Single Parents Protest!

gcgirl

HAMMERCURRENT wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

Everyone makes mistakes - it's part of life. I'm sure you've made a few mistakes yourself, unless of course you're perfect.

Unless you know the exact ins and outs of someone else's life, it's poor form to judge them in such a manner.

Newsflash - sometimes relationships end. Sometimes children are involved. No one can forsee the future.

History keeps repeating itself (unfortunately) people make the same mistakes over and over again, a relationship to you is a one night stand to someone else. People should be held responsible for their actions, not just financially but emotionally, the only people that suffer is the children, because they have to cope with the actions of irresponsible “adults”

There's a big difference between a one night stand and having a relationship
My friend has 5 kids from her marriage the husband I would not know where to start I actually used to hang around with his sister in school but he learnt his behaviour off his parents just like my ex,he assaulted the woman while she was pregnant and had a few affairs then even at Xmas he was a class a knob , if people learnt the right way to conduct a relationship like what's acceptable in a relationship, I've said before Irish families are synonymous for secret keeping and not actually dealing head on with a problem

K-9

aare wrote: »

Cameron is no Meryl Streep AT ALL...more like Goebbels most recent incarnation (take a look on youtube, he has the "I am the most reasonable man in the world dying to be your new best friend" act off to a *T*)...

Who would play him? Hugh Grant...or am I just being unimaginative?

You know where it started?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLP_L6JCvw

HAMMERCURRENT wrote: »

History keeps repeating itself (unfortunately) people make the same mistakes over and over again, a relationship to you is a one night stand to someone else. People should be held responsible for their actions, not just financially but emotionally, the only people that suffer is the children, because they have to cope with the actions of irresponsible “adults”

Oh indeed, history keeps repeating itself, over and damn fecking over.

We'll get a Libertarian state eventually and end up back where we fecking where!

About 1847 to be precise!

micropig

aare wrote: »

Doesn't affect me at all these days...BUT...more generally, MOST people certainly would be...BUT...you have to allow for determined *rights* that would also cover the exceptions to that WITHOUT them having to completely degrade themselves on the offchance, as happens at present...

I don't understand what this means:o What determined *rights*?

aare

micropig wrote: »

I don't understand what this means:o What determined *rights*?

Sorry, it's late and the wine ran out...I meant "pre-determined rights"...so that, anyone who (for whatever reason, and there are plenty - for instance of the father is on the dole as a lot of people are right now) cannot be covered by maintenance payments, the shortfall should be made up as a right.

micropig

aare wrote: »

Sorry, it's late and the wine ran out...I meant "pre-determined rights"...so that, anyone who (for whatever reason, and there are plenty - for instance of the father is on the dole as a lot of people are right now) cannot be covered by maintenance payments, the shortfall should be made up as a right.

ok in this situtation my solution to cut fathers dole as much as possible (leave him with €50), he should be forced to move back to live with his parents. He does not recieve rent allowence or any state benefits. He is required to do courses to improve his chance of employment and cannot refuse a job if offered to him or all his benefits will be cut altogether. If and when he secures employment, here or overseas his wages are docked at source for maintenance.If employment is secured overseas goverment will pay for flights & set up costs and take a certain about back each month also from the wages Harsh? Maybe

aare

micropig wrote: »

ok in this situtation my solution to cut fathers dole as much as possible (leave him with €50), he should be forced to move back to live with his parents. He does not recieve rent allowence or any state benefits. He is required to do courses to improve his chance of employment and cannot refuse a job if offered to him or all his benefits will be cut altogether. If and when he secures employment, here or overseas his wages are docked at source for maintenance.If employment is secured overseas goverment will pay for flights & set up costs and take a certain about back each month also from the wages Harsh? Maybe

Putting people in genuinely impossible and unsustainable situations like that never really works in the long term, does it?

(and WHAT in the FECK did his parents ever do to you?:eek:)

K-9

micropig wrote: »

ok in this situtation my solution to cut fathers dole as much as possible (leave him with €50), he should be forced to move back to live with his parents. He does not recieve rent allowence or any state benefits. He is required to do courses to improve his chance of employment and cannot refuse a job if offered to him or all his benefits will be cut altogether. If and when he secures employment, here or overseas his wages are docked at source for maintenance.If employment is secured overseas goverment will pay for flights & set up costs and take a certain about back each month also from the wages Harsh? Maybe

The Government subsidising deadbeat Dads emigrating?

