are well-cared for. The parents should be (and are) given incentives to work whenever possible, but in the case they chose not to it is up to the state to look after their children. Don't forget, bringing up children is also a job and some children require more bringing up than others. For example one of my friends was brought up by her grandparents because her parents worked all the time (they were sportsmen who toured on international competitions) and she claims she suffered horribly from the lack of contact with her parents...

ntlbell wrote: »

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 responsibility .

but it's the state who would pay, not the other hard workers. That's your main fallacy.

what will happen with the money that would have went to pay for your kids? It won't go back to the tax payer, it will be either squandered on something perfectly useless, or end up with people who already have plenty of money (Imagine that, some rich cretin enjoying a drink on his yacht with the money that would have gone to finance _your_ children). Therefore the money single mum take up is the state's not the taxpayer's.

ntlbell wrote: »

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?

Why shouldn't the government be accountable for looking after the poor and responsible for maintaining a minimum living standard for the nation's kids?

Remember, bringing up children is a job in itself...

ntlbell wrote: »

Why do you say single mums?

This is about single parents :rolleyes:

does it matter which? With no jobs, shouldn't we let people who desperately WANT a job have one before pushing people already looking after their children into destitution?

ntlbell

Moomoo1 wrote: »

exactly. That's the point yourself and Ash are making that's lost on everyone.

my mother was a single mother. She tried to go to work as soon as she could. Why? Because the lifestyle you get on benefits is really really bad. Simple as. And this was in the 90's, when the attack on welfare wasn't quite so advanced...

that's your incentive. Enough people will not be pleased with the low quality of life on benefits and as a result seek work for the system to not be overloaded...

The reason she went out to work because the payments in the 90's were very low and couldn't drive the comfortable lifestyle they do today.

This is why they need to be reduced.....

mariaf24

TargetWidow wrote: »

I am married. I work a 44 hour week. My husband works a further 34 hours a week. My daughter spends 40 hours a week in a creche. We pay tax at the 20% rate because we don't make alot of money. I would love to have the option of deciding to be a stay at home parent. What person claiming LPA is gonna pay for me to do that?

I work in a post office. Off the top of my head there are about 15 LPA claimants in the town. I know them all personally. I know their circumstances well. I can think of only three who are legitimately claiming LPA, two of whom are women who became separated (both work on CE schemes and are upskilling to beat the band trying to get better work) and the third is a "lifestyle" LPA claimant. She has made the decision to have her children alone. Three kids, two fathers, never lived with either father, no intention of settling with any man. She actually uses the phrase "lifestyle choice" in reference to her stay at home parenthood!

The other 12 or so are all living with a partner who works. Most of them have cash jobs and two are actually self employed on the sly. About 10 of the 12 have council houses, given to them within a few years of having their first child. I say first because most of them have 4 or 5 kids, all born after beginning to claim LPA (by immaculate conception apparently if there was no man on the scene!)

I resent the hell out of working one hour out of every five to fund the likes of this. I have no problem with the idea of a LPA system. But not as it is currently is set up or not even with the forthcoming proposals. 13 years to get your act together? Are ye joking? 5 years tops. When a child starts primary the parent should be expected to start contributing financially to their offsprings rearing with part-time work. Maybe a mandatory CE scheme type system where they only work 4 hours a morning 5 days a week for two or three years, so that childcare is not an issue. All the while learning new skills and being trained for better more highly paid work. There are tonnes of jobs we need filling in this country that the govt say they cannot afford. Train up creche staff, special needs assistants etc and use the system to provide a decent govt childcare system.

And only pay for the children in existence at the time of the claim. If people want to have more kids, they need to get a job, or a partner prepared to pay to keep them.

