scrapping the housing benefits for under 25's

Monty Burnz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The attitude towards young pregnant women here is appalling. Everyone is forgetting that 40-50 years ago it was NORMAL for a woman to have her first child at 18 or so.

I'm one of those filthy uneducated brats that got pregnant young, aged 19.

I remember sitting in a café with my mum last year, I had a bump at that stage. A woman in her 40's asked me where my husband was. I told her myself and my boyfriend weren't married.

She told my mum she'd pray for my soul, and that she was a brave lady cause if I was her daughter she'd have "beat it out of me" and made sure no one in the family ever spoke to me again. She couldn't have a "whore" in the family.

She told me to be sure to say my prayers every night and maybe God would be good and protect my baby. Scariest part was she was saying these things to me trying to be kind, with good intentions.

Seriously. This country has a disgusting attitude towards people in vulnerable situations. Instead of blaming all our problems on young parents and foreigners we'd be better off focusing on the fact that our politicians make more than nearly any other government officials worldwide.

If we started at the top, and worked our way down, we'd see where the money is REALLY going.

Taking away housing benefit will not solve all our problems.

Yikes, did that really happen? :eek:

On the other hand, would it be very rude to ask who is providing for you and your baby at present? Are you still living at home?

shopaholic01

Chucken wrote: »

Could you explain the sentence in bold please??

Obviously people on the dole never stand up............or something.

meoklmrk91

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's probably more suited to the politics forum, but it could be a sign that people who are being taxed to the back teeth - and those people who lost their jobs in the last few years but are genuinely trying to find new jobs - are getting sick and tired of seeing their resources diverted to the complete wasters who sat on the dole throughout the boom and have no intention of working ever.

Just a thought.

Most of the people I know are having a difficult time and have been for the last while, for many reasons both the employed and unemployed, while I understand that people are sick of living like this it's just stupid to blame one part of society for the problem.

Not so long ago it was because of the foreigners, taking all of our jobs and living off our social welfare, now it's because of teenage single mothers. This makes no sense, we were living beyond our means as a country, the property bubble burst, the banks and the government ****ed up.

Do I like scroungers? No of course I don't, I think what they are doing is wrong on every level. But some people seem to think that everyone collecting the dole is living the dream, 365 days of the year, it really isn't like that for the vast majority of those who are social welfare, most just about manage. The truth is that teenage pregnancy has dropped in the last decade, so apparently this generation is better than the last in that regard and yet it's this generation that are getting pissed all over.

Remove housing benefits for those under 25, lovely what about those under 25 who have to leave home for their own safety, a violent parent for instance. What about those who's family home has been repossessed and they now have no where to live. What about those who are kicked out of home?

Madam_X

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Proof, if it were needed, that thoughtcrime is alive and well in some circles. You can't even discuss social policy - why?

How is anyone being stopped from discussing it? Thoughtcrime? As in, any moment now a bunch of jackbooted Boards.ie police will smash into people's gaffs and drag them away?
That person was just saying this approach is far too simplistic - like cutting a tumorous limb off to cure cancer. But nobody's being stopped from discussing it - criticism isn't censorship.

Muir

Could I ask the OP where you got your €2 billion figure from? They are currently talking about bringing this in in the UK, where they would save £2 billion. I can't see it being anything close to that amount here.

SusieBlue

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yikes, did that really happen? :eek:

On the other hand, would it be very rude to ask who is providing for you and your baby at present? Are you still living at home?

No not rude at all I had a late miscarriage, so its a null point anyway, but I would have continued living at home. My OH sold his car for money and we had about €5,000 saved by the time I found out I'd lost the baby.

jesus_thats_gre

nadey wrote: »

so people on here think that if you haven't worked a day in your life you should get free housing and money

bleeding the country dry

why should hard working people have to struggle to pay rent bills ect

when some people on the dole just sit on the bums all day and get everything paid for them

this country is backwards

you work hard and you struggle

dont work and get a easy life

You are being a simpleton.

