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
Stay at Home Mothers (RTE Program)
Options
Comments
-
You forgot to mention that a lone parent is entitled to maintainance from their childs other parent. It took two people to create a child and unless a lone parent is widowed then the other parent should share financial and childcare responsibilities. Why should the state be more responsible for a child whos parents are separated than one whos parents are together? Been a lone parent doesnt always mean been the only parent.I'm a single parent with one child. Using me as an example, if I earned minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, not paid for lunch break of an hour, I would get the grand total of €302.75.
I would get FIS of €123 per week. So my income would be €425 approx (and that isn't factoring in pesky things like PRSI and the USC charge.
So my rent is €150 per week and my childcare is an average of €85. Leaving the grand total of €190 to pay transport, bills, feed and clothe two people, school expenses etc.
If the government pay an allowance of €188 for me and another €29.80 for a child dependent, then I would actually be living below the very basic standards set by them and working 40 hours a week.
And I live in the country where rent and childcare is much cheaper, so I can on'y imagine how someone would manage in a city.
I work and earn a fair bit above min wage and can manage but the reality of someone trying to pay childcare on minimum wage is stark.
Squiggler if you have a couple where one is working and claiming Family Income Supplement, they could both work and not claim it. A single person can only ever earn one fulltime wage. And from that they have to pay childcare. A couple can either have two incomes and pay childcare or have one and pay no childcare. They are at an advantage. Why not make both work?
If you have a situation where the working person loses their job, they can claim for the other adult even if that adult isn't trying to find work.
I dont understand what suggested welfare changes has to do with this thread which is about a programme on stay at home mums. I certainly never recieved any welfare payments during my 11 years at home. Single parents are entitled to a higher tax credit and its astounding that you would believe that the circa 750e tax credit paid to the spouses of a home carer should not exist. The system needs to be fairer to everyone not just the segment that you happen to occupy.0 -
I think you misunderstand what child maintenance is for. It's actually only meant to cover the additional cost to a parent for providing reasonable care for a child. As an example, consider a single parent renting a two room city apartment for, say, €1,000 p.m. If they were single, they'd still have to rent a one room apartment for, say, €800 p.m., which means that the additional cost (for accommodation) incurred by the child is €200 p.m., of which the non custodial parent's share is half, not half of the total rent - because the custodial parent is also supposed to contribute towards these costs.You forgot to mention that a lone parent is entitled to maintainance from their childs other parent. It took two people to create a child and unless a lone parent is widowed then the other parent should share financial and childcare responsibilities. Why should the state be more responsible for a child whos parents are separated than one whos parents are together? Been a lone parent doesnt always mean been the only parent.
The above figures are not really important; the principle point I'm making is that maintenance is not supposed to support the custodial parent financially, only contribute towards supporting the child(ren).
Where the custodial parent is also a dependant of the non-custodial one (if they were married, registered partners or long-term cohabitants), they get separate maintenance for themselves. So you should not confuse the two.
In reality, the state is mainly supporting the single parent, not the child - LPA is for the parent, child benefit (which is much smaller) is for the child. If anything it tries to pass some of the payment for the custodial parent onto the non-custodial one, in that maintenance is generally deducted from rent allowance or if the maintenance is high enough, they'll deduct from LPA.0 -
You forgot to mention that a lone parent is entitled to maintainance from their childs other parent. It took two people to create a child and unless a lone parent is widowed then the other parent should share financial and childcare responsibilities. Why should the state be more responsible for a child whos parents are separated than one whos parents are together? Been a lone parent doesnt always mean been the only parent.
You're right but one parent family payment covers a lot of ground - people whose exs are in prison, unemployed, untraceable, people whose partners died or are in prison. And people whose exs pay maintenance for the child and which is then deducted from their one parent family payment. The state pays the same for all children on welfare payments.
The person in the programme thought that all women should work. It seems the government is heading in that direction, starting with single parents. Who knows how long before they also cut benefits for stay at home parents of married people.I dont understand what suggested welfare changes has to do with this thread which is about a programme on stay at home mums.
