He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

mloc

dj jarvis wrote: »

i propose you start a political party who's social welfare policy does not include any help for people who " cant afford kids " - and while we are at it college fees

It's on the cards.

Dudess

A party that marginalises? Well if you think there's an underclass now, it ain't nothing compared to what would emerge if your ideal system came to fruition...

It actually IS the reality in America - and a massive gulf between the haves and have-nots has really worked out well there... Sure, life is wonderful for those who have money and are depicted in Friends and whatnot, but what about the masses and masses of people you don't hear about?

dj jarvis

mloc wrote: »

I'm a libertarian; I support the original ideas of the tea party such a limited government, low taxation and reduction in entitlements.

I don't support the social conservatism that has permeated the Tea Party.

bingo - so at least you admitted you want that world , funny but the country's that are totally different to your model are seen as the best in the world

have a look at this and see where USA and the UK are ranked and then have a look at the nations that actually give a sh1t ( good old ireland is ranked a lot higher than the other **** holes i mentioned )

http://www.prosperity.com/countries.aspx


your model DOES NOT WORK - you will eventually pay more , your just 2 shortsighted to see this

in fact the top 7 country's are seen as best places to raise a family - none follow your veiws , funny that

dj jarvis

Dudess wrote: »

A party that marginalises? Well if you think there's an underclass now, it ain't nothing compared to what would emerge if your ideal system came to fruition...

It actually IS the reality in America - and a massive gulf between the haves and have-nots has really worked out well there... Sure, life is wonderful for those who have money and are depicted in Friends and whatnot, but what about the masses and masses of people you don't hear about?

Amen dudess , starting to think this guy is a 16 year old troller - sure sound like one , pity but he does not realize that he is one bad bit of luck from being the very people he wants to stomp on

Dudess

dj jarvis wrote: »

pity but he does not realize that he is one bad bit of luck from being the very people he wants to stomp on

There but for the grace... It's so true - life's a lottery.

seanmc1980

saywhatyousee wrote: »

Your pension probaly will be wiped out completely within the next two years you should watch Bloomberg channel 502 pension funds the world over are being decimated.

LOL i have a bloomberg computer beside me here don't worry i'll have a nice pension for myself when i reture in 40 years time lol


Back to the point, The figures don't lie people, its all well and good to spout of great liberal theories but in the current climate they don't work. We throw billion upon billions at the poor in the boom and where did it get us? Just gave them an income that they rely on now from the state.
its like aid in Africa, give them fish and they will eat for a day, teach them how to fish and they eat forever.

Now i'm not saying for the state to turn their back on people who rely on state handouts but a fundamental overhaul of the social welfare system is needed. CB being just one of the area to be done away with. Put that 2billion into training, confidence building, family planning the list could go on on on what you can spend that money on with much better long term prospect for these people.
Expecting the state to pay for you child is wrong. expecting the state to provide infrastructure for you develop as parent and a functioning member of society is correct.

Mike 1972

dj jarvis wrote: »

Historically the fathers would grab the payment and piss it against a wall ,

Social history might be very interesting but hardly very relevant to a discussion regarding social welfare payments in 2011.

risteard7

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

You don't know how much it costs to raise a child, do you?

People shouldnt be having children when they cant afford them.You cant expect the state to rare your kids and its happening all over the country women who never worked in their lives and with four kids.Then blame the state that there kids going hungry I would like a child with my partner but cant afford one at this time.so should we go have one any way and blame the government when we cant afford to buy anything for him/her??

Dudess

Things aren't so simple. What if the time comes when you can afford it and a few years later you lose your job or your relationship ends? Not everyone who needs a helping hand is a scrounger. Not that it should have to be said...

dj jarvis

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Social history might be very interesting but hardly very relevant to a discussion regarding social welfare payments in 2011.

you asked why mothers got the CA and not fathers - the change is HISTORICAL as in the change is nearly 20 years old - that makes it historical.

since CA has been issued in the 50's if i remember right, the fathers were gambling and drinking it , since year dot and up to this date 2011 - that is why its is relevant today.
do you think wayward fathers don't exist in 2011 ???

you did ask the question mike - that was the correct answer - nothing to do with social history - just fact

dj jarvis

seanmc1980 wrote: »

LOL i have a bloomberg computer beside me here don't worry i'll have a nice pension for myself when i reture in 40 years time lol


Back to the point, The figures don't lie people, its all well and good to spout of great liberal theories but in the current climate they don't work. We throw billion upon billions at the poor in the boom and where did it get us? Just gave them an income that they rely on now from the state.
its like aid in Africa, give them fish and they will eat for a day, teach them how to fish and they eat forever.

Now i'm not saying for the state to turn their back on people who rely on state handouts but a fundamental overhaul of the social welfare system is needed. CB being just one of the area to be done away with. Put that 2billion into training, confidence building, family planning the list could go on on on what you can spend that money on with much better long term prospect for these people.
Expecting the state to pay for you child is wrong. expecting the state to provide infrastructure for you develop as parent and a functioning member of society is correct.

