scrapping the housing benefits for under 25's

nadey

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Okay, fair enough. This plan of action is seriously flawed though. It'd never work.

What about women like a lot our own Mothers? A lot of Irish mammies who'd be in their 50's or 60's wouldn't have gone to college, it wouldn't have been the social norm back then. Most (not all, not tarring everyone with the same brush) worked in fairly low paying jobs until marrying. Most would then quit their jobs to stay home with the children with the husband supporting. I know a lot of families with that kind of set up.

She would never have paid much tax. If for whatever reason, the marriage ended, would you let someone like that out on the streets? You'll probably say no.

But that kind of person would come under your criteria of people who don't deserve council houses. See what I mean about sweeping generalisations?

it says under 25's hun not people in their 50's and 60's

but just to say it would depend on the circumstances and mostly the husband would move out and leave the wife with home and children

IrishAm

nadey wrote: »

but it would be good for people to work for their money it gets them expericence and looks good on their cv's that they weren't sitting on the bum doing nothing in the tough times we are having now

Of course people should work for their money. Considering the vast majority of over 18s were either working or in full time education before the economy fell off a 10,000 foot cliff, Id suggest that most people in receipt of welfare would rather be working for their money, too.

Only one little problem though, we lack 450,000 job vacancies to make that a reality. :rolleyes:

Smidge

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed, but to continue the metaphor, if you give their kids a crutch from birth they'll probably never learn to walk on their own. What was meant to help them ends up handicapping them.

It's a complex area, probably more suited to politics or sociology than AH.

But to continue the metaphor:D;)

What happens if there is no orthopaedic surgeon to mend the limb?
If all that they have ever been given is the crutch?
No pre care or after care?

Nothing else.

No get out clause.

I do agree, hugely complex area to which I was shocked that people agreed with Cameron!
Eton educated toff who has no real insight into poverty:rolleyes:


I think it is absurd that the poorest section of society no matter how you feel about them to take the burden for the current situation.

nadey

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Jobs aren't exactly falling from the skies these days, you know. I was employed by the same place for 5 years, they let me go last month. I've sent out over 50 CV's, willing to work minimum wage, yet no one wants to employ me.

You'll also probably be glad to know that I'm not entitled to dole (despite working for 5 years) because I'm in full time education.

Finding a job, even a menial, minimum wage job, is a lot harder than you think when there are literally THOUSANDS of people willing to work for low wages.

why would i be glad to know that your not getting the money that you earned over the years i think that is shocking you paid taxes and should be entilted to get money back

there are fas or tus what are they called now ?? placements were people can work for their weekly money and rent

IrishAm

Where were ya waitressing? Hooters?

Monty Burnz

mishkalucy wrote: »

I think it is absurd that the poorest section of society no matter how you feel about them to take the burden for the current situation.

Unfortunately, it's the low and especially middle earners who are taking the burden for the current situation. Social welfare is more or less untouched.

Smidge

TBH I haven't addressed the OP personally because(and I await response!) because I think no one at 21 has the life experience to really form a fully rounded opinion of poverty and social problems.

Youthful zealous and all that.

Smidge

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's the low and especially middle earners who are taking the burden for the current situation. Social welfare is more or less untouched.

Gonna have to disagree my friend!

The levels of "burden" cannot be measured in a similar fashion.

ie
Middle/working class:
"takeaway this weekend?"


Poorer section:
"Breakfast, 3 days or 4?"

Monty Burnz

mishkalucy wrote: »

Poorer section:
"Breakfast, 3 days or 4?"

Why would the poorer folks be in that position? Unless they are working poor? Because SW is largely untouched since the recession began.

dodderangler

nadey wrote: »

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

So your saying sex only happens in a house?

Pointless thread!

IrishAm

mishkalucy wrote: »

Middle/working class:
"takeaway this weekend?"

Ah stop with this nonsense. You were making good points up to here.

I live in a predominantly working class areas that is considered an unemployment blackspot. There are at least 30 take away joints within a ten minute walk from my home. One of them, a global chain of 8,000 stores, has its busiest store here.

