Ireland needs a taoiseach with this guys attitude

Nodin

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Can't argue against it because it is true and everyone knows that is the major problem. It is despicable bringing a young child into the world not because you want a child but because you want the child benefit and housing benefit.

See it all the time. It is time these people get sent to working camps and learn how not to become the filth of society.

Ja, Patrick, Ja!!!!!!!!!

squod

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Of course he is right. Young teenage girls getting pregnant only so they can get a house and claim housing benefit. That is why there is a huge problem with the welfare system. They know the system inside and out.

About time they take some responsibility for themselves.

Worked with a few teenage girls who got pregnant etc. Thankfully they had the support of family to return/go to work and not end up on SW.

There's sensible policy decision and there's taking the easy way out. What our government will do and have done is do nothing, hope for the best. Cameron's policy won't work because it's along the same principle. Take the easy way out. Blame someone else etc.

gerryo777

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Of course he is right. Young teenage girls getting pregnant only so they can get a house and claim housing benefit. That is why there is a huge problem with the welfare system. They know the system inside and out.

About time they take some responsibility for themselves.

How many of these do you know or are you just talking ****e?

First it was the private sector versus the PS/CS, now it seems to be everyone against the unemployed or the 'unmarried mothers'.

It's like the ****ing 1980's all over again, I thought we'd grown up a bit.

gerryo777

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Can't argue against it because it is true and everyone knows that is the major problem. It is despicable bringing a young child into the world not because you want a child but because you want the child benefit and housing benefit.

See it all the time. It is time these people get sent to working camps and learn how not to become the filth of society.

Maybe we should just send them away on trains and have them gassed... FFS!!

PucaMama

Overflow wrote: »

That's the problem right there, this sense of entitlement you seem to have.

yes if your parents are dead and u cant live with them :rolleyes::rolleyes: thats a sense of entitlement :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sean Bateman

For someone living in the "real world" (i.e. where you've to pay for stuff yourself), your finances deteriorate when you've kids.

For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.

As for the work / welfare conundrum, there should not be a disincentive to work. Someone earning the minimum wage (i.e. €8.65 x 40 hrs) should be better off financially than someone on social welfare. If that means cutting social welfare, then so be it.

christmas2012

I dont like the thread title ''Ireland needs a taoiseach with this guys attitude''

What attitude,one that stinks of double standards,where he waffles on about how those on the dole have an air of self entitlement,thats bullshit,this eton educated prick talks about how they have that air of self entitlement getting something for nothing,what about his million pound inheritence he didnt pay inheritance tax on?

christmas2012

''For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.''


WRONG..A lot of girls are getting pregnant later in life,and dont get pregnant at say 14 or whatever,not as much anymore,its still exists but living on welfare aint no picnic,and those working class girls know it too..

PucaMama

Sean Bateman wrote: »

For someone living in the "real world" (i.e. where you've to pay for stuff yourself), your finances deteriorate when you've kids.

For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.

As for the work / welfare conundrum, there should not be a disincentive to work. Someone earning the minimum wage (i.e. €8.65 x 40 hrs) should be better off financially than someone on social welfare. If that means cutting social welfare, then so be it.

ah yes all their fault, as those babies arive by the stork dont they no fellas at fault there :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sean Bateman

christmas2012 wrote: »

this eton educated prick talks about how they have that air of self entitlement getting something for nothing,what about his million pound inheritence he didnt pay inheritance tax on?

Does being well educated, having wealthy / successful relatives and paying the correct amount of tax preclude someone from having an opinion?

Sean Bateman

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

For someone living in the "real world" (i.e. where you've to pay for stuff yourself), your finances deteriorate when you've kids.

For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.

As for the work / welfare conundrum, there should not be a disincentive to work. Someone earning the minimum wage (i.e. €8.65 x 40 hrs) should be better off financially than someone on social welfare. If that means cutting social welfare, then so be it.

ah yes all their fault, as those babies arive by the stork dont they no fellas at fault there :rolleyes::rolleyes:

This isn't the 1940s...women can take control of their own fertility.

The salient point is that for the majority of people, it costs money to have children. For those who scrounge, it's a money making exercise. That is wrong, plain and simple.

Varied

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Does being well educated, having wealthy / successful relatives and paying the correct amount of tax preclude someone from having an opinion?

Well yes. If he is running the country, he has a duty to cut and tax ALL revenue streams, not just the people on social welfare or earning peanuts.

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.

As for the work / welfare conundrum, there should not be a disincentive to work. Someone earning the minimum wage (i.e. €8.65 x 40 hrs) should be better off financially than someone on social welfare. If that means cutting social welfare, then so be it.

Is it only 'working class' single parents who have kids for the 'financial reward'?

This thread is getting worse, all the holier-than-thou brigade are logging on.