This isn't a black and white situation. You are talking about peoples lives here! You can't just make sweeping changes, that seemingly haven't been rationalised for more than 5 seconds, and then expect people just to deal with it.

I have been paying taxes for 15 years and have been paying a stupid amount for the past 2 years. It annoys me that my tax money is being wasted all over the place but it isn't state employees, single mothers or any other disadvantaged demographic that are solely responsible for this.

It is years of bad political decisions that are at fault here. Major changes do need to made in virtually every sector of government spending but the changes need to be carefully considered.

Doing it wrong will cause more issues than it will solve.

Monty Burnz

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Do I like scroungers? No of course I don't, I think what they are doing is wrong on every level.

I think that's a position that most people share. There's a load of unnecessary squabbling between people who would agree with these two non-opposed principles:

1. Lifetime dole scroungers should be sorted out.
2. People who genuinely want to work are perfectly entitled to rely on the rest of society to tide them over periods when they can't find work.

nadey

Onixx wrote: »

Who won't allow you? It might, but I personally reckon there's a good chance it wouldn't - there are other factors that lead to teen pregnancy being a norm for some.

"practically how Ireland was built"...?

Wonder what age the person who started this discussion is - I'm thinking over 25.

I'm 21 years old why did you want to know that

Nodin

nadey wrote: »

i knew a few girls that did and brag about it

I'll be mad here and say "no, you didn't".

Biggins

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

...Remove housing benefits for those under 25, lovely what about those under 25 who have to leave home for their own safety, a violent parent for instance. What about those who's family home has been repossessed and they now have no where to live. What about those who are kicked out of home?

...Don't forget about under 25's that have medical problems. There is one person up the road from me that was given a home because of their brain-damage and inability to walk (the person is now cared for by their grandmother).

He's under 25 - but feck it - lets stop looking after the like of him too and shove him into a mental institution instead forever more!

...And thats only one further example!

Monty Burnz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No not rude at all I had a late miscarriage, so its a null point anyway, but I would have continued living at home. My OH sold his car for money and we had about €5,000 saved by the time I found out I'd lost the baby.

Sorry to hear that.

jesus_thats_gre

nadey wrote: »

I'm 21 years old why did you want to know that

Goodness me. I hate to dismiss you based on your age but at 21, you don't have the slightest clue. It's harsh but you haven't experienced life yet.

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Proof, if it were needed, that thoughtcrime is alive and well in some circles. You can't even discuss social policy - why?

This isn't a discussion on "social policy" its a poorly thought out load of lynch mob bollix based on an anecdote or two.

mattjack

Muir wrote: »

Could I ask the OP where you got your €2 billion figure from? They are currently talking about bringing this in in the UK, where they would save £2 billion. I can't see it being anything close to that amount here.

You're clearly sitting on your arse , doing nothing , giving birth three times a year... pay attention to the Right Honourable Nadey.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sorry to hear that.

Its fine, thank you.

Madam_X

nadey wrote: »

so people on here think that if you haven't worked a day in your life you should get free housing and money

Nope. Not one person has said so.

you work hard and you struggle

dont work and get a easy life

lol
I work full-time, I'm utterly relieved I'm not on the dole, which would pay me far less than my job - *then* I'd be struggling.

mikemac1

nadey wrote: »

should we scrap housing benefits

Housing benefit is what they have in the UK, maybe you are reading too many British newspapers

And that's where you got two billion from too

This isn't boards.co.uk

Monty Burnz

Nodin wrote: »

This isn't a discussion on "social policy" its a poorly thought out load of lynch mob bollix based on an anecdote or two.

There's a lynch mob alright, but the lynch mob is composed of those jumping on the OP instead of addressing the points he made. Only a few honourable exceptions have pointed out the problems with such a plan.

Check all those thanking your post for the actual lynch mob...

meoklmrk91

Biggins wrote: »

...Don't forget about under 25's that have medical problems. There is one person up the road from me that was given a home because of their brain-damage and inability to walk (the person is now cared for by their grandmother).