I never said it shouldn't exist. You are saying things should be fair. I agree. And all things being equal, if single parents can't rely on benefits to be stay at home parents, the same should apply for married couples.I certainly never recieved any welfare payments during my 11 years at home. Single parents are entitled to a higher tax credit and its astounding that you would believe that the circa 750e tax credit paid to the spouses of a home carer should not exist. The system needs to be fairer to everyone not just the segment that you happen to occupy.
As for the "segment I happen to occupy" I am a working single parent. I do not receive benefits. However, I dislike the idea that my child is treated differently to children of couples by the government.
If the government have incentives to have one parent of a couple stay at home while forcing single parents out to work, it is differentiating between the rights of a child to have a parent at home (as per the constitution) and is therefore, not fair or equal.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 18482
They don't though is the issue you get extra tax credits being a single parent that are greater then the extra tax credits that the spouse of a married person and a cohabiting person gets nothing.
Married parents get 0 for staying at home when the spouse goes to work,same as cohabiting ones.
At least at the moment lone parents get an income to stay at home which is not the same for those cohabiting.0 -
They don't though is the issue you get extra tax credits being a single parent that are greater then the extra tax credits that the spouse of a married person and a cohabiting person gets nothing.
Married parents get 0 for staying at home when the spouse goes to work,same as cohabiting ones.
At least at the moment lone parents get an income to stay at home which is not the same for those cohabiting.
They get FIS to top up their income even if one parent stays home by choice. Yes, single parents get FIS too, however they can only ever earn one income. A couple could earn two and potentially avoid claiming FIS.
Where a married or co-habiting couple are on benefits, an allowance is made for the person who stays at home regardless of whether they are looking for work or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
They get FIS to top up their income even if one parent stays home by choice. Yes, single parents get FIS too, however they can only ever earn one income. A couple could earn two and potentially avoid claiming FIS.
But FIS is less useful if you have two incomes. You get an amount based per child and this doesn't increase if you've two people working. So when the second parent gets a job (assuming the first has a lowish income) they're only earning 40c in the Euro.0 -
But FIS is less useful if you have two incomes. You get an amount based per child and this doesn't increase if you've two people working. So when the second parent gets a job (assuming the first has a lowish income) they're only earning 40c in the Euro.
So?
If a single parent is expected to go back to work and manage on less so that they don't claim benefits, then why not the married couple? It doesn't really "pay" most single parents to work. In a lot of cases (with lower incomes) they are a fair bit worse off than on benefits.
Look, I actually have no problem with FIS, tax credits, adult dependent allowances OR One parent family payment.
My problem is that the governemment are differentiating between the right of a child to have a parent at home, depending on whether that child has a couple as parents or is from a single parent family.
And the funny thing is, this will get support and will be passed because it's a popular (and easy) cut. Majority of the public won't see the bigger picture.
But if this is passed, how long before it stops being just single parents who are targetted?
And then Emer O'Kelly will get her wish and all mothers will be forced back into the workplace unless their partner earns enough to allow them to stay at home. Staying at home truly will be a massive luxury and not a right as it currently is.
So all those stay at home parents with partners on lower incomes, relying on FIS or on jobseekers while their partners look for work, get ready to dust off your CVs and head down to the job centre! And when it happens, look back to the cuts you supported for single parents and realise that was the start of it all! :P0 -
Join Date:Posts: 18482
No one should be worse off on benefits and I have a huge issue that some people are.
Up until now single parents were the only people paid to stay at home and that was seen as not fair by cohabiting people and due to this people claimed to be not cohabiting and were.
The system is messed up.
One of the good things about Ireland is that we have a good welfare system and that single parents are adequately catered for.
They will hopefully replace lone parents allowance with something that benefits more people and childrens allowance will remain as it is.
Tax relief on childcare is something that I would love.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 18482
-
Only managed to watch this last night.. wow!!
I think what really, really angered me was that the reporter only concentrated on a certain class, as in the women lucky enough to be able to stay at home, not doing it because they can't afford the childcare costs that come with (generally) mothers going back to work, or single/widowed mothers.