Invader_Zimmy

Ireland needs something like a Pinochet or perhaps a Putin. An iron fist is necessary as the Irish have proved incompetent to rule themselves.

christmas2012

We have already taken cuts in social welfare why do we have to take them again????

PucaMama

Sean Bateman wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The salient point is that for the majority of people, it costs money to have children. For those who scrounge, it's a money making exercise. That is wrong, plain and simple.

Having kids doesnt make money! They have to be fed/cleaned/dressed and educated. This costs. And still where is the blame for the absent fathers?

Sean Bateman

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.

As for the work / welfare conundrum, there should not be a disincentive to work. Someone earning the minimum wage (i.e. €8.65 x 40 hrs) should be better off financially than someone on social welfare. If that means cutting social welfare, then so be it.

Is it only 'working class' single parents who have kids for the 'financial reward'?

This thread is getting worse, all the holier-than-thou brigade are logging on.

Who else does?

Middle class people don't have kids for the financial rewards.

The only people having babies for financial reward are the gurriers.

Nodin

Sean Bateman wrote: »

This isn't the 1940s...women can take control of their own fertility.

The salient point is that for the majority of people, it costs money to have children. For those who scrounge, it's a money making exercise. That is wrong, plain and simple.

...allegedly its a money making exercise. I'd say thats bollocks meself.

If hes that desperate to save cash, why doesn't he close off the various tax loopholes?

Toby Take a Bow

Overflow wrote: »

He is dead right, its an absolute must, its been going on for far too long now, the growth of our social welfare problem is almost exponential at this stage.

Cut social welfare and benefits and see the economy go even further down the tubes. The people who receive social welfare (in the vast, vast majority of cases) are the people who put all the money back in to society. Tax cuts for the (relatively) wealthy will lead to an increase in saving.

This is all regardless of the fact that Cameron's 'ideas' are simplistic nonsense aimed at pandering to the lowest intellectual point.

christmas2012

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Does being well educated, having wealthy / successful relatives and paying the correct amount of tax preclude someone from having an opinion?

He should show by example,if he didnt dodge paying his 'entitlements' on his inheritance tax which was a million pounds then i would say okay fine have your anti welfare rant...

My point is its too easy for him to sit there behind a bubble of what he earns and his inheritance,to judge the downtrodden and those who were laid off and other people on social welfare..

It should be mandatory for people like him to live at least one year on social welfare and see how he finds it.. Its not easy not one bit..Its a continous struggle,with bills household tax,etc,theres not even a tenner to spend on yourself after youre done family welfare or not..

Varied

Invader_Zimmy wrote: »

Ireland needs something like a Pinochet or perhaps a Putin. An iron fist is necessary as the Irish have proved incompetent to rule themselves.

Again, no. We just need a competent non-genocidy person.

christmas2012

here here ..

PucaMama

Sean Bateman wrote: »

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

For these working class girls, this isn't the case - They're aiming to get pregnant because there's a financial reward. Ergo, these rewards need to be done away with.

As for the work / welfare conundrum, there should not be a disincentive to work. Someone earning the minimum wage (i.e. €8.65 x 40 hrs) should be better off financially than someone on social welfare. If that means cutting social welfare, then so be it.

Is it only 'working class' single parents who have kids for the 'financial reward'?

This thread is getting worse, all the holier-than-thou brigade are logging on.

Who else does?

Middle class people don't have kids for the financial rewards.

The only people having babies for financial reward are the gurriers.

What a load of bollox. Proof?? Sources???

bee_keeper

christmas2012 wrote: »

We have already taken cuts in social welfare why do we have to take them again????

because the economy has not picked up as hoped , public sector wages are protected under croke park and cutting the old age pension is a no no , that only leaves wellfare

hope that helps

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Does being well educated, having wealthy / successful relatives and paying the correct amount of tax preclude someone from having an opinion?

Google, David Cameron and how his father made his money...

Here,I'll do it for you.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=david%20cameron%20inheritance&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2012%2Fapr%2F20%2Fcameron-family-tax-havens&ei=EdToT-28MIK4hAeLw4WVDQ&usg=AFQjCNH3Pg78HaY7WkrJ-tBOmLToyzAznw

Still think him and his family are so great?

Sean Bateman

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The salient point is that for the majority of people, it costs money to have children. For those who scrounge, it's a money making exercise. That is wrong, plain and simple.

Having kids doesnt make money! They have to be fed/cleaned/dressed and educated. This costs. And still where is the blame for the absent fathers?

It does for those who scrounge.

Normal people have to save and budget for having a child.

For "da burdz", the prams and the cots and the bigger houses are all taken care of by the rest of us.

A f..king joke - This country is nuts. Common sense is suggested and bleeding heart liberals spring up spouting utter claptrap.