The mail would have a field day and thousands saying it's far too damn soft!

Micropig is a closet Liberal methinks.

aare

K-9 wrote: »

Micropig is a closet Liberal methinks.

Nah...WAY too self assertive...

micropig

aare wrote: »

Putting people in genuinely impossible and unsustainable situations like that never really works in the long term, does it?

(and WHAT in the FECK did his parents ever do to you?:eek:)

Having children is expensive buisness, the goverment would have to step up to the mark and provide real job opportunities

My sympathies go out to his parents too, but they raised him and I couldn't really think of any other solution:p

K-9 wrote: »

The Government subsidising deadbeat Dads emigrating?

The mail would have a field day and thousands saying it's far too damn soft!

Micropig is a closet Liberal methinks.

Sorry to dissapoint K9, I stated that the cost of this would be deducted from their wages over a period of time:D

K-9

micropig wrote: »

Sorry to dissapoint K9, I stated that the cost of this would be deducted from their wages over a period of time:D

So subsidising a dead beats's Dad flight to England is going to cure them all of a sudden. Reminds me of the, let us all export the abortion problem, but sure, it might work, approach! We can just pretend Abortion doesn't happen by exporting it, sure we're great exporters, the Government approves it too.

We'd owe the Brits a fortune!

micropig

K-9 wrote: »

So subsidising a dead beats's Dad flight to England is going to cure them all of a sudden. Reminds me of the, let us all export the abortion problem, but sure, it might work, approach! We can just pretend Abortion doesn't happen by exporting it, sure we're great exporters, the Government approves it too.

We'd owe the Brits a fortune!

They can only avail of this if they are entering full time employment-not subsidised by UK goverment. We owe them a fortune anyway, I doubt they'd give us much hearing if we came looking for more

But this is last resort if they can not find employment at home in jobs generated by fabulous goverment initatives:p

steddyeddy

HAMMERCURRENT wrote: »

Well that's the funny thing, she has already repeated her mistake once and it's very likely that she will continue to make bad choices throughout her life. Some people are impulsive and lack self control.

Mistakes? A kid is a mistake? Granted I lived in america for many years and only came back two years ago but I have to say I expected better. Some irish people really havent grown up have they, lets hope people with such views arent sharing the same education system as me.

K-9

aare wrote: »

Nah...WAY too self assertive...

I smiled!

LH Pathe

steddyeddy wrote: »

Mistakes? A kid is a mistake?

correct a kid is the result of a cock-up. ^

Eric Cartman

This protest will flop , the single mothers will be too busy with drink amd drugs to go

Icepick

aare wrote: »

Surely that doesn't really matter? The only thing that does is whether there is a way to force him to pay a realistic amount.

Well is there?
Because if there isn't, you should protest about that and not budget cuts.

gcgirl

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This protest will flop , the single mothers will be too busy with drink amd drugs to go

Obvisously your getting mixed up with what students do

token101

gcgirl wrote: »

Obvisously your getting mixed up with what students do

I thought your group were students? Students who can apparently quit 40k jobs to go on welfare and then want people who pay taxes to support their protest they don't get enough.

I like the way you have gall to say that students are going out drinking, but then would like us to believe single mothers are salt of the earth. The students will be the professionals in 5,10 years paying for this welfare. Your arguments are self defeating the entire time.

gcgirl

token101 wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

Obvisously your getting mixed up with what students do

I thought your group were students? Students who can apparently quit 40k jobs to go on welfare and then want people who pay taxes to support their protest they don't get enough.

I like the way you have gall to say that students are going out drinking, but then would like us to believe single mothers are salt of the earth. The students will be the professionals in 5,10 years paying for this welfare. Your arguments are self defeating the entire time.

Obvisously you have one narrowed view of lone parents in which your intitled to that view I don't think you'll change but one persons view does not represent the greater view

And it's possible that said students will have to emigrate any way since we have become a nation who greatest export is our people

Plus I know one woman who had nothing good to say about lone parents but the thing is she was on lone parents right up to when she got married to the guy she had been living with the previous 7 years I thought it was quite ironic it's like the old saying "I'm not raciest but"

Nodin

token101 wrote: »

I thought your group were students? Students who can apparently quit 40k jobs to go on welfare and then want people who pay taxes to support their protest they don't get enough.

I like the way you have gall to say that students are going out drinking, but then would like us to believe single mothers are salt of the earth. The students will be the professionals in 5,10 years paying for this welfare. Your arguments are self defeating the entire time.