She did not speak to some mothers out there that are either having to work and finding it very difficult either.
The whole thing was one sided, from a woman who couldn't even manage a computerised doll!
I'm working at the moment part-time for pittance (it just about covers the childcare and travel costs), but I did stay at home until my daughter was about 3/4 years old, and I don't regret it for one minute, she is 10 now. I now enjoy work, and getting out and mixing with others, and feel I appreciate the time when I am at home with my child, however I certainly do not look down at those at home, I admire them as I am not fully sure if I would have the patience to do so.... by coincidence I only said to a friend the other that that I 'work harder when I am at home, that when I am in work!'
I think that whole documentary was a typical example of women being their own worse enemies at times!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 18482
Yeah, no idea why we are even allowed out of the kitchen anymore;)
There is less then a month to the budget and I fell it is going to be one of our most interesting ever.
No body wants what they get touched but don't seem to mind if what other people get is reduced.
I also think that Ireland and its constitution are sometimes in the dark ages and do not reflect the changing face of the family.0 -
I'm not entirely sure why this is a right.Staying at home truly will be a massive luxury and not a right as it currently is.
Let's put it this way. Prior to the development of the welfare state, the ability of one member of a partnership/marriage to stay at home was not a right, it was simply something that was done if it was economically viable and also because the employment options open to women were limited. Where it was not economically viable both worked - a wife would work on the farm, or get a job as a servant, schoolteacher or whatever.
So, that this is now a right (indeed, in Ireland it is a constitutional imperative) that a woman stay at home is a very modern thing. Additionally, the economic landscape has changed; women are no longer limited in their choice of occupation - in fact the only limitations that women face are directly related to their perceived role as child carer. Jobs are no longer 'for life' and greater competition (now that jobs are open to both genders) has pushed down relative salaries - all of which makes allowing one partner/spouse to stay at home impractical.
But even this avoids the very pertinent question; does anyone have a right to stay at home if they cannot afford it? I'll have to say that the answer is probably not and it's probably time that we stop cherry-picking which parts of pre and post female emancipation society we would like to adopt, because you ultimately can't have both.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I'm not entirely sure why this is a right.
Let's put it this way. Prior to the development of the welfare state, the ability of one member of a partnership/marriage to stay at home was not a right, it was simply something that was done if it was economically viable and also because the employment options open to women were limited. Where it was not economically viable both worked - a wife would work on the farm, or get a job as a servant, schoolteacher or whatever.
So, that this is now a right (indeed, in Ireland it is a constitutional imperative) that a woman stay at home is a very modern thing. Additionally, the economic landscape has changed; women are no longer limited in their choice of occupation - in fact the only limitations that women face are directly related to their perceived role as child carer. Jobs are no longer 'for life' and greater competition (now that jobs are open to both genders) has pushed down relative salaries - all of which makes allowing one partner/spouse to stay at home impractical.
But even this avoids the very pertinent question; does anyone have a right to stay at home if they cannot afford it? I'll have to say that the answer is probably not and it's probably time that we stop cherry-picking which parts of pre and post female emancipation society we would like to adopt, because you ultimately can't have both.
Oh I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right either. But I have to strongly disagree with removing that right from single parents and not from all parents.0 -
Oh I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right either. But I have to strongly disagree with removing that right from single parents and not from all parents.
It's not a right for married couples though, it's something earned through one partner earning a sufficient amount for both to survive on it with the kids and cover rent/mortgage etc. Things like FIS only make it feasible for one parent to work (or with a lot of kids, both parents) and rent, but not have a mortgage or put aside substantial savings and so on.0 -
I understand what you're saying. I think this anomaly is a bit of a throwback of the traditional family model, in that the wife was seen as a dependant of the husband, like a child is to a single parent. And if that appears condescending, it's because it is and was based upon the gender rights and roles that pre-dated female emancipation.Oh I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right either. But I have to strongly disagree with removing that right from single parents and not from all parents.
As such, the logic could be considered that the single parent, just like the husband, is expected to provide financially for themselves and their dependants. In essence, the wife is seen on a par with a minor and is not expected to provide financially for themselves.
