Breaking News: People want free