And before you think I have no experience of the system and that I dont know what it is like to depend on Social Welfare, I do. I have been on Unemployment Assistance, Unemployment Benefit and CE Schemes in my youth. My husband was on the dole from 18-38!!!! He is the first one now to say that the system is NUTS and that they need to get much tougher because they need to build into the system more "encouragement" to get off Social Welfare. Like a deadline. He came off the dole and got a job when I refused to marry him and I told him straight up he wasn't marriage material - I wanted a man who could provide financially for his kids and that I would never voluntarily raise children on Social Welfare. So he got a job, just like that! Now we have one child and another on the way. Social welfare is not an option in this house anymore.

And so my neighbours on LPA DO have two cars outside their houses, AND flat-screen tellys. I have a banger of a telly that we got second hand 10 years ago. It cuts out regularly and I have the €80 satellite box from Lidl cos I cannot afford Sky or NTL, but I'm so busy working I don't get much time for TV anyway. Unlike the single mothers on the street who are on facebook and twitter all bloody day bitching about whats on Sky on their flat screen tellys. They stash hundreds of euro every week into secret savings accounts they have in my post office (the proceeds of their partners well paid wages!).I'm going on maternity leave next week and I will have to borrow money from the credit union to keep things going till I get back to work in Dec cos the state benefit won't cover the shortfall in my income.

Sorry for the rant but as usual this government is making an ass of everything and the greedy members of this society are only bitching about how "the govt" needs to pay to raise children they chose to have! Was Brian Cowen there are the conception? Get condoms or jobs people.:mad:

And Ash was saying that she believed Lone parents should be allowed stay at home on benefits as a lifestyle choice. When i said being a stay at home parent was a luxury many working parents can only dream of,it was along the lines of this posters story i was describing.

Also,I heard before that if you report someone,a welfare inspector makes a house call but only for a quick chat and often phones ahead. :rolleyes:

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

The reason she went out to work because the payments in the 90's were very low and couldn't drive the comfortable lifestyle they do today.

This is why they need to be reduced.....

Pay was far lower and taxes much higher too. The cost and standard of living was lower too. No minimum wage either.

mariaf24 wrote: »

Also,I heard before that if you report someone,a welfare inspector makes a house call but only for a quick chat and often phones ahead. :rolleyes:

I think that's the normal checks they do anyway, on welfare recipients. I think this what you maybe thinking of.

I assume if they have good reason, they'd actually investigate.

ash23

mariaf24 wrote: »

And Ash was saying that she believed Lone parents should be allowed stay at home on benefits as a lifestyle choice. When i said being a stay at home parent was a luxury many working parents can only dream of,it was along the lines of this posters story i was describing.

Also,I heard before that if you report someone,a welfare inspector makes a house call but only for a quick chat and often phones ahead. :rolleyes:

If someone has two incomes into one house and cannot afford to live off it then there is obviously a large debt eating most of the money.

I (including FIS and Child benefit) earn about 27k per annum and I pay rent, childcare and living expenses from that.

If a couple both have jobs, even if they are min wage, they are coming out with about 36k per annum. So how can a couple need to work 44 hours per week each? Unless there is a large mortgage or something.

I have a nice house (which I rent). I have a nice car which I own outright.
I even have a flat screen tv. My daughter has all her games systems etc etc.

I am usually too broke for any major luxuries but I do ok.

If I went and got a mortgage for 300k then I would be screwed. I would need to work all the hours god sends to meet the repayments. I would be broke all the time and I would never be able to afford any treats at all. Ever!

So I rent and I have lesser outgoings and a better lifestyle than if I had a large mortgage. I don't own my own home but thats my choice. The choice I made to not be under too much financial pressure.

If a person chooses a modest life on OPFA then off with them. They shouldn't be resented by couples who chose to buy houses and now resent having to pay for them.


If someone is scamming the system, report them. And keep reporting them.
This applies to those working and claiming disability or JSA etc. It's not only OPFA claimants who scam and I'd prefer to see the government target the people who abuse the system than those who are using it genuinely.

mariaf24

Fair points but those have nothing to with what i said...