Would you be good enough to get back to me on this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76784854&postcount=261

sophia25

token101 wrote: »

I thought your group were students? Students who can apparently quit 40k jobs to go on welfare and then want people who pay taxes to support their protest they don't get enough.

I like the way you have gall to say that students are going out drinking, but then would like us to believe single mothers are salt of the earth. The students will be the professionals in 5,10 years paying for this welfare. Your arguments are self defeating the entire time.

Are you being deliberately confused. The protest is about a system that does not support people parenting alone unless they go down the welfare route. It is harder to parent alone and work but with a few supports less people will end up in welfare.

token101

Nodin wrote: »

Would you be good enough to get back to me on this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76784854&postcount=261

Well here's a few solutions: Why can't families mind children? Why not hire a cheaper in home, part time, babysitter that doesn't cost 1100 a month? Move house? I don't have all the facts of this person's life, so expecting me to provide viable catch all solutions is a bit ridiculous. But here's what's already shown: for the person that did present their case the figures given have already been shown to be flaky at best, if not entirely disingenuous. What is being asked of tax payers to give more support, essentially a euphemism for more money, to somebody with two properties who has quit their job, which has been told to be worth €40,000 a year, to go on welfare because, ultimately, it's more profitable. If you think that sounds OK then there is something seriously wrong with society. Everybody with a child ultimately chose to have that child, knowing the immense responsibility that goes with it. It's now their responsibility to support that child, not the state's. And every time somebody comes with the begging bowl, that's essentially what they are saying. People are catered for a lot in this country, subsidised housing, free healthcare, free education, and from all appearances up to and beyond 40k a year in benefits. My parents combined get less than that working 40 hours a week each. Does that sound fair to you? That might be a standalone case, but how many more people are in similar circumstances? Where does this stop? When is enough going to be enough?

There are endless amounts of people/causes who need the money, and I feel there are far more deserving causes that should be served first before this, like people who have had SNAs cut because they have illnesses they have had no control over and like hospital waiting lists. There wasn't enough money to go around to all of these even in 'Celtic Tiger' times, so charities/foundations are formed in the absence of state provision. I'm yet to be told why this can't be done by a charity/foundation and why this has to be a government solution? Why doesn't someone get back to me on that?

sophia25 wrote: »

Are you being deliberately confused. The protest is about a system that does not support people parenting alone unless they go down the welfare route. It is harder to parent alone and work but with a few supports less people will end up in welfare.

I'm not confused at all. The fact is you quit your job because supposedly you couldn't manage on 40k a year to go on welfare. Now you want everyone to pay more tax or have more services cut in order that you get double the money when you decide to take up a CE scheme, as per your website proposal. I find that unfair. And if you were earning 40k a year, you must have considerable experience/skills? What's stopping you go back to work? Why do you need a CE course? Could it be possible that you will earn in excess on welfare what you could ever reasonably hope to achieve in ANY employment? Any country with a welfare system like this is fundamentally unfair.

token101

gcgirl wrote: »

Obvisously you have one narrowed view of lone parents in which your intitled to that view I don't think you'll change but one persons view does not represent the greater view

And it's possible that said students will have to emigrate any way since we have become a nation who greatest export is our people

Plus I know one woman who had nothing good to say about lone parents but the thing is she was on lone parents right up to when she got married to the guy she had been living with the previous 7 years I thought it was quite ironic it's like the old saying "I'm not raciest but"

What has that got to do with anything?

I don't have a narrowed view of lone parents. I have the utmost respect for people raising children in difficult circumstances. But they are catered for, and rightfully so. What I find unpalatable however is being consistently told that we must pay more and more and more and that people are entitled to this. Food, water and reasonable shelter are rights all granted in this country. Rates of welfare aren't a right, it's a privilege and clearly the government feels the same.

aare

token101 wrote: »

I'm yet to be told why this can't be done by a charity/foundation and why this has to be a government solution? Why doesn't someone get back to me on that?

Because the charities and foundations tend to live by harvesting grants and HSE payments with at least a 50% mark up over what the same services would cost funded directly that they then find ways to lose in humnunguous administrative and executive salaries and surreal levels of personal and company expenses...

As for the rest, we seem to have been reading a different thead??

aare

token101 wrote: »

Food, water and reasonable shelter are rights all granted in this country.