A minority of people seem to enjoy quite a nice lifestyle on the scratcher.

Smidge

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why would the poorer folks be in that position? Unless they are working poor? sBecause SW is largely untouched since the recesion began.

Now you know that's not true!

nadey

mishkalucy wrote: »

TBH I haven't addressed the OP personally because(and I await response!) because I think no one at 21 has the life experience to really form a fully rounded opinion of poverty and social problems.

Youthful zealous and all that.

sorry did you send me a message i must of missed it what was it about

Smidge

IrishAm wrote: »

Ah stop with this nonsense. You were making good points up to here.

I live in a predominantly working class areas that is considered an unemployment blackspot. There are at least 30 take away joints within a ten minute walk from my home. One of them, a global chain of 8,000 stores, has its busiest store here.

A minority of people seem to enjoy quite a nice lifestyle on the scratcher.

Janey, don't jump on me:)

It was an analogy!


My point is you can't compare apples with oranges.
I don't even come from a working class area(nothing so grand for me)

What one person consider poverty is another's wealth.


I fully understand that the majority of right minded and decent Irish people do not want to know what is going on in the dark underbelly of society

Smidge

nadey wrote: »

sorry did you send me a message i must of missed it what was it about

Didn't send you a message.
What I meant was AH replies about you personal situation(inheritance etc)


And on a side note;

You seem slightly more zealous than usual AH'ers
Not every one is attacking you;)

Monty Burnz

mishkalucy wrote: »

Now you know that's not true!

Can you tell me what cuts there have been to social welfare? I can tell you that the middle and working classes have seen big increases in taxes and the introduction of the household charge (which will become a proper property tax next year, not a token €100 charge).

nadey

mishkalucy wrote: »

Didn't send you a message.
What I meant was AH replies about you personal situation(inheritance etc)


And on a side note;

You seem slightly more zealous than usual AH'ers
Not every one is attacking you;)

oh sorry i misunderstood you i was ironing well trying to iron and be on computer at same time lol

Monty Burnz

mishkalucy wrote: »

Now you know that's not true!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you tell me what cuts there have been to social welfare? I can tell you that the middle and working classes have seen big increases in taxes and the introduction of the household charge (which will become a proper property tax next year, not a token €100 charge).

Mishkalucy, are you still out there?

Doc

nadey wrote: »

not that its any of your business but do not judge me just because of my age i may only be 21 but i've been to hell and back in my 21years

i raised my little brothers because of my mam was too ill to do it while my dad worked his ass off to provide for our family

i went to school and never missed a day despite how bad stuff was at home

i worked part time to give my dad a helping hand so he wouldn't have to work 7 days a week and that he could be their for us

i watched my baby brother die right in front of my eyes from meningitis

from 17 i moved out got my own place and depended on no still working and working my ass off in college

i've worked very hard to where i am today

i have my own home and my own car that i bought out of my hard earned money

i have my dream job that i love and wouldn't change for the world

a great partner and 2 babies ( my dogs )

i haven't experienced life because of my age please pull the other one it has bells on it

And in a year or two if You lost that dream job of yours and despite trying hard couldn't find another one to replace it you believe you should not have any support from the government because of your age?

Because that is what you said in your OP. You are 21 and have indicated that you have worked hard and payed taxes but according to you despite paying into the system you shouldn't receive money from it because of your age. How can you support such a viewpoint?

The only rational that I can see behind this is that you think up to the age of 25 it should be possible for you to live with your parents who should be able to support you. But I cant see how you could feel this way if your family had to scrimp to get by.

I can understand people being angry and I think that its a really good trick that many fall for to try and focus this anger and blame at each other rather then at government and banking corruption.

dermo88

It makes sense to scrap them. My friends and I have been working since 16 years old. We worked our way part-time through the last stages of secondary school, and college. Heck, we'd have loved to get a home at 18 and get our freedom.

We wondered: 'why are they getting this', and none of us were from wealthy backgrounds. Observation: Our parents had nice homes, and normal cars, but it was nothing special. We used bicycles or walked to get to and from work, we could not even afford buses, we scrimped and saved. We did'nt get our first foreign holiday until we were 23 or 24, and we saw these people and their trail of
'ba$tards' go to Santa Ponza and Kusadasi......on welfare? How?