Social workers should be going around educating these people and offering them the pill for free. And for scroungers who do choose to have children despite not being able to afford to do so, they should be forced to live at a purely subsistence level - No socialising, no holidays etc etc.

Some people's mentality is astonishing - Life should be simple - You work to do stuff - You don't work and you don't get to do stuff.

Manco

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Who else does?

Middle class people don't have kids for the financial rewards.

The only people having babies for financial reward are the gurriers.

What financial reward?

Do you honestly believe people have kids to make money?

You should lay off whatever it is your smoking/drinking....

purplepanda

So what are they going to do when these single mothers become homeless? Take ther babies away & let the mother live on the street? :mad:

The cost of bringing up a baby in a childrens home or even adoption will still be at a substantial cost to the taxpayer & even more in many cases. :rolleyes:

Why not bring back the workhouses & old fashioned cruel orphanages? Why not abolish the mininum wage & continue the race to the bottom? Abolish employees rights & introduce more workfare?

This is another cynical idea by power hungry politicans, don't forget people we are all in this together!!!!!! :pac:

Sean Bateman

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Does being well educated, having wealthy / successful relatives and paying the correct amount of tax preclude someone from having an opinion?

Google, David Cameron and how his father made his money...

Here,I'll do it for you.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=david%20cameron%20inheritance&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2012%2Fapr%2F20%2Fcameron-family-tax-havens&ei=EdToT-28MIK4hAeLw4WVDQ&usg=AFQjCNH3Pg78HaY7WkrJ-tBOmLToyzAznw

Still think him and his family are so great?

What, his father arranged his affairs in the most efficient and legal manner possible?

Shame on him - Heaven forbid the people in charge manage their own affairs properly.

christmas2012

Ya the ignorance is astounding...Those who have fallen on hard times on welfare shouldnt be judged so harshly..

Nodin

Sean Bateman wrote: »

It does for those who scrounge.

Normal people have to save (........)get to do stuff.

Well said old chap. I say drive them off your estate and use the land for grazing.

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

It does for those who scrounge.

Normal people have to save and budget for having a child.

For "da burdz", the prams and the cots and the bigger houses are all taken care of by the rest of us.

A f..king joke - This country is nuts. Common sense is suggested and bleeding heart liberals spring up spouting utter claptrap.

Social workers should be going around educating these people and offering them the pill for free. And for scroungers who do choose to have children despite not being able to afford to do so, they should be forced to live at a purely subsistence level - No socialising, no holidays etc etc.

Some people's mentality is astonishing - Life should be simple - You work to do stuff - You don't work and you don't get to do stuff.

2 questions for you Sean.

Do you have young kids yourself?

Would you describe yourself as middle class?

PucaMama

Sean Bateman wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

It does for those who scrounge.

Normal people have to save and budget for having a child.

For "da burdz", the prams and the cots and the bigger houses are all taken care of by the rest of us.

A f..king joke - This country is nuts. Common sense is suggested and bleeding heart liberals spring up spouting utter claptrap.

Social workers should be going around educating these people and offering them the pill for free. And for scroungers who do choose to have children despite not being able to afford to do so, they should be forced to live at a purely subsistence level - No socialising, no holidays etc etc.

Some people's mentality is astonishing - Life should be simple - You work to do stuff - You don't work and you don't get to do stuff.

what planet are you on? think you have spent too much time on the internet listening to the ****e thrown about here as fact. a single mother should be forced to live in poverty when that bollox wallace in government owing millions in tax flounces around on a huge wage all funded out of your tax! take your eyes off the single mothers and you will see whats realy going on. unless you are afraid to look past your own silly predjudices.

Toby Take a Bow

bee_keeper wrote: »

because the economy has not picked up as hoped , public sector wages are protected under croke park and cutting the old age pension is a no no , that only leaves wellfare

hope that helps

It's a pity they haven't read the material that would suggest that cutting social welfare rates actually makes things worse.

christmas2012 wrote: »

It should be mandatory for people like him to live at least one year on social welfare and see how he finds it.. Its not easy not one bit..Its a continous struggle,with bills household tax,etc,theres not even a tenner to spend on yourself after youre done family welfare or not..

Agree. I'm always bemused when people talk about how you'd be better off on the dole and so on. I've been on minimum wage and I've been on the dole. There's no comparison where I'd rather be. Being on the dole was the biggest financial hardship I've ever experienced. Thankfully I got a place in college, but I'll be signing up again soon enough. And hopefully emigrating soon, because it's impossible to live on the dole.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

It does for those who scrounge.

Normal people have to save and budget for having a child.

For "da burdz", the prams and the cots and the bigger houses are all taken care of by the rest of us.

A f..king joke - This country is nuts. Common sense is suggested and bleeding heart liberals spring up spouting utter claptrap.