Until next month when the erratic and irrational rent level limits, set by a Minister who is prepared to publicly define paying extra from your food allowance to keep a roof over your head as "fraud", kick in next week and the homeless figures start to rise.

token101

aare wrote: »

Because the charities and foundations tend to live by harvesting grants and HSE payments with at least a 50% mark up over what the same services would cost funded directly that they then find ways to lose in humnunguous administrative and executive salaries and surreal levels of personal and company expenses...

As for the rest, we seem to have been reading a different thead??

No we're reading the same thread, you may have glossed over the bits that you didn't want to see. There's nothing in there that hasn't already been said.

aare wrote: »

Until next month when the erratic and irrational rent level limits, set by a Minister who is prepared to publicly define paying extra from your food allowance to keep a roof over your head as "fraud", kick in next week and the homeless figures start to rise.

Why do you think the government is doing that? Just to be evil? Just for kicks? If you believe that, then protest away, you're only deluding yourself. They are voted in, they're relying on popularity!! Do you think they'd do ANY of this if the country wasn't on the road to default? There's no more money to be had for any of these schemes or pie in the sky ideas! When is the penny going to drop?

Chinasea

aare wrote: »

Putting people in genuinely impossible and unsustainable situations like that never really works in the long term, does it?

(and WHAT in the FECK did his parents ever do to you?:eek:)

unsustainable is the key here.

Stop having kids if you can't afford them - our unsustainable population growth in a country with an unsustainble future is unsustainable.

aare

Duly noted that you have no answer for the economic non-viability of leaving it all in the hands of exploitative, state funded NGOs.

token101 wrote: »

Why do you think the government is doing that? Just to be evil? Just for kicks? If you believe that, then protest away, you're only deluding yourself. They are voted in, they're relying on popularity!! Do you think they'd do ANY of this if the country wasn't on the road to default? There's no more money to be had for any of these schemes or pie in the sky ideas! When is the penny going to drop?

I think the Minister for Social Protection (not the government) set erratic and irrational maximum rent level limits because she, or those who advise her, are totally out of touch with reality.

There were better, fairer ways to save exactly the same amount of money, by, for example, setting maximum supplement limits instead, at least letting you officially make up the difference from other allowances and keep a roof over your head without being accused of fraud.

I am not asking for any "pie in the sky ideas" (you really MUST be reading a different thread) I am only asking for more realistic deployment of the same resources and far greater value for money...

For instance, corner a single mother into such privation that her only reasonable option is to sign her child into care, and that child IMMEDIATELY stops costing the state about €70 in direct benefits...and starts costing the state more than €400 in direct forstercare payments instead. Indirect costs also increase.

WAY to save money...

aare

Chinasea wrote: »

unsustainable is the key here.

Stop having kids if you can't afford them - our unsustainable population growth in a country with an unsustainble future is unsustainable.

So, I ask, once more, what shall we do with the kids who already exist or fail to be prevented?

Take them to the vets and have them put down?

Chinasea

aare wrote: »

So, I ask, once more, what shall we do with the kids who already exist or fail to be prevented?

Take them to the vets and have them put down?

~Educate them on some 'responsible living'

aare

Chinasea wrote: »

~Educate them on some 'responsible living'

...and how responsive do you think they will be, homeless and hungry, because you thought their mother should be punished, almost indefinately, for their very existance?

Nodin

token101 wrote: »

Well here's a few (....)like this is fundamentally unfair.

I never referred to a specific case.

I posted

...you're presuming a given level of knowledge across the board, and rather forgetting about the stigma attached to abortion, denial etc.

...to which you replied

So that means we should just open the wallet and fork out is it?

So, once again, in general, what would you suggest?

gcgirl

token101 wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

Obvisously you have one narrowed view of lone parents in which your intitled to that view I don't think you'll change but one persons view does not represent the greater view

And it's possible that said students will have to emigrate any way since we have become a nation who greatest export is our people

Plus I know one woman who had nothing good to say about lone parents but the thing is she was on lone parents right up to when she got married to the guy she had been living with the previous 7 years I thought it was quite ironic it's like the old saying "I'm not raciest but"

What has that got to do with anything?

I don't have a narrowed view of lone parents. I have the utmost respect for people raising children in difficult circumstances. But they are catered for, and rightfully so. What I find unpalatable however is being consistently told that we must pay more and more and more and that people are entitled to this. Food, water and reasonable shelter are rights all granted in this country. Rates of welfare aren't a right, it's a privilege and clearly the government feels the same.