We wondered as we worked part time in bars and restaurants. We watched appalled on Sundays as they hauled themselves inbred, overweight, obnoxious and obese to inflict their 'high spirited' little ba$tards onto the local bar and pub, while these 'its' (I won't dignify them with human terms) proceeded to seek oblivion on Johnny Blue, Racketeered Rothmans, alcopops, and Bud, along with the false hope of a temporary reprieve from Ladbrokes, with the only three words they could write on a betting docket (FAV, indicating Favourite). Horrible, horrible, horrible people, who did not take kindly to my comments on a complaint about Thatcher (I was 18 at the time, but it caused a laugh). It was the day I left the bar, never to look at their pasty faced looks, or see their scummy ill mannered brats high on coke, snot and yop bomb around the bar in wet nappies having 'fun'.

"Sure what would you know about work 'Samanteh' beyond popping your legs in the air to fire out another useless Ba$tard who'll have a needle in his arm in 14 years"

(To be followed by catcalls of '******, westbrit and snob'. Coming from them, a compliment.

It makes sense to scrap them. My friends and I have been working since 16 years old. We worked our way part-time through the last stages of secondary school, and college. Heck, we'd have loved to get a home at 18 and get our freedom. It will also have the nice side effect of removing an artificial floor price on the housing market, thereby making it easier for those of us who work, slave and save to get on the property ladder/pyramid sooner. Many private sector landlords are making fortunes from scobie scum shoeboxes, which are fit for students, but hardly families.

We wondered: 'why are they getting this', and none of us were from wealthy backgrounds. Observation: Our parents had nice homes, and normal cars, but it was nothing special. We used bicycles or walked to get to and from work, we could not always afford buses.
We wondered 'if they are getting benefits from the state, surely they will be better people?' We observed that the areas where there were most social welfare recipients, and a higher number of single parents were distinctly unsafe. We termed them skangervilles, or scobe-central. In Tallaght, it was areas such as Jobstown (Hahaha......theres a contradiction), Killinarden, or Fettercairn, where the local populace seemed fettered to a life on social welfare, petty crime, drugs, alcoholism and violence. Their offspring were pathologically violent, rude, obnoxious, sociopathic scum. I know, because I went to school with them. And frankly, I would'nt piss on them if they were on fire. They were dirt, but in Irelands favour, I will say that the British equivalent is even nastier. Places such as Wolverhampton seem to be infested with the rejects of a freakish sex party from Chernobyl Reactor 4.

The answer to me seems to be a hand up rather than a hand out. If someone even works in McDonalds its indicative of some attempt to be better. Its a sign someone is trying. Subsidising idleness is insanity. As long as someone is doing something to improve their lives and the community around them, there should be a hand up, in the form of housing subsidy, but no hand out. Old age and disability should be helped also. Sometimes the money should be given without question. Unfortunately to question the payments of money unearned is to be regarded as anti-worker and against socialism. Its not......its about common sense. Someone else has to pay, and its not cheap.

Of course, Ireland tends to forget reality. Due to the Famine, and colonisation its a caring society. Too carin, unfortunately. It has always been a soft touch for troublemakers, scroungers and layabouts, starting with the Travelling Community for example.....(cue accusations of racism), Heroin Addicts (cue Court request for psychological reports), Annabel Rugby Heads (Cue Press report of offenders from decent family, should know better and get a much higher sentence than low IQ inbred scobe)......shall I go on? A whole nationalised industry exists to take care of all this. A very expensive pseudo private industry consisting of:

The Court Services. Where a scumbag can get 40+ convictions and still be free.
The Consultant Psychiatrist, Psychologist services. In 1995, I was attacked in the bar where I worked in Walkinstown, by 'Samantehs' 16 year old ba$tard because I refused to serve it due to it being underage. Guess what happens.....a 50 Quid per hour consultant evaluates him and bills the state. What happens to me? My boss had to pay me 160 quid for two weeks off, and medical expenses, all in all, 250 quid. I refuse to back down on charging him. Boss says "They'll spend it back in 3 months". Mind, I have the satisfaction of knowing where I am now, and where he is today.
The Lawyers. Free Legal Aid. Need I say more.
The Gardai. I pity them, the system lets them down. Where I am now, if theres a scumbag, the police will get him, and beat seventy shades of schweppes out of them. I know its Malaysia......relax, its got a half decent, not great human rights record. But it does a long way to preventing human wrongs

I don't need to. Of course Mammy moderator will be off to ban me for being racist or right wing, but people forget, Work sets you free. It set me free. It might set a scobie or six free. And the sooner the better for all of us.

paddy147

Why dont the politicians in the dail all lead by example and scrap their 40,000 euro a year expenses money that they all get.

nadey

Doc wrote: »

And in a year or two if You lost that dream job of yours and despite trying hard couldn't find another one to replace it you believe you should not have any support from the government because of your age?

Because that is what you said in your OP. You are 21 and have indicated that you have worked hard and payed taxes but according to you despite paying into the system you shouldn't receive money from it because of your age. How can you support such a viewpoint?

The only rational that I can see behind this is that you think up to the age of 25 it should be possible for you to live with your parents who should be able to support you. But I cant see how you could feel this way if your family had to scrimp to get by.

I can understand people being angry and I think that its a really good trick that many fall for to try and focus this anger and blame at each other rather then at government and banking corruption.

if you read my other posts you will have seen that i said if you had paid taxes then you should get benefits because you are entitled after all the money you paid

Doc

nadey wrote: »

if you read my other posts you will have seen that i said if you had paid taxes then you should get benefits because you are entitled after all the money you paid

So you are fine with people who have paid PAYE taxes receiving benefits and people who are over 25 but have not payed PAYE receiving benefits but not people under 25?

Why?

Surly the age should be irrelevant?

nadey

Doc wrote: »

So you are fine with people who have paid PAYE taxes receiving benefits and people who are over 25 but have not payed PAYE receiving benefits but not people under 25?

Why?

Surly the age should be irrelevant?

because i dont see why people should get money that has done nothing to earn them

the money they could save from it and put it into the hospitals and get more beds is better than some person who never works a day in their life and doesn't bother

exceptions should be made for the people who have disabilities and who are old and for children in care of the state with no family to fall back on

SusieBlue

nadey wrote: »

because i dont see why people should get money that has done nothing to earn them

the money they could save from it and put it into the hospitals and get more beds is better than some person who never works a day in their life and doesn't bother

exceptions should be made for the people who have disabilities and who are old and for children in care of the state with no family to fall back on

What if you only work for 12 months. Does that automatically entitle you to dole for life? Is there a criteria of how many years someone should work (in your opinion) before they should be allowed sign on?

Its not a black and white situation. There are a lot of stay at home mothers in this country who would have nothing to fall back on if their husbands threw them out or left them for whatever reason.

So if you personally were under 25 with a child and had little/no experience in the work force, and your OH threw you out of the house with no money and nowhere to go, would you say to yourself "Well I'm U25 and I shouldn't have had a child without means to support him/her so I won't bother signing on or applying for a house from the government cause I don't deserve it".

Not likely.

Doc

nadey wrote: »

because i dont see why people should get money that has done nothing to earn them

the money they could save from it and put it into the hospitals and get more beds is better than some person who never works a day in their life and doesn't bother

exceptions should be made for the people who have disabilities and who are old and for children in care of the state with no family to fall back on

All well and good but it doesn't answer my question as to why 25 is the age that it is acceptable to say okay now you can have something?

If that is not what you are saying in your original post that this whole thread is based on something you wrote that is not your opinion.

Social welfare is not a simple you get as much as you put in thing the very nature of social welfare is that some people will contribute more at times then others otherwise the system wont work.

A 22 year old could be stuck without a job for 2 years then find one and work until he is 70 ending up a net contributor to the social welfare system but in your opinion he is just a leach on society if he didn't earn before he receives?

nadey

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What if you only work for 12 months. Does that automatically entitle you to dole for life? Is there a criteria of how many years someone should work (in your opinion) before they should be allowed sign on?