Philosophically, that's my take on how it's seen.0 -
Not sure about that. Consider a male provider and female homemaker, who are married. The male loses his job and goes on the Dole, where he gets benefits because he has dependants (his wife being one).It's not a right for married couples though, it's something earned through one partner earning a sufficient amount for both to survive on it with the kids and cover rent/mortgage etc.
He's not earning a sufficient amount for both, receiving benefits for both, yet there is no pressure for both to work.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Not sure about that. Consider a male provider and female homemaker, who are married. The male loses his job and goes on the Dole, where he gets benefits because he has dependants (his wife being one).
He's not earning a sufficient amount for both, receiving benefits for both, yet there is no pressure for both to work.
Sure, but it's two adults + kids so he needs to get the extra amount in the Dole. I don't really see a way around this. Generally though they'll make more money with him working any job + FIS because FIS doesn't count as income for benefits like the medical card and similar.0 -
-
Yes dependant stay at home Dad's are rare but there are families out there were the mother is the one working, with the Dad at home and so that family get FIS.0
-
Advertisement
-
True, in theory it can work both ways.Yes dependant stay at home Dad's are rare but there are families out there were the mother is the one working, with the Dad at home and so that family get FIS.
Given this, the difference is that in Ireland only a woman has a constitutional right to stay at home. Presuming one considers it a right, that is.0 -
Actually, according to the papers a few weeks ago a third of households are financially supported by the woman, not the man, of the house. I'm in that situation, as are two friends of mine.
We get no financial assistance and I had to go back to work 6 months after giving birth to a stillborn baby (the baby died during labour) because there were no other feasible options.
My husband is studying to try to reskill and we have to pay his college fees etc too.
Even if the baby had been well the only benefit we would have received other than childrens allowance would have been the home carers credit. Because benefits are calculated on the gross, not net income the fact that I pay pension levy (not entitled to a public sector pension) and am also forced to pay for a private pension by my workplace means that I lose another 20% of my gross on top of tax/prsi/usc we get no help. One of my best friends is a single mother. She takes home roughly the same amount of money as I do each month, but she has no rent to pay, subsidised bills and only one adult to feed and clothe.
I don't envy her, or resent her for it, she needs the help. But I don't think it is fair to say that Married's have it better. After all, I pay my PRSI - I just never get any benefit out of it.
Edited to clear up My friend is working, net pay only slightly lower than mine. I'm not talking about people on welfare. I'm talking about the difference between a working married woman with a dependent adult and a working single mom with a dependent child.0 -
One of my best friends is a single mother. She takes home roughly the same amount of money as I do each month, but she has no rent to pay, subsidised bills and only one adult to feed and clothe
I'm genuinely confused about this.
One Parent family payment for a person with one child is €188 for an adult and €29.80 for the child. So a monthly take home pay of €943.80 or an annual net income of €11,325 per year. A working person couldn't really be taking home less than that could they? Even with tax, PRSI and pension contributions?
She wouldn't have no rent to pay either. Anyone on rent allowance has to make a minimum contribution of €24 per week minimum. If the person is getting maintenance, this will be deducted from her rent allowance also.
Same applies if she has a council house. Rent has to be paid and it is means tested.
Subsidised bills?
Do you mean medical card, fuel allowance (from September to April) and Back to school allowance? In total, she would have free medical (which is great, don't get me wrong) and yearly an extra €640 fuel allowance and €200 (assuming one primary school child) bringing her income up to €12165 less rent of €1248. plus childrens allowance of €1680.
Disposable income of €12,597 and free medical care.
That cannot be more than someone with a full time job.
I have a pension, USC, PRSI etc, am on an average wage and have more than that after paying my rent.
Also, that pension, that is a benefit you have that she will not. When old age arrives you and your family will be better off, she will not.
Marrieds on welfare will be better off in terms of a stay at home parent than single parents will.