Just as it says on the tin self awareness is enough I think

Nodin

token101 wrote: »

I don't have a narrowed view of lone parents. I have the utmost respect for people raising children in difficult circumstances. But they are catered for, and rightfully so. What I find unpalatable however is being consistently told that we must pay more and more and more and that people are entitled to this. Food, water and reasonable shelter are rights all granted in this country. Rates of welfare aren't a right, it's a privilege and clearly the government feels the same.

....what do you think they use to pay for food, water and "reasonable shelter"? You do realise that children need clothes, school books as well?

gcgirl

Childcare is not solely a lone parent issue, its every mother/fathers issue and you only have to look at other EU countrys that have affordable childcare for all based on your tax band, the retention of CE schemes are just that retention its not give us loads of money kind thing CE schemes are community based projects they help communitys and the last government tried unsuccessfully to get rid of them and now the current government have limited the criteria in which this community based organisations can be run .

token101

aare wrote: »

Duly noted that you have no answer for the economic non-viability of leaving it all in the hands of exploitative, state funded NGOs.

I think the Minister for Social Protection (not the government) set erratic and irrational maximum rent level limits because she, or those who advise her, are totally out of touch with reality.

There were better, fairer ways to save exactly the same amount of money, by, for example, setting maximum supplement limits instead, at least letting you officially make up the difference from other allowances and keep a roof over your head without being accused of fraud.

I am not asking for any "pie in the sky ideas" (you really MUST be reading a different thread) I am only asking for more realistic deployment of the same resources and far greater value for money...

For instance, corner a single mother into such privation that her only reasonable option is to sign her child into care, and that child IMMEDIATELY stops costing the state about €70 in direct benefits...and starts costing the state more than €400 in direct forstercare payments instead. Indirect costs also increase.

WAY to save money...

Charities are exploitative? I was under the impression 1000's of people relied on SVP to get them through. I never knew they were just exploiting people all along :rolleyes: You're referring to badly run charities, you think there won't be a collateral cost in implementing any programme like yours? It's also fairer in principle; with charities people get the option of donating for social issues they support.

Nobody is being put into foster care because of cuts, show me one case where cuts have the been sole reason for foster care. It's hyperbolic nonsense.

All these ideas in this document you or the people you're supporting are pie in the sky ideas. There won't be any reversals. It says it on the website that you want the CE schemes payments doubled! So dress it up as "redeployment" all you like, you're asking for more money! Do you really think that these avenues weren't already investigated?

I think the only one out of touch with reality are the likes of yourself, looking for increases when the country is bankrupt. Protest away, you won't succeed in changing anything. You'll only be joining the queue.

steddyeddy

FFS guys look at the states history towards care of children and single mothers. A change of view towards children and lone parents is long overdue.

token101

Nodin wrote: »

....what do you think they use to pay for food, water and "reasonable shelter"? You do realise that children need clothes, school books as well?

There's allowances for all those!

token101

steddyeddy wrote: »

FFS guys look at the states history towards care of children and single mothers. A change of view towards children and lone parents is long overdue.

We have one of the generous SW systems in the world. How much more does the state have to contribute?

aare

token101 wrote: »

Charities are exploitative? I was under the impression 1000's of people relied on SVP to get them through. I never knew they were just exploiting people all along :rolleyes: You're referring to badly run charities, you think there won't be a collateral cost in implementing any programme like yours? It's also fairer in principle; with charities people get the option of donating for social issues they support.

Check some actual accounts on cro.ie sometime, most of them run non between 60-80% state funding, one way or another, that nobody gets a choice in bar a handful of people in a government dept or the HSE...haven't found a glowing exception yet...and I haven't actually outlined a programme for implementation yet, so you are arguning with a straw man of your own creation there (?).

token101 wrote: »

Nobody is being put into foster care because of cuts, show me one case where cuts have the been sole reason for foster care. It's hyperbolic nonsense.

No it isn't. What do *you* think loving parents will have to do when the cuts bite as deeply as you want them to, or even just as deeply as they are proposed to...there are no jobs...not for anyone...

steddyeddy

token101 wrote: »

We have one of the generous SW systems in the world. How much more does the state have to contribute?

Your missing the point an archaic and frankly catholic view has long been the prevailing attitude towards single mothers. Im finding myself surprised that people still think of single mothers as wreckless irrespoinble people as opposed to proud capable people.

aare

token101 wrote: »

There's allowances for all those! (clothes, school books)

...and one of the points is that those allowances have now been cut below viable levels...