He's under 25 - but feck it - lets stop looking after the like of him too and shove him into a mental institution instead forever more!

...And thats only one further example!

He was given a house because of a brain injury:eek: FFS don't people know that medical problems only become valid after the age of 25, same goes for housing needs, food etc.

I don't pay my taxes to look after scroungers like that :rolleyes:

girl in the striped socks

I went to school with two girls who were heavily pregnant doing the leaving cert, they weren't overly bothered about studying or trying to get good results because they were going to be staying at home to raise their children. At the expense of the taxpayer.
I still see them around town, they don't seem to work or want to work. Basically these two give single parents a bad name which is very unfair.

I have no problem with my taxes going towards helping people who need it. No problem whatsoever, it could be my story in the morning. But there is a minority that take the piss & it's time something is done about it. I don't think removing housing or rent allowance for people under 25 is the way forward. Nor do I have any suggestions how to clamp down on complete scroungers.

I do know that I'm getting sick of funding people who treat social welfare like its their god given right to sign on & make no effort to make a better life for themselves.

shopaholic01

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh hun, that's awful .

Duiske

nadey wrote: »

should we scrap housing benefits for under 25's saving 2 billion euro a year

You must be some financial wizard if you can save €2bn by scrapping rent supplement for under 25's, seeing as rent supplement as a whole costs a little over a quarter of that. €503 million last year.

Monty Burnz

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I went to school with two girls who were heavily pregnant doing the leaving cert, they weren't overly bothered about studying or trying to get good results because they were going to be staying at home to raise their children. At the expense of the taxpayer.
I still see them around town, they don't seem to work or want to work. Basically these two give single parents a bad name which is very unfair.

I have no problem with my taxes going towards helping people who need it. No problem whatsoever, it could be my story in the morning. But there is a minority that take the piss & it's time something is done about it. I don't think removing housing or rent allowance for people under 25 is the way forward. Nor do I have any suggestions how to clamp down on complete scroungers.

I do know that I'm getting sick of funding people who treat social welfare like its their god given right to sign on & make no effort to make a better life for themselves.

You, madame, are WORSE THAN HITLER.

There, I said it.

Madam_X

Nah, she puts forward her view with a bit more consideration than "ban housing benefits for all!"

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's a lynch mob alright, but the lynch mob is composed of those jumping on the OP instead of addressing the points he made. Only a few honourable exceptions have pointed out the problems with such a plan.

Check all those thanking your post for the actual lynch mob...

What points? All there is is stuff about punishing everyone in order to punish some scroungers. Others are able to counter it with comprehensive arguments, nothing "lynch mob" about that.

Biggins

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

He was given a house because of a brain injury:eek: FFS don't people know that medical problems only become valid after the age of 25, same goes for housing needs, food etc.

I don't pay my taxes to look after scroungers like that :rolleyes:

I know - its shocking Joe!

190E2.516

bout time. let them get a job like everyone else

christmas2012

I dont think its easy living off of welfare,and it is hard to get a job right now,and especially in the recession,there is a media hyped element to this alright,lets not forget cameron had 1 million pound inheritance he didnt pay inheritance tax on..thats the pot calling the kettle black right there..

Madam_X

190E2.516 wrote: »

bout time. let them get a job like everyone else

Monty Burnz

Onixx wrote: »

What points? All there is is stuff about punishing everyone in order to punish some scroungers. Others are able to counter it with comprehensive arguments, nothing "lynch mob" about that.

The OP was raising an idea for discussion. You could quite easily point out the downsides of the idea without jumping down his throat (as some folks actually did).

Toby Take a Bow

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You aren't allowed to say stuff like this. It's wrong....for some reason.

So, people aren't allowed to disagree with the OP? That's an interesting understanding of the word 'thoughtcrime'.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, I don't see any discussion either - basically just people telling the OP to f*ck off. That's kind of my point.