TargetWidow

For the record, we rent a council house. And my 44 hour week is as a self employed contractor with a set salary over which I have no control. Out of which I must pay for light heat premises rent rates staff VHI and then my 20% contribution to your "choice" to sit on your ass. I end up with less at the end of the day than a checkout operator in Tesco, but I love my work, it forms a vital part of the community, and I get to feel that I am contributing to society by working and paying the various taxes that I do. This year I will have to pay 15,000 in wages and employers PRSI for staff to cover my absence over the 6 months of my maternity leave. This is actually more than I would have taken home myself over this period but it is the going rate for the people who step in to do my job.

And I do not believe that
(a) anyone has a RIGHT to have the state pay for their children
(b) parenting is a full time job (most of the mothers I see claiming this have their kids glued to the TV or gaming sytems when indoors and thrown outdoors unsupervised the rest of the time..... they NEVER take them anywhere or do anything with them).
(c) Housework is a reason to "choose" to claim LPA. I get all my housework done at night after she is in bed and during her naps at the weekend. Occasionally she has a lie in at the weekend and I am so used to getting up that I get up and get ahead of the game a little. SO anyone claiming that there's another 44 hours of housework a week in their house that needs doing should really get onto those "How Clean Are Your House People"!

Every weekend we scrape the money together to bring my daughter out to either the seaside nearby or some other local attraction. Failing that we make an effort to bring her swimming to the pool or doing some other stimulating activity. THIS is why I work so hard. The ability to decide to go out to Sunday lunch together is something we could never afford to do on Social Welfare.

And yes there is a debt. Did you miss the bit where I said there isn't enough coming in? The credit union has to be paid for where I MYSELF (and not the state) had to pay for furnishing and kitting out my council house when after 14 years on the housing list (constantly being bypassed by single women making babies for a living) because appliances, furniture etc does not come from the Community Welfare Officer Fairy for those of us who work. The bank has to be paid for the car-loan I took out after having my daughter because my husband was working nights and wasn't home in time in the morning for me to get his car to drive my daughter the 10 miles to the nearest creche that would take her. So no big mortgage I am afraid. Just childcare and work expenses and ordinary day to day stuff. No gambling problems or anything like that at work either, in case you are wondering. Neither of us smoke, my husband doesn't drink and I have had two glasses of wine in the last 3 years (pregnant for half of that and as hubby works nights I am up with the little one in the morning and feel she deserves a clear headed mammy). We have had two nights out in the two years since my daughter was born. No babysitter nearby and no family nearby. A trusted friend and I swapped babysitting duties but the opportunity is rare.

So with all due respect Ash, you sound like you are living the high life to me. Be glad of it and stop whining for more. And one last thing.... this "the state and not the taxpayer" carry on is showing a shocking ignorance of basic economics. For the most part, you are the state. I am the state. The state is funded by a combination of my taxes and govt borrowing. You sound like one of those people who think it's ok to pocket money from the bank when they accidentally lodge too much to their accounts because the bank is this large faceless organisation who can afford it in your view. What contribution are you making other than the vat on goods and services and road tax that we all pay? Other posters on here are bang on the money. This is a personal responsibility issue. There IS no free lunch.

ash23

TargetWidow wrote: »

For the record, we rent a council house.

So in a manner of speaking you are being funded by the state in terms of LA housing? You'll claim in one area but complain about others claiming in another?

And my 44 hour week is as a self employed contractor with a set salary over which I have no control. Out of which I must pay for light heat premises rent rates staff VHI and then my 20% contribution to your "choice" to sit on your ass. I end up with less at the end of the day than a checkout operator in Tesco, but I love my work, it forms a vital part of the community, and I get to feel that I am contributing to society by working and paying the various taxes that I do. This year I will have to pay 15,000 in wages and employers PRSI for staff to cover my absence over the 6 months of my maternity leave. This is actually more than I would have taken home myself over this period but it is the going rate for the people who step in to do my job.