...which will all become pretty moot as the homelessness from the rent allowance cuts bite...so no biggie...after all, those parents won't even have a clue which school their kids will be in or when after that.

token101

aare wrote: »

...and one of the points is that those allowances have now been cut below viable levels...

...which will all become pretty moot as the homelessness from the rent allowance cuts bite...so no biggie...after all, those parents won't even have a clue which school their kids will be in or when after that.

Utter, utter rubbish. No point in even arguing that one.

You just have a vendetta against people like me who feel that we have reached the apex of the welfare state. I don't want cuts to 'bite' anyone, but I can't afford anymore either. Where do you want the money to come from?

And you're telling me €150, more for older children, isn't enough to buy a uniform and shoes? Come off the stage now FFS.

micropig

token101 wrote: »

Utter, utter rubbish. No point in even arguing that one.

You just have a vendetta against people like me who feel that we have reached the apex of the welfare state. I don't want cuts to 'bite' anyone, but I can't afford anymore either. Where do you want the money to come from?

And you're telling me €150, more for older children, isn't enough to buy a uniform and shoes? Come off the stage now FFS.

Rate of Payment - Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance
Rate Payable
Rate for each child aged 2-11 €200.00
Rate for each child aged 12-17 (** See Note 3) €305.00

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect4.aspx

This figures changed in the 2012 budget, see following posts €50/€55 removed since

aare

token101 wrote: »

And you're telling me €150, more for older children, isn't enough to buy a uniform and shoes? Come off the stage now FFS.

Have you ever shopped for a school uniform? Without your mum?

But all moot when the rent allowance cuts bite next week (the annual review in most counties already went out). I personally know of 5 families (some SP some not) who will lose rent allowance this coming month unless they can find a suitable cheaper property to move to...in all cases, so far, they cannot...

aare

micropig wrote: »

Rate of Payment - Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance
Rate Payable
Rate for each child aged 2-11 €200.00
Rate for each child aged 12-17 (** See Note 3) €305.00

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect4.aspx

They are not keeping their site up to date again:

Budget 2012

In Budget 2012 changes were announced to the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance.

The age of eligibility for the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance will be raised from 2 to 4 years of age. (2012)

The Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance will reduce from €305 to €250 for children aged 12 years or more and from €200 to €150 for children aged 4-11 years. (2012)
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/back_to_school_clothing_and_footwear_allowance.html

micropig

aare wrote: »

They are not keeping their site up to date again:

Budget 2012

In Budget 2012 changes were announced to the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance.

The age of eligibility for the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance will be raised from 2 to 4 years of age. (2012)

Children 2-4 years do not attend school and do not need a uniform

aare wrote: »

The Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance will reduce from €305 to €250 for children aged 12 years or more and from €200 to €150 for children aged 4-11 years. (2012)
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/back_to_school_clothing_and_footwear_allowance.html

€250 for uniform seems reasonable

gcgirl

micropig wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

Utter, utter rubbish. No point in even arguing that one.

You just have a vendetta against people like me who feel that we have reached the apex of the welfare state. I don't want cuts to 'bite' anyone, but I can't afford anymore either. Where do you want the money to come from?

And you're telling me €150, more for older children, isn't enough to buy a uniform and shoes? Come off the stage now FFS.

Rate of Payment - Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance
Rate Payable
Rate for each child aged 2-11 €200.00
Rate for each child aged 12-17 (** See Note 3) €305.00

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect4.aspx

That rate has been cut by €50
I agree between 2 & 4 a child does not attend school and the government have upped the qualified age to 4 from next school year

token101

micropig wrote: »

Rate of Payment - Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance
Rate Payable
Rate for each child aged 2-11 €200.00
Rate for each child aged 12-17 (** See Note 3) €305.00

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect4.aspx

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/back_to_school_clothing_and_footwear_allowance.html

Thats the 2012 version. And, what 2 year old needs clothes for going back to school? Don't kids start school at 4/5?

token101

aare wrote: »

Have you ever shopped for a school uniform? Without your mum?

What has that got to do with anything??????

http://www.schooluniformsdirect.ie/

Heres the prices. Pants x2, shirt x2, tie, jumper: 90-100 quid approx. Shoes in Dunnes, Tescos, Pennys, 30-40 quid. You'd have change.