Make the cuts, but make them across the board. That would be fairest.0 -
Hold on; I really don't think you can dismiss rent allowance so easily. Rent allowance typically covers the majority of total rent, which otherwise would have to be paid from the earnings of an employed person. This is not a trivial amount, and can in reality add the better part of a thousand Euro to the 'income' of a recipient.She wouldn't have no rent to pay either. Anyone on rent allowance has to make a minimum contribution of €24 per week minimum.
Based upon that, your calculation should really read: Disposable income of €12,597 and free medical care, ignoring rent. And this changes matters significantly, as that rent can very easily cost someone (for a two-bedroom apartment) €1,000 per month, which means that taking rent allowance covering the majority of this into account disposable income can easily exceed €20k in real terms.
Now you may still ultimately bring home more than that working full-time, but to do so you would have to earn a minimum salary of about €25k. In reality, you'd want to earn quite a bit more to make it worth your while to work a full working week and take care of a child - and that's before we consider child care costs.
While I'm not convinced that anyone's pension will benefit us in the long term any-more, I broadly agree with the long term view. Working means that your career progresses and your income increases over time. It may not be financially attractive for someone to give up benefits in the short term, but in the longer term they will reap the financial rewards.Also, that pension, that is a benefit you have that she will not. When old age arrives you and your family will be better off, she will not.
Unfortunately, I get the impression that many on benefits (and I certainly do not single out single parents), don't really have such a long term view. The short term gain or cost is considered and what they may gain or lose in five, ten or twenty years is not.
And what happens when the child hits a certain age? The custodial parent becomes 'unemployed' anyway and whatever maintenance they may have been paid ends too. But by then they've been out of the market so long that re-entering (presuming they even can) becomes much more difficult.
And then what? Is the child to support the parent in their old age? I've witnessed too many such cases where the child does then indeed become the single parent's 'pension', I'm afraid.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Hold on; I really don't think you can dismiss rent allowance so easily. Rent allowance typically covers the majority of total rent, which otherwise would have to be paid from the earnings of an employed person. This is not a trivial amount, and can in reality add the better part of a thousand Euro to the 'income' of a recipient.
I was pretty clear in saying that my own disposable income AFTER rent was still more that that single mother on welfare and I'm on a fairly basic wage. I'm not dismissing rent allowance but it's inaccurate to say a single mother on RA pays NO rent. They do. A minimum of €24. Thats not nothing. Especially when the annual income is €12K.
I earn 25k per annum. I'm not much better off than on benefits but I did the whole "benefits" thing when my daughter was little and it's not the gravy train it's made out to be.Now you may still ultimately bring home more than that working full-time, but to do so you would have to earn a minimum salary of about €25k. In reality, you'd want to earn quite a bit more to make it worth your while to work a full working week and take care of a child - and that's before we consider child care costs.
On 25k, even paying childcare and rent I am still better off working. Marginally but that margin means the difference between scraping by and being able to have the occasional treat.
Exactly. I worked my way up from 16k per year when my daughter was 2 to 25k now my daughter is 8. I also have my health insurance paid and my pension contributions matched. None of this matters a jot in terms of trying to pay rent and for food, but hey, it's something I guess.While I'm not convinced that anyone's pension will benefit us in the long term any-more, I broadly agree with the long term view. Working means that your career progresses and your income increases over time. It may not be financially attractive for someone to give up benefits in the short term, but in the longer term they will reap the financial rewards.Unfortunately, I get the impression that many on benefits (and I certainly do not single out single parents), don't really have such a long term view. The short term gain or cost is considered and what they may gain or lose in five, ten or twenty years is not.
And what happens when the child hits a certain age? The custodial parent becomes 'unemployed' anyway and whatever maintenance they may have been paid ends too. But by then they've been out of the market so long that re-entering (presuming they even can) becomes much more difficult.
And then what? Is the child to support the parent in their old age? I've witnessed too many such cases where the child does then indeed become the single parent's 'pension', I'm afraid.
I don't disagree that relying on benefits is a bad idea. But the government aren't actually doing anything to make sure a single parent on benefits with a 7 year old child will be able to return to work, pay for a decent childcare place and support themselves. There are no training or employment incentives, no plans as to where all these jobs are meant to come from, no provisions for childcare etc.