These are choices you made. If it's such a burden go and get a job in tesco. My job is not fulfilling or meaningful. It is dull but it pays ok and it's business hours so childcare isn't a problem. I could get more money and more fulfillment from another job but it doesn't suit the choices I made in terms of the life I want.
If you want a job that pays better, go get one. Apparantly it's very easy (according to some on this thread who, by the way, would easily slate you for choosing a job you enjoy and getting a council house, over taking a job that pays better and renting privately or buying).

Personally I think you should keep your house and the job you love doing. But I can't see how you would begrudge another person help from the taxpayer while doing something they love (being at home with their kids) while claiming social assistance yourself in order to stay doing a job you love.

And I do not believe that
(a) anyone has a RIGHT to have the state pay for their children

so your child attends a private school? And you use private hospitals? And you will be paying for private care for the birth of your child? You wont be accepting the free vaccinations or claiming child benefit? You'll be giving up your local authority house too I presume?

(b) parenting is a full time job (most of the mothers I see claiming this have their kids glued to the TV or gaming sytems when indoors and thrown outdoors unsupervised the rest of the time..... they NEVER take them anywhere or do anything with them).
(c) Housework is a reason to "choose" to claim LPA. I get all my housework done at night after she is in bed and during her naps at the weekend. Occasionally she has a lie in at the weekend and I am so used to getting up that I get up and get ahead of the game a little. SO anyone claiming that there's another 44 hours of housework a week in their house that needs doing should really get onto those "How Clean Are Your House People"!

I've never really been a stay at home parent but I do think it's as worthwhile a job as any other and in fairness, I do know my housework increases a lot when I'm at home all day. When I'm at work all week and my daughter is in creche all day, the house is empty and not being messed up.
You said yourself you are never home and your child is in creche 40 hours a week. Of course you'll have less housework than someone who is at home with their child all week.
I also know plenty of stay at home parents who mind their kids as opposed to sticking them in front of the tv or out in the garden.

Every weekend we scrape the money together to bring my daughter out to either the seaside nearby or some other local attraction. Failing that we make an effort to bring her swimming to the pool or doing some other stimulating activity. THIS is why I work so hard. The ability to decide to go out to Sunday lunch together is something we could never afford to do on Social Welfare.

Great, thats your choice but a single parent should have the right to forsake a lunch and be a stay at home parent if that is what they want.

And yes there is a debt. Did you miss the bit where I said there isn't enough coming in? The credit union has to be paid for where I MYSELF (and not the state) had to pay for furnishing and kitting out my council house when after 14 years on the housing list (constantly being bypassed by single women making babies for a living) because appliances, furniture etc does not come from the Community Welfare Officer Fairy for those of us who work. The bank has to be paid for the car-loan I took out after having my daughter because my husband was working nights and wasn't home in time in the morning for me to get his car to drive my daughter the 10 miles to the nearest creche that would take her. So no big mortgage I am afraid. Just childcare and work expenses and ordinary day to day stuff. No gambling problems or anything like that at work either, in case you are wondering. Neither of us smoke, my husband doesn't drink and I have had two glasses of wine in the last 3 years (pregnant for half of that and as hubby works nights I am up with the little one in the morning and feel she deserves a clear headed mammy). We have had two nights out in the two years since my daughter was born. No babysitter nearby and no family nearby. A trusted friend and I swapped babysitting duties but the opportunity is rare.

Get a better paid job. According to many on here it's very easy to do. To get a job that pays enough to pay everything.

So with all due respect Ash, you sound like you are living the high life to me. Be glad of it and stop whining for more.

I'm not the one whining about what others have and what I don't have.
I'm perfectly happy with my lot. Maybe if more were they wouldn't begrudge others. I'd love a council house but I won't get one. But I don't moan about people who do.