Its not a black and white situation. There are a lot of stay at home mothers in this country who would have nothing to fall back on if their husbands threw them out or left them for whatever reason.

So if you personally were under 25 with a child and had little/no experience in the work force, and your OH threw you out of the house with no money and nowhere to go, would you say to yourself "Well I'm U25 and I shouldn't have had a child without means to support him/her so I won't bother signing on or applying for a house from the government cause I don't deserve it".

Not likely.

ha i wouldn't have a child under the age of 25 i raised my younger brothers long enough its time to live my own life ( finally ) before i would even consider taken on another little life who would depend on me for the next 18 years

but if did have a child young of course i would want it but should i have it for doing nothing with my life no i shouldn't

a girl should wait to have a child make sure they having savings to fall back on and not depend on the tax payers to help raise the child they laid down together and had why shoud i and many other tax payer pay for children why dont have and that also goes for people sponge off as well

when my mam was ill my family could of went on the social but we didn't and will i tell you why because my dad thought us that if YOU have a children it is YOUR responsibility to look after that child NOBODY ELSES

if you cant afford a child dont have one

if you cant afford a house dont move out of home

SusieBlue

nadey wrote: »

ha i wouldn't have a child under the age of 25 i raised my younger brothers long enough its time to live my own life ( finally ) before i would even consider taken on another little life who would depend on me for the next 18 years

but if did have a child young of course i would want it but should i have it for doing nothing with my life no i shouldn't

a girl should wait to have a child make sure they having savings to fall back on and not depend on the tax payers to help raise the child they laid down together and had why shoud i and many other tax payer pay for children why dont have and that also goes for people sponge off as well

when my mam was ill my family could of went on the social but we didn't and will i tell you why because my dad thought us that if YOU have a children it is YOUR responsibility to look after that child NOBODY ELSES

if you cant afford a child dont have one

if you cant afford a house dont move out of home

That would be a great way of looking at things if contraception was 100% dependable but sometimes life works in funny ways. Even the most careful of couples get caught out.

By that logic, when you do have children, you won't be claiming children's allowance?

nadey

Doc wrote: »

All well and good but it doesn't answer my question as to why 25 is the age that it is acceptable to say okay now you can have something?

If that is not what you are saying in your original post that this whole thread is based on something you wrote that is not your opinion.

Social welfare is not a simple you get as much as you put in thing the very nature of social welfare is that some people will contribute more at times then others otherwise the system wont work.

A 22 year old could be stuck without a job for 2 years then find one and work until he is 70 ending up a net contributor to the social welfare system but in your opinion he is just a leach on society if he didn't earn before he receives?

i admitted that i should of explained myself better in my OP in other posts sorry about that

if a 22 year old doesn't have a job then how can he afford a home ??

how is he going to put the rest of his money away for rent bills food ect

if anything scrapping the housing benefit for the under 25 would save the 22 year old money staying at home with the parents and when he does get a his job in 2 years as you said he would have a nice nest egg to fall backor to put into the house he can now afford

nadey

WhiteRoses wrote: »

That would be a great way of looking at things if contraception was 100% dependable but sometimes life works in funny ways. Even the most careful of couples get caught out.

By that logic, when you do have children, you won't be claiming children's allowance?

by the time i have children i think the child allowance will be gone

if it is still there i dont know how the children allowence works do i claim it or is it just given to you

i dont know if i would claim it or not but if i did i would put that money in a savings account for the child that they would get a 18 or 25

i have been with my boyfriend for 5 and a half years not once did i get pregnant because i was on the pill ( i have the bar now ) and a helmet was put on his soldier becuase we knew that nothing is 100% and we needed to be responsable adults and take extra caughtion because we weren't ready and still aren't now for a child

Doc

nadey wrote: »

i admitted that i should of explained myself better in my OP in other posts sorry about that

if a 22 year old doesn't have a job then how can he afford a home ??

how is he going to put the rest of his money away for rent bills food ect

if anything scrapping the housing benefit for the under 25 would save the 22 year old money staying at home with the parents and when he does get a his job in 2 years as you said he would have a nice nest egg to fall backor to put into the house he can now afford

He cant if you take away his social security benefits which is my point!