#

so let me get this right , your retiring when your 40 ? so your pension at 40 must be worth 6 million plus to see you to old age , so you must have put at least 2/3 million min into your pension , so lets assume this bull**** is true , your a multi millionaire who is on boards spouting **** about child benefit ???

would you ever cop on chap - you actually think ANYONE is taken in by your fantasy ?

sorifinh

dj jarvis wrote: »

#

so let me get this right , your retiring when your 40 ? so your pension at 40 must be worth 6 million plus to see you to old age , so you must have put at least 2/3 million min into your pension , so lets assume this bull**** is true , your a multi millionaire who is on boards spouting **** about child benefit ???

would you ever cop on chap - you actually think ANYONE is taken in by your fantasy ?

He said 40 years time....

Anyway, all this bollox about if you can't afford kids don't have them. My husband and I didn't forsee both of us losing our jobs. What should we do with the kids now that we can't afford them without state hand- outs? Drown them? Gimmie a farking break...

lmaopml

MidlandsM wrote: »

The CEO of Ryanair Michael O'Leary has said child benefit should be scrapped.

O'Leary said it was ridiculous that he received the entitlement for his four children, given his income.

Speaking today,he said the allowance should be scrapped for everyone, even those on lower incomes.

"I think you scrap it for everybody...You need to channel children's allowance (to those who need it) through income support schemes, where you're trying to channel money to those on very low incomes," he said.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/oleary-scrap-my-childrens-allowance-scrap-everyones-529230.html#ixzz1eMnPIJfm

Meh!

Of course a rich guy like O'Leary would come out with something like that. Call me cynical but why didn't he just hand it back before he got to number four - or even better not apply for it in the first place in order to have to make an ordeal out of 'sending it back', not to mention get more publicity for being 'noble'.

Go ahead 'means test' it - put the effort in to do this properly though - scrapping it will put families, who are already up to their ears just coping with working and paying childcare and actually doing their best to not depend on the state over the edge in this recession.

It's used for electricity and gas basically - and covers neither, most normal folk are on a tight rope. If they do 'means test' it - I just hope it's fair and reasonable ( and not used as another way to tax families ) and doesn't tip the balance between people willing to work and wondering wtf they are doing supporting others who think it's not worthwhile anymore.

seanmc1980

dj jarvis wrote: »

#

so let me get this right , your retiring when your 40 ? so your pension at 40 must be worth 6 million plus to see you to old age , so you must have put at least 2/3 million min into your pension , so lets assume this bull**** is true , your a multi millionaire who is on boards spouting **** about child benefit ???

would you ever cop on chap - you actually think ANYONE is taken in by your fantasy ?

?? who said they were retiring at 40? Learn to read post before you start f-ing and blinding and while your at it learn to debate also, hurling insults and calling people bollixes and ****ers cos they have a different opinion to you reaks of ignorance tbh.

seanmc1980

Dudess wrote: »

Things aren't so simple. What if the time comes when you can afford it and a few years later you lose your job or your relationship ends? Not everyone who needs a helping hand is a scrounger. Not that it should have to be said...

Will i thing things are simple. you plan your family. Isn't it basic financial planning to have built up 3-5 month salary in savings for a rainy day? it hardy take you that long to get another job to support your family?

sure people need a dig out now and again but this should be capped and dependant on educational development.

Dudess

seanmc1980 wrote: »

Will i thing things are simple. you plan your family. Isn't it basic financial planning to have built up 3-5 month salary in savings for a rainy day? it hardy take you that long to get another job to support your family?

It could. And you know it could.

You can "think" things are simple all you like, but it doesn't mean you're right.

dj jarvis

sorifinh wrote: »

He said 40 years time....

Anyway, all this bollox about if you can't afford kids don't have them. My husband and I didn't forsee both of us losing our jobs. What should we do with the kids now that we can't afford them without state hand- outs? Drown them? Gimmie a farking break...

i know - i just dont understand how these people dont see it - saddens me

dj jarvis

seanmc1980 wrote: »

?? who said they were retiring at 40? Learn to read post before you start f-ing and blinding and while your at it learn to debate also, hurling insults and calling people bollixes and ****ers cos they have a different opinion to you reaks of ignorance tbh.

granted i thought you said retire at 40 - my mistake , im soooooo sorry

now where did i f and blind at you ??? did i call you a bollox ???
i would have been banned if i had so, you should also read the posts.

i suggest you also read your post - COS your spelling REAKS as your opinion does - while you are at it look up the meaning of debate because you obliviously don't know what it means - what you have been spouting is not debate, its a rant - huge difference

just because you shout it loud and often does not make it right ....... or intelligent

Dudess

dj jarvis wrote: »

sorifinh wrote: »

He said 40 years time....

Anyway, all this bollox about if you can't afford kids don't have them. My husband and I didn't forsee both of us losing our jobs. What should we do with the kids now that we can't afford them without state hand- outs? Drown them? Gimmie a farking break...

i know - i just dont understand how these people dont see it - saddens me

It's just selfishness and lack of empathy. Not healthy traits to have.

Sparkyd2002

Galtee wrote: »

eh actually no you can't, you're entitled to child benefit if you have children, you can't do anything about that, the general point being made was that people tend to pick on this item alone because they automatically think that being a taxpayer gives them the moral highground and it doesn't. Handing it back wouldn't make a person an idiot if they were sticking by a principle and showing they have morals, taking it despite their principle and still moaning about it would make someone an idiot.