It's merely a move which will be popular with the public, which will seriously impact children.
Someone on mimimum wage working fulltime will have to compromise somewhere if trying to pay childcare too. Either childcare is going to be compromised or rent. So we'll either have 7 + year olds being left alone from 3 to 6pm every day (if the parent is fortunate enough to get a job with those hours), or possibly being left home alone while they sleep. Or people being forced to rent in the cheapest places possible and children being brought up in squalid or rough areas. Or single parents being forced to lie and pretend they are job seeking and going from genuine claimants to being fraudsters.
We only have to look at where other countries failed.
Realistically to enjoy any reasonable standard of living while working, a single parent does need to be earning about 25k upwards. More the more children they have (childcare).
If the government either addressed the issue by ensuring these people could enter the workforce at a competitive level so they could get those kinds of salaries, or acknowledged the childcare issue, then at least we'd know that this wasn't just a cheap shot at single parents, feeding the negative media association.
It used to be that people on the dole and single parents were seen as scroungers. Now the tide is turning and being on the dole is acceptable and is garnering sympathy but the low opinions and attitudes towards single parents trundles on.0 -
But that's the thing, the annual income is not actually €12K, because it ignores the value of rent allowance - add that to the figure and you're likely on over €20K.I was pretty clear in saying that my own disposable income AFTER rent was still more that that single mother on welfare and I'm on a fairly basic wage. I'm not dismissing rent allowance but it's inaccurate to say a single mother on RA pays NO rent. They do. A minimum of €24. Thats not nothing. Especially when the annual income is €12K.
I don't doubt that, but marginal benefit does not convince many. This is not limited to single parents, btw, but other recipients of social welfare - when working a 40+ hr/wk job only makes you marginally better off, many understandably don't bother.On 25k, even paying childcare and rent I am still better off working. Marginally but that margin means the difference between scraping by and being able to have the occasional treat.
I completely agree. Encouraging people to get off welfare dependency is something that requires both the carrot and stick. Unfortunately we cannot afford the carrot at present, and when we could, it wasn't a priority for us.I don't disagree that relying on benefits is a good idea. But the government aren't actually doing anything to make sure a single parent on benefits with a 7 year old child will be able to return to work, pay for a decent childcare place and support themselves. There are no training or employment incentives, no plans as to where all these jobs are meant to come from, no provisions for childcare etc.
How so? Remember, all that realistically changes is that with the child aged 7, the single parent has to justify (just like any other unwaged person) their lack of job. It doesn't force them to take a job that they cannot afford to do, any more than any other unemployed person can be forced given reasonable objections. You can hardly object to that, can you?It's merely a move which will be popular with the public, which will seriously impact children.
And as you said yourself, it's tough at first, but it pays off in the long run.
I'm not aware of any other country where this has 'failed'.We only have to look at where other countries failed.
It used to be that people on the dole were seen as scroungers, during the boom years - because there was little reason for them not to be genuinely looking for work. If single parents are being targeted now is it probably because once a child hits a certain age, there is at least no reason that such a parent should at least be looking for some kind of work.It used to be that people on the dole and single parents were seen as scroungers. Now the tide is turning and being on the dole is acceptable and is garnering sympathy but the low opinions and attitudes towards single parents trundles on.0 -
I suppose, but will turning down a minimum wage job be allowed? Even if it means living on a pittance after rent and childcare is paid? And while I would be ok with it if they can,relieved in fact, it still hasn't changed how I feel about this applying only to single parents.The Corinthian wrote: »How so? Remember, all that realistically changes is that with the child aged 7, the single parent has to justify (just like any other unwaged person) their lack of job. It doesn't force them to take a job that they cannot afford to do, any more than any other unemployed person can be forced given reasonable objections. You can hardly object to that, can you?
Ghettos. In any country.I'm not aware of any other country where this has 'failed'.