You have been very vague in exactly what you are putting forward as an alternative to the current system and when you are called up on points that you have made that don't make sense you are changing your argument.

If your argument is that from now on no one new is entitled to social welfare payments until they have worked and payed PAYE for a set period of time but that people currently receiving it can stay on it then that might be a somewhat reasonably argument although I would still disagree with it.

It seems You have made the colossal assumption that parents could afford to go back to putting children up while they contributed nothing to the cost of housing them. Or that everyone is in a situation where they are welcome back into a house. Or that all parents live in an area where he is likely to be able to search for or find a job. Parental responsibility to maintain a child ceases when the child is 18 years of age not 25. Though morally you might argue that it doesn't end there legally it dose.

War Machine 539

Well nadey I am under 25. My parents died when I was four. What home do I have to stay in? I can't afford a house so what am I supposed to do? I am 21 and want to go to college to make a better life for myself. How could I do that without having somewhere to live?

Now imagine the thousands of different possible scenarios people are in that has led to them requiring housing benefit before you decide that these people are not worth enough to have somewhere to live. Get real please.


I feel sorry for whatever child you have. Will it be expected to contribute towards the shopping before it ever gets pocket money?

nadey

the title is scrapping the housing benefit

not the job seekers allowence but their should be a limit of that also means tested and all that

SusieBlue

nadey wrote: »

by the time i have children i think the child allowance will be gone

if it is still there i dont know how the children allowence works do i claim it or is it just given to you

i dont know if i would claim it or not but if i did i would put that money in a savings account for the child that they would get a 18 or 25

i have been with my boyfriend for 5 and a half years not once did i get pregnant because i was on the pill ( i have the bar now ) and a helmet was put on his soldier becuase we knew that nothing is 100% and we needed to be responsable adults and take extra caughtion because we weren't ready and still aren't now for a child

I got pregnant on the pill, and I never missed a single one. As they say, all it takes is one tiny little swimmer.

Also parental responsibility ends at 18 and while most parents would allow their kids stay at home the extra few years to find their feet, a lot won't.

After 18, your not their problem any more.

nadey

War Machine 539 wrote: »

Well nadey I am under 25. My parents died when I was four. What home do I have to stay in? I can't afford a house so what am I supposed to do? I am 21 and want to go to college to make a better life for myself. How could I do that without having somewhere to live?

Now imagine the thousands of different possible scenarios people are in that has led to them requiring housing benefit before you decide that these people are not worth enough to have somewhere to live. Get real please.


I feel sorry for whatever child you have. Will it be expected to contribute towards the shopping before it ever gets pocket money?

ehhhh ok where ever you got that from


if you read my other postd instead of jumping to your conclusions i did say that if you are in care of the state and have no family to fall back on that there should be exceptions

Doc

nadey wrote: »

ehhhh ok where ever you got that from


if you read my other postd instead of jumping to your conclusions i did say that if you are in care of the state and have no family to fall back on that there should be exceptions

Once you are over 18 you are no longer legally in anyone's care.

tdv123

nadey wrote: »

ehhhh ok where ever you got that from


if you read my other postd instead of jumping to your conclusions i did say that if you are in care of the state and have no family to fall back on that there should be exceptions

Well why not use that same logic for everybody?

Why should it only appply to people under 25? Why not people under 125?

nadey

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I got pregnant on the pill, and I never missed a single one. As they say, all it takes is one tiny little swimmer.

Also parental responsibility ends at 18 and while most parents would allow their kids stay at home the extra few years to find their feet, a lot won't.

After 18, your not their problem any more.

because people dont miss the pill doesn't mean they cant get pregnant

drink messes with the pill

other medications

diarrhea

can you honestly say you didn't know this

i did and thats why a helmet was put on to be extra safe

War Machine 539

nadey wrote: »

ehhhh ok where ever you got that from


if you read my other postd instead of jumping to your conclusions i did say that if you are in care of the state and have no family to fall back on that there should be exceptions

Sorry but I couldn't read through 20 pages of your incoherent ****e.