I can see some people agreeing with the OP and some people disagreeing.

girl in the striped socks

Monty Burnz wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I went to school with two girls who were heavily pregnant doing the leaving cert, they weren't overly bothered about studying or trying to get good results because they were going to be staying at home to raise their children. At the expense of the taxpayer.
I still see them around town, they don't seem to work or want to work. Basically these two give single parents a bad name which is very unfair.

I have no problem with my taxes going towards helping people who need it. No problem whatsoever, it could be my story in the morning. But there is a minority that take the piss & it's time something is done about it. I don't think removing housing or rent allowance for people under 25 is the way forward. Nor do I have any suggestions how to clamp down on complete scroungers.

I do know that I'm getting sick of funding people who treat social welfare like its their god given right to sign on & make no effort to make a better life for themselves.

You, madame, are WORSE THAN HITLER.

There, I said it.

Why?

Madam_X

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Why?

He was having a dig at people who disagree with you - but I'd bet none of them would have a problem with what you said, because you put it in a very reasonable way.

Muir

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The OP was raising an idea for discussion. You could quite easily point out the downsides of the idea without jumping down his throat (as some folks actually did).

The downsides are:
1. We live in Ireland, we don't have housing benefit.
2. It is impossible for us to save €2bn on rent supplement given rent supplement doesn't cost that for the whole country.

filmbuffboy

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Why?

id love to know the answer to that question too!

your post was a fair look at both sides.

hardly deserving of being called the antichrist!!!

christmas2012

190E2.516 wrote: »

bout time. let them get a job like everyone else

where is the job creation in ireland there are 400,000 + people on the dole and rising ,due to recent layoffs and businesses going bust in the recession as rents are too high,and people simply dont have the money to buy..its a vicous cycle,and schemes like fas and jobbridge only excasberate the situation by creating further unemployment,by hogging up what could be paid jobs advertised publicly..

Monty Burnz

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So, people aren't allowed to disagree with the OP? That's an interesting understanding of the word 'thoughtcrime'.

Disagreeing is absolutely fine. I was thinking more of the following stuff:

johngalway wrote: »

Another idiotic thread.

Biggins wrote: »

The levels of either stupidity and/or inability to analyse a socio-economic problem - while tarring/punishing all with the same brush because of a minority, saddens me greatly.
With such people able to vote, it might partly explain why muppets who spout similar rubbish - fodder for the masses, get elected!

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Teenage single mothers rabble rabble rabble, bleeding the country dry rabble rabble rabble, they should all be homeless and starve rabble rabble rabble, sterilise the whole lot of them rabble rabble rabble.

Oh AH, same ****, different day:rolleyes:

Biggins wrote: »

I think the OP needs to ring Joe!
Its just about that level!

wallpaper12

In fairness its fairly obvious the type of people the OP is referring to. The type who screw the benefit system for every penny and will never give anything back.

On facebook recently I saw someone giving out that someone had told the social welfare she was living with her boyfriend, she was clearly drawing some sort of single mother allowance, and she went on a mad rant about being ratted on and their was about 30 comments underneath saying the person that told on her would get whats coming to them. Its that part of society I hate and this **** really needs to be cracked down upon.

Monty Burnz

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Why?

It was just a joke. You'll notice I thanked your post because it was actually quite good.

shopaholic01

OP, here's another scenario for you:

I've worked full-time for 20 yrs - lucky to have never been unemployed. So by your logic I'm fully entitled to claim social welfare.

I also have a celtic era mortgage.

I lose my job and can't find an alternative. So the state pays me my entitlements, mortgage interest relief etc.

I still couldn't afford to pay half of my mortgage, so I default. Bank cooperates with me etc. (because they have to).

I will build up a huge amount of arrears, to the point that I know I will never clear them, so I stop making any effort to pay my mortgage. The other kind taxpayers now pick up the tab while I live the high life in my council house.

I would probably cost the taxpayer more in long run, but it's ok because I did work and pay taxes. Right?