Listen , I am not an idiot as you seem to think. Im paying an awful lot of my salary in tax and Im pretty sure id like to be paying less. That said I agree with those that think that a blanket allowance is not a good idea. The simple reason it wont change is because of the complexity involved in changing it. I am not affluent enough, nor like everyone else in the private sector do i feel my job is safe enough to just hand money back based on a principal. OK??? Im expressing an opinion here.If that makes me an idiot then i guess it takes one to know 1.

Wompa1

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

Listen , I am not an idiot as you seem to think. Im paying an awful lot of my salary in tax and Im pretty sure id like to be paying less. That said I agree with those that think that a blanket allowance is not a good idea. The simple reason it wont change is because of the complexity involved in changing it. I am not affluent enough, nor like everyone else in the private sector do i feel my job is safe enough to just hand money back based on a principal. OK??? Im expressing an opinion here.If that makes me an idiot then i guess it takes one to know 1.

Why not do it like the college grant? Means test the family income. If the woman isn't married she's most likely going to get lone parents benefits anyway. But for those that are use the grant system. Bada bing bada boom. Next problem please

tayto lover

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

Listen , I am not an idiot as you seem to think. Im paying an awful lot of my salary in tax and Im pretty sure id like to be paying less. That said I agree with those that think that a blanket allowance is not a good idea. The simple reason it wont change is because of the complexity involved in changing it. I am not affluent enough, nor like everyone else in the private sector do i feel my job is safe enough to just hand money back based on a principal. OK??? Im expressing an opinion here.If that makes me an idiot then i guess it takes one to know 1.

Well now if I could choose ?
I would pay the Childrens Benefit but choose not to pay dole to that big lump who lies in bed all day until its time to go to the pub. You know the type, never worked and never will.

Sparkyd2002

tayto lover wrote: »

Well now if I could choose ?
I would pay the Childrens Benefit but choose not to pay dole to that big lump who lies in bed all day until its time to go to the pub. You know the type, never worked and never will.

that would be the lesser of 2 evils lol. hard to implement though unless we tag all on unemployment benefits (god help me now) :eek:

Mike 1972

dj jarvis wrote: »

you asked why mothers got the CA and not fathers - the change is HISTORICAL as in the change is nearly 20 years old - that makes it historical.

since CA has been issued in the 50's if i remember right, the fathers were gambling and drinking it , since year dot and up to this date 2011 - that is why its is relevant today.
do you think wayward fathers don't exist in 2011 ???

What "change" are you on about ?

Mothers have been the default recipients for child benefit/children's allowance for lot longer than twenty years. I asked the question why is this the case even if the mothers earnings exceed the father. Yes wayward Fathers still exist (as do wayward Mothers for that matter but thats another story) but where the Mother is the higher earning its hardly that big an issue.

mloc

Societal problem:
Occasionally, parents with children lose jobs and find it hard to support children due to reduced earnings.

Socialist solution:
Give EVERY mother free money.

Nope, doesn't make sense.

paddyismaddy

someone needs to scrap michael o leary

OwaynOTT

Bring back butter vouchers

Mike 1972

mloc wrote: »

Socialist solution:.

IIRC it was De Valera who introduced the children's allowance originally.

He might have been well known for a lot of things but being a socialist was hardly among them :rolleyes:

dj jarvis

Mike 1972 wrote: »

What "change" are you on about ?

Mothers have been the default recipients for child benefit/children's allowance for lot longer than twenty years. I asked the question why is this the case even if the mothers earnings exceed the father. Yes wayward Fathers still exist (as do wayward Mothers for that matter but thats another story) but where the Mother is the higher earning its hardly that big an issue.

the change is that both parents used to be able to collect it - now they cant

the question asked was why working mothers who might earn more still get the allowance defaulted to them , i answered the question - because some the husbands would rob it - plain and simple - when it happened does not matter it why - that is what you asked, was it not ?

and just because the father earns less does not mean he wont piss it against the wall ( same goes for the mother )

and if you read my first reply it did state that if the money was paid to the mother, it MIGHT have more of a chance to be spent on the child and not in the bookies

(assuming this is a problem family that this kind of thing happens - but again the reason it was changed was for that very reason )

this is where my use of the word historical came into play - this has been going on for years - that is why it is the way it is !
cant explain it or my post any simpler

Dudess

mloc wrote: »

Societal problem:
Occasionally, parents with children lose jobs and find it hard to support children due to reduced earnings.

Socialist solution:
Give EVERY mother free money.

Nope, doesn't make sense.

I agree people on a comfortable income don't need it. As for the lone mothers being referred to who allegedly get pregnant for a council house etc (I'm not sure that's as widespread as people say it is - the only proof is in people's heads; I doubt they'd ask the women themselves whether it's the case) sure, some people are irresponsible, but I don't see why the children should suffer. And a lot of people came from sh1tty circumstances themselves, so the cycle continues.
Why all the vitriol at the single mothers though? What about the fathers of their children?