Social workers should be going around educating these people and offering them the pill for free. And for scroungers who do choose to have children despite not being able to afford to do so, they should be forced to live at a purely subsistence level - No socialising, no holidays etc etc.

Some people's mentality is astonishing - Life should be simple - You work to do stuff - You don't work and you don't get to do stuff.

Oh yeah, great idea! Especially for rape victims etc., they'll really love the whole 'no help at all' situation when they ''chose'' to make money from kids...
I see where you're coming from but generally, these people realize how difficult life is when raising children soon enough. Money or no, the child still has to be raised and that's no mean feat, especially when they're on their own.
You work to do stuff? T'is a recession m'dear, work isn't quite as simple as skipping off to the nearest employer and be employed the next day...

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

What, his father arranged his affairs in the most efficient and legal manner possible?

Shame on him - Heaven forbid the people in charge manage their own affairs properly.

No, his father kept his funds in tax havens to avoid paying taxes in the UK.

Do you do that Sean?

Sean Bateman

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

It does for those who scrounge.

Normal people have to save and budget for having a child.

For "da burdz", the prams and the cots and the bigger houses are all taken care of by the rest of us.

A f..king joke - This country is nuts. Common sense is suggested and bleeding heart liberals spring up spouting utter claptrap.

Social workers should be going around educating these people and offering them the pill for free. And for scroungers who do choose to have children despite not being able to afford to do so, they should be forced to live at a purely subsistence level - No socialising, no holidays etc etc.

Some people's mentality is astonishing - Life should be simple - You work to do stuff - You don't work and you don't get to do stuff.

2 questions for you Sean.

Do you have young kids yourself?

Would you describe yourself as middle class?

Yes - Two.

And yes, I would.

PucaMama

bee_keeper wrote: »

because the economy has not picked up as hoped , public sector wages are protected under croke park and cutting the old age pension is a no no , that only leaves wellfare

hope that helps

why the hell are the pensions so sacred??? everyone else has had cuts.

Sean Bateman

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

What, his father arranged his affairs in the most efficient and legal manner possible?

Shame on him - Heaven forbid the people in charge manage their own affairs properly.

No, his father kept his funds in tax havens to avoid paying taxes in the UK.

Which is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal.

Ave Sodalis

PucaMama wrote: »

why the hell are the pensions so sacred??? everyone else has had cuts.

I think it's because the elderly have worked their whole lives and paid all their taxes, maybe?

Nodin

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal.

So is child benefit and social welare. Yet here you are, having a spasm....

Cookie_Monster

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Cameron heads a country with some of the biggest welfare spongers on the planet. Just look at that Windsor family, for example ---:):):)

yeah, never mind the Queen alone made 12m quid income on speaking dates all by herself last year.

gerryo777 wrote: »

No, his father kept his funds in tax havens to avoid paying taxes in the UK.

Do you do that Sean?

again, what's wrong with that? there's a subtle difference between avoidance and evasions. Nothign wrong with legal avoidance at all.

Sean Bateman

Nodin wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal.

So is child benefit and social welare. Yet here you are, having a spasm....

The comparison isn't valid.

bee_keeper

sup_dude wrote: »

I think it's because the elderly have worked their whole lives and paid all their taxes, maybe?

well you recieve a pension regardless of whether you ever worked or not and besides , no one is proposing to eradicate the old age pension , just cut it , you know , share the pain

its a tad silly having a situation where a retired guard ( over seventy ) on 700 euro per week can visit the doctor for free while struggling young familys are forced to pay 50 euro everytime they bring their kids to the local GP

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

again, what's wrong with that? there's a subtle difference between avoidance and evasions. Nothign wrong with legal avoidance at all.

Course not. Sure ye have to have a few bob to avail of those loopholes, and we all know that no-one with a few bob can be bad. tax is for dirty little people.

Shryke

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal.

David Cameron didn't think it was acceptable when he lashed out at Jimmy Carr in a statement claiming that Carr was morally wrong for using a legal tax avoidance scheme. But then again Cameron is a silly prick so what can you expect.

Nodin

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The comparison isn't valid.

Of course not. Tax avoidance is for quality folk.

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Yes - Two.

And yes, I would.

Do you receive child benefit, a welfare payment only given to people who have kids?

PucaMama

bee_keeper wrote: »

well you recieve a pension regardless of whether you ever worked or not and besides , no one is proposing to eradicate the old age pension , just cut it , you know , share the pain

its a tad silly having a situation where a retired guard ( over seventy ) on 700 euro per week can visit the doctor for free while struggling young familys are forced to pay 50 euro everytime they bring their kids to the local GP

exactly! and plenty of people have worked years and years and have now had cuts or lost their jobs alltogether. im not trying to pick on pensioners, i just dont think its fair for any group to avoid taking their share of cuts.