And one last thing.... this "the state and not the taxpayer" carry on is showing a shocking ignorance of basic economics. For the most part, you are the state. I am the state. The state is funded by a combination of my taxes and govt borrowing. You sound like one of those people who think it's ok to pocket money from the bank when they accidentally lodge too much to their accounts because the bank is this large faceless organisation who can afford it in your view. What contribution are you making other than the vat on goods and services and road tax that we all pay? Other posters on here are bang on the money. This is a personal responsibility issue. There IS no free lunch.

I said nothing about taxes and the state. That was another poster.

What contribution do I make? I pay tax and PRSI. Have done for years and will do for years. But perhaps my main contribution to society is bringing up a wonderful little person who is clever and kind. Who doesn't look at what other people have and what she hasn't. Who has friends with everything and friends with nothing and doesn't concern herself over it. Who is tolerant and understanding of others who are more in need than she is no matter what their situation is.

K-9

TargetWidow wrote: »

(b) parenting is a full time job (most of the mothers I see claiming this have their kids glued to the TV or gaming sytems when indoors and thrown outdoors unsupervised the rest of the time..... they NEVER take them anywhere or do anything with them).

Good post, shame about the above.

TargetWidow

K-9 wrote: »

Good post, shame about the above.

Apologies for that K9, I didn't explain myself fully there. What I meant to say was "Once they start school, parenting is not a full time job" Meaning that having a child in your care should not be a reason to be incapable of obtaining work once that child is in school from the age of 5... Certainly once they are in school from 9-3, that's a 6 hour day someone could easily work. The reference to the children I see are children who live in my estate and how their parents manage during the summer holidays. I'm not making them up. Perhaps it is just a small enclave of shockingly bad parenthood.

I hope this clarifies my thoughts.... I do not mean to demean parenthood, it was a statement about the time factor. This idea that exists at the moment that a child is such a burden to a parent for the full 18 years (which magically then disappears when they usually begin to genuinely get expensive and worrysome!), is laughable. The idea that having a child (who is in full time education) would prevent a person from getting work until they start Secondary School is similarly baffling to me. Even stay at home parents have to admit that they are the only person at home when their children are out at school.

And about the council house, it's not a lifestyle choice. I genuinely cannot afford private rented accomodation. I lived in private rented hovels for 17 years before moving into this house. None of them were fit for a small baby. Erego I didn't have a child until I had secured proper accommodation. Our income falls into the category whereby we qualify for a council house, and the very moment we can afford to buy we will give it up gladly to someone who has more need than us, of course. I never said my job was a burden. Or that I am dissatisfied with any aspect of it. Far from it. I am a realist and this is how it is in the real world. A fact of life in employment is paying tax, PRSI, income levy, health levy (I forgot those ones earlier, sorry). And my child won't attend a private school for the simple reason there are none nearby, but if there were, she would. And, yes I do forego the public service for the forthcoming birth of my child. My consultant cost €3,000 to me and my VHI picks up the tab for the hospital stay in a maternity unit. The VHI is €2,200 per annum for us. I disagree with the schedule of timings for the vaccinations and usually get them done to a later timescale which evidence supports reduces the health risks. Therefore I pay for the vaccinations. Doctors cost €40 every time my husband or I need one and €30 for the child. (My husband works despite having a serious back injury with the last 3 years which requires thousands in consultants fees and GP fees not covered by VHI every year). I take nothing I do not absolutely have to.

I begrudge nothing to anyone who needs it. I begrudge everything to those who simply "want" it and expect me as a taxpayer to pay for it. And I agree that LPA are being singled out unfairly at the moment. I could tell horror stories about Disability and how it is being abused in my community too, but it would be off topic for this thread. The entire Social Welfare System is subject to endemic abuse. It is built in. I see all the rip-off merchants getting every benefit they can,because they know how to play the system, and the few genuine cases getting no end of grief for the few bob they need to claim. It's not right. If there were fewer people taking advantage of the system there would be enough money to fund a proper health and education system, special needs education appropriate to those children who really need it, a functional and properly run mental health system and a good social services system. Instead, services are neglected, and taxes are high to try to cover the budget for a social welfare system bursting at the seams with people who really do not have proper need of it's support.