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's a lynch mob alright, but the lynch mob is composed of those jumping on the OP instead of addressing the points he made. ..............

Yes, lets go over those well thought out and researched points again.

should we scrap housing benefits for under 25's saving 2 billion euro a year

IMO i think its a great idea and i feel it would stop young girls getting pregnant at such a young age

i never said housing benefits make you pregnant did i ???

when i was 16 and in school there was these girls failing in school who never really went either and thought that if they got pregnant they can get free money and house and have an easy life

they didn't like school and said that whats the point in working when you can get free money and house

nearly 6 years on they have 1 or 2 kids and their house free money for doing sweet feck all sitting on their lazy ass all day every day

With that depth of thinking, this person should surely be a government advisor.....

Monty Burnz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

OP, here's another scenario for you:

I'evw worked full-time for 20 yrs - lucky to have never been unemployed. So by your logic I'm fully entitled to claim social welfare.

I also have a celtic era mortgage.

I lose my job and can't find an alternative. So the state pays me my entitlements, mortgage interest relief etc.

I still couldn't afford to pay half of my mortgage, so I default. Bank cooperates with me etc. (because they have to).

I will build up a huge amount of arrears, to the point that I know I will never clear them, so I stop making any effort to pay my mortgage. The other kind taxpayers now pick up the tab while I live the high life in my council house.

I would probably cost the taxpayer more in long run, but it's ok because I didwork and pay taxes. Right?

Who said that would be ok?

girl in the striped socks

Monty Burnz wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Why?

It was just a joke. You'll notice I thanked your post because it was actually quite good.

Sorry! My phone can't detect sarcasm
Feel like a right fool now

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The OP was raising an idea for discussion. .......

... a la 'sterilise the poor'/ 'lets send the furunners home'/'I think think the jews are to blame' and other useful ideas which hop up here now and again. Great stuff.

Muir

The argument David Cameron gave about this idea was that he has young people coming to him saying that they are making the right choices, eg. going to college, living at home, not moving in with boyfriends, not getting pregnant, and yet they get no help, but people who make the 'wrong' choices' are given all the help and they feel it's unfair.

shopaholic01

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Who said that would be ok?

Op has no problem with people who did work and pay taxes claiming social welfare and housing benefit.

nessie911

nadey wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

If a married couple, both under 25, lost their jobs, would you deny them housing benefits ?

no i think that if you have worked and if you have sadly lost your job then you are entitled to housing benefits after all the tax you have paid

why should people who have never worked a day in their lifes get houses and money for doing nothin

And wha do you do for young people leavin state care, or young people who become homeless.

Young people under 25 are all ready getin less money. I have just finished college and actively seekin work. So I have signed on, because I am under 25 and living at home my fathers accounts had to be taken into account. So will prob come out wit 40 euro a week. But if I was over 25 I am entitled to so much more. Why am I bein punished for makin the decision to move back home.

Biggins

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Disagreeing is absolutely fine. I was thinking more of the following stuff:

While the OP I stated might not have though their (far too short) two line solution - the comments thereafter made by me were not just directed towards the OP - but the too stupid mob that support the crass position that for reasons other have already mentioned, will NOT solve the problem.

Hell, the OP can't even do their sums right either!

If someone is going to post ill-thought out stupidity - while others will respond to it in detail, expect others too instead of repeating the same thing, to also respond in stating that the OP position is ill-though out and frankly even stupid consistent of a level that might get only their facts from a jingoistic tabloid paragraph!

Let see, if every one agreed with the OP - O' well thats ok - but if we majority disagree?
Thats mob mentality!
Right... got it now!

Monty Burnz

Nodin wrote: »

... a la 'sterilise the poor'/ 'lets send the furunners home'/'I think think the jews are to blame' and other useful ideas which hop up here now and again. Great stuff.

They key difference being that this appears to be a proposal under serious consideration in the UK - from which we borrow a lot of our social policy. If rolled out there, we could see it happen here too.