Lack of support for single parents. Children of single parents are already more likely to grow up in poverty, drop out of school and break the law. It's not exactly commonplace in Ireland and it's only my own theory, but I think it's because of the welfare system which helps support single parents.
A child of 7 is too young to be left unsupervised.
And who will be hit in the next budget? They've nothing left to take from single parents really. Or younger people (once they get hit with third level fees. They've already been hit with lower dole rates last year). They can't touch the elderly or the disabled. That would be too unpopular. So who else will be the easy soft target? The married/co-habiting couples.It used to be that people on the dole were seen as scroungers, during the boom years - because there was little reason for them not to be genuinely looking for work. If single parents are being targeted now is it probably because once a child hits a certain age, there is at least no reason that such a parent should at least be looking for some kind of work.
So again, it boils down to the point I originally made which is that over the next few budgets, Emer O'Kelly will get her way and both parents will have to work unless they can afford (without any state help) to live on one salary.
So for all those who were aghast at O'Kellys ideals, that is the way things are heading in my opinion.0 -
When a child is only 7 a single parent cannot take a full time job without child care as it is illegal to leave a child of that age unsupervised. If that child care is not financially viable, then they have a valid reason not to accept a job offer.I suppose, but will turning down a minimum wage job be allowed? Even if it means living on a pittance after rent and childcare is paid? And while I would be ok with it if they can,relieved in fact, it still hasn't changed how I feel about this applying only to single parents.
However, job offers involving part time work, during school hours, and such don't require additional child supervision - it's quite difficult to reject those, especially if the terms and qualifications are commensurate to the applicant.
There's already plenty of ghettos in Ireland. I really don't see how asking single parents to look for employment is going to encourage ghettos - the opposite, I would think.Ghettos. In any country.
That's a different topic TBH. And just because a group is a 'soft' target for a budget, does not mean that they should not be subjected to reform - it just means they are more politically viable to reform.And who will be hit in the next budget? They've nothing left to take from single parents really. Or younger people (once they get hit with third level fees. They've already been hit with lower dole rates last year). They can't touch the elderly or the disabled. That would be too unpopular. So who else will be the easy soft target? The married/co-habiting couples.
As to co-habiting couples, I suspect the cohabitation bill already 'hit' them, as it pushed the onus of dependency, with those that lived together for a few years, off the state and onto each other.
That may be so, but as I already asked, I don't know if we should consider having a full time child carer at home a 'right', if we cannot afford it. I personally feel that the benefits to the child are arguable and is in reality a tradition from an era that was swept away by female emancipation. Unless you want to turn back the clock, it's not terribly practical any more and is almost an indulgence.So again, it boils down to the point I originally made which is that over the next few budgets, Emer O'Kelly will get her way and both parents will have to work unless they can afford (without any state help) to live on one salary.
So for all those who were aghast at O'Kellys ideals, that is the way things are heading in my opinion.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That may be so, but as I already asked, I don't know if we should consider having a full time child carer at home a 'right', if we cannot afford it. I personally feel that the benefits to the child are arguable and is in reality a tradition from an era that was swept away by female emancipation. Unless you want to turn back the clock, it's not terribly practical any more and is almost an indulgence.
And as I already answered, I don't believe it should be a right. But I dislike my child not being afforded that right when it's offered to the parents of married children.
It is an indulgence and I wouldn't be posting if it also applied to married or co-habiting couples. But it doesn't. So that isn't right. And that is my issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have been both a full time SAHM (when kids were small - great fun and really hard work!) and a working mum (since my youngest was four, before that I worked part time for a few years).
I might get completely flamed for this, but I don't think it's a good example for my kids, and most especially for my daughter, to see me living off someone else's hard work when there isn't really a job to be done at home any more, or certainly not a full-time one.
It's hard to distinguish between thinking it's acceptable to live on welfare and thinking it's acceptable to live on someone elses wages from a philosophical standpoint - both involve adopting the position that it's acceptable in life not to provide for yourself (or your loved ones).
Before I get eaten, it's completely different with babies (who need someone full-time to care for them) or if you can't get a job etc.
(puts on crash helmet)0
Advertisement