Just because you are lucky enough to to own your own house at twenty one does not mean everyone else is. Work is not exactly a readily available commodity at the minute in case you have not noticed. Or are all those flights to Australia full of backpackers?

War Machine 539

Doc wrote: »

Once you are over 18 you are no longer legally in anyone's care.

A law the Health Service Executive are only too happy to make clear to anyone who has had the displeasure of being left under the care of these inept ****wits.

mrkiscool2

nadey wrote: »

i did say i should have explained my self better i am sorry about that

for people living in the care of the state and for people born with intellectual disabilities obviously there should be a exception

for people who lost their jobs and have payed their taxes also theres an exception for them

i just feel for the people who have not worked a day in their lives i dont see why they should get benefits

i know their are people who are looking for jobs but there are others that just dont bother at all are happy to stay on the dole and get benefits

why should people get money for doing nothin

the money they could save from it can go towards more important use like hospitals

Your logic is deeply flawed. What about college students, who have just finished their degree, who are actively looking for work? It takes between 6 months to 2 years to find a job in some instances for college students. So, based on your logic, for those 6 months to 2 years, they should live at home with their parents (who have supported them through college) and receive no help from the state as the attempt to start working and contribute to society via tax?

Sure that would annoy the hell out of me, and to be honest with you, I would be on the first plane out of the country. I agree people who are offered work via fas and turn it down should be taken off the dole and rent allowance, but people who need the help for a few weeks or months should be provided for, especially when they plan to pay it all back and then some in tax!

Also, the hospitals are using too much money as it is via an inefficient healthcare system. It needs to be reformed, badly!

SusieBlue

nadey wrote: »

because people miss the pill doesn't mean they cant get pregnant

drink messes with the pill

other medications

diarrhea

can you honestly say you didn't know this

i did and thats why a helmet was put on to be extra safe

Not that its any of your business, but yes, I was aware of these things when I got pregnant.

I hadn't drank, been ill or taken medication in the three months before conceiving. I knew these things. I was taking precautions.

You know what caused my contraception to fail? A raised internal temperature. Now tell me how you can control that?

I don't know why your acting so self righteous because you haven't had your contraception fail.

I'm also not going to justify this point any more, its coming across as though you feel like your better than me because you didn't get caught out.

And this doesn't take light off the fact that your argument is seriously flawed and that you have a very strange way of looking at this, being U25 yourself and not knowing what the next few years might bring.

nadey

War Machine 539 wrote: »

Sorry but I couldn't read through 20 pages of your incoherent ****e.

Just because you are lucky enough to to own your own house at twenty one does not mean everyone else is. Work is not exactly a readily available commodity at the minute in case you have not noticed. Or are all those flights to Australia full of backpackers?

remind me again why are people moving to australia oh yeah thats right to get JOBS

they didn't want to stay here and live off benefits

no you just went through enough pages to find out about my personal life :rolleyes:

nadey

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Not that its any of your business, but yes, I was aware of these things when I got pregnant.

I hadn't drank, been ill or taken medication in the three months before conceiving. I knew these things. I was taking precautions.

You know what caused my contraception to fail? A raised internal temperature. Now tell me how you can control that?

I don't know why your acting so self righteous because you haven't had your contraception fail.

I'm also not going to justify this point any more, its coming across as though you feel like your better than me because you didn't get caught out.

And this doesn't take light off the fact that your argument is seriously flawed and that you have a very strange way of looking at this, being U25 yourself and not knowing what the next few years might bring.

should of took extra caution you knew the pill wasn't 100% even if its taken correctly

i dont for think at all i am better than you all because you got caught and i didn't

i just learned from other peoples experience and know the facts the pill contraception

what has contraception got to do with this topic anyway

Doc

nadey wrote: »

remind me again why are people moving to australia oh yeah thats right to get JOBS

they didn't want to stay here and live off benefits

no you just went through enough pages to find out about my personal life :rolleyes:

The fact they/we had to leave is because there are hardly any jobs available! Your right we didn't want to live off benefits and hardly anyone dose but not everyone has the opportunity to go half way around the world just to find a job. Your admitting that people have to leave to find work but cant see that people who are young and haven't gotten a job yet aren't doing it just to have an easy life on the dole / receiving benefits but because they have no choice!