And bringing a child into this world is not of itself a contribution to society, however wonderfully you raise it. If someone else pays to put the food on the table for that child, then it is a burden on the state. One which should only be there in my opinion in the most extreme circumstances. Certainly not because the parent has opted for stay at home parenthood, without having the resources themselves to pay for that choice. If every parent in the country took this option, how would all the childless people feel about carrying the financial burden of paying the increased taxes that would be necessary to pay for that? It's not a right. It should never be a right. With rights come responsibilities. I hear very little responsibility here.

K-9

TargetWidow wrote: »

Apologies for that K9, I didn't explain myself fully there. What I meant to say was "Once they start school, parenting is not a full time job" Meaning that having a child in your care should not be a reason to be incapable of obtaining work once that child is in school from the age of 5... Certainly once they are in school from 9-3, that's a 6 hour day someone could easily work. The reference to the children I see are children who live in my estate and how their parents manage during the summer holidays. I'm not making them up. Perhaps it is just a small enclave of shockingly bad parenthood.

I hope this clarifies my thoughts.... I do not mean to demean parenthood, it was a statement about the time factor. This idea that exists at the moment that a child is such a burden to a parent for the full 18 years (which magically then disappears when they usually begin to genuinely get expensive and worrysome!), is laughable. The idea that having a child (who is in full time education) would prevent a person from getting work until they start Secondary School is similarly baffling to me. Even stay at home parents have to admit that they are the only person at home when their children are out at school.

One of the biggest areas that employment grew over the last decade was in part time jobs, both married and single parents. I do know it happens, just IMO, not as much as made out. Ash23 has posted the statistics about Single Parents and Employment, 80% are working.

I agree with your points. We don't have measures there to encourage parents, whether married or single, back into the work force, especially at high end, "knowledge economy" type jobs. I've posted why on this thread. Cuts have been brought in but with no thought.

mariaf24

It all sounds tough TargetWindow. I think people are forgetting how simple this thread is - the Government plan to axe one parent family payment when the child turns 13. As you have said TargetWindow, Parenting is not a 'fulltime' job when a child reaches that age - yes a parent is all the time responsible for that child but it is absolute nonsense that a parent could receive welfare for being at home while their child is in school 6 - 8 hours.

gcgirl

First off can i start by saying how the government pissed away a hell of a lot of money through the early child care allowance to people who clearly did not need it using it for their spa weekends away where as if they had of put it into bricks & mortar where people who need affordable childcare can get it and then there is the current situation of NO JOBS or are some of you's living in a different country to myself ? The dept are merely shifting the problem from one section to the other those who have not got jobs will go on the dole and is this really solveing anything No ! It's pr talk and not doing anything and the fact that if you report some one nothing gets done fraud should be clamped down as the people who are doing and we all know them driving around in their beemers !

mariaf24

gcgirl,I agree with alot of what you said. It is quite possible that the majority who lose the benefit will move on to jobseekers benefit. However,I think that money alot of money will be saved as it will be less attractive for younger girls to see having a baby as a career, or those who do, maybe receiving an education or looking for a suitable career?
Again, I am not saying it is common for girls to do this, but i am saying there are a small number of girls who have became pregnant to receive the benefits that go along with it,I have seen it among young girls myself.

Although i suppose you could also argue that someone may have another baby as their child nears 13 so as to remain on the benefit?

LegacyUser

I think the bottom line to the entire argument is that the system is being screwed by people left, right and centre and badly needs overhauling. I'm quite sure nobody would begrudge a lone parent's allowance or child benefit to a genuine case, but not enough time and effort is put into finding out who the genuine cases are. If anything, we should drop the amount paid out to all parents down to a lower amount, but have the option of increasing by increments under means testing...which would require far greater scrutiny on the state's part.

K-9

Interesting that the PD's proposed measures like this in 1997. Thought there was a reason this was a wrong idea!