Your thread is badly thought out and you still have given no justification for the 25 year old age limit.

nadey

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Your logic is deeply flawed. What about college students, who have just finished their degree, who are actively looking for work? It takes between 6 months to 2 years to find a job in some instances for college students. So, based on your logic, for those 6 months to 2 years, they should live at home with their parents (who have supported them through college) and receive no help from the state as the attempt to start working and contribute to society via tax?

Sure that would annoy the hell out of me, and to be honest with you, I would be on the first plane out of the country. I agree people who are offered work via fas and turn it down should be taken off the dole and rent allowance, but people who need the help for a few weeks or months should be provided for, especially when they plan to pay it all back and then some in tax!

Also, the hospitals are using too much money as it is via an inefficient healthcare system. It needs to be reformed, badly!

its not only about college students its about everybody who uses the housing benefits

aren't students not allowed to claim benefits if in full time education and dont they have to be 6 months out of education to get any kind of benefits

mrkiscool2

nadey wrote: »

should of took extra caution you knew the pill wasn't 100% even if its taken correctly

i dont for think at all i am better than you all because you got caught and i didn't

i just learned from other peoples experience and know the facts the pill contraception

what has contraception got to do with this topic anyway

Firstly, she got caught out by an extremely rare irregularity, that happens once in every 10,000 cases, not something you can either control nor "learn from experience"

Secondly, you're correct, even though we are discussing young mothers, contraception wasn't one of the points addressed in the Original post, so please, back on topic.

nadey wrote: »

its not only about college students its about everybody who uses the housing benefits

aren't students not allowed to claim benefits if in full time education and dont they have to be 6 months out of education to get any kind of benefits

And I am getting back on topic lol. I wasn't referring to students who are in college, I am referring to the fact students may not get a job for up to 2 years after exiting the system. So, they need help whilst the look for a job, which will enable them to pay taxes and give back to society. It's not exactly fair to expect them, after footing hefty college, rent and food bills, to go it along whilst looking for a career! Your ignorance annoys me!

Doc

nadey wrote: »

should of took extra caution you knew the pill wasn't 100% even if its taken correctly

i dont for think at all i am better than you all because you got caught and i didn't

i just learned from other peoples experience and know the facts the pill contraception

what has contraception got to do with this topic anyway

No contraception is 100% including whatever contraception you use. Your attitude to this poster is reprehensible particularly given the information she gave earlier in this thread.

nadey

Doc wrote: »

The fact they/we had to leave is because there are hardly any jobs available! Your right we didn't want to live off benefits and hardly anyone dose but not everyone has the opportunity to go half way around the world just to find a job. Your admitting that people have to leave to find work but cant see that people who are young and haven't gotten a job yet aren't doing it just to have an easy life on the dole / receiving benefits but because they have no choice!

Your thread is badly thought out and you still have given no justification for the 25 year old age limit.

sorry i thought that i already had given you the reason

i saw on the news that David Cameron said that scrapping the housing benefits would save 2billion

i thought it was a good idea and asked should they do it here

for the reason they gave the age 25 being subsidised to live independently when they could move back into the family home

SusieBlue

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Firstly, she got caught out by an extremely rare irregularity, that happens once in every 10,000 cases, not something you can either control nor "learn from experience"

Secondly, you're correct, even though we are discussing young mothers, contraception wasn't one of the points addressed in the Original post, so please, back on topic.

My fault it got derailed, I asked what she'd do if she got pregnant before 25, She said she wouldn't get pregnant cause she was on the pill and I kind of went on a tangent.

Your right though, was totally off topic. I'm happy to keep it on topic now, sorry for the last 2 pages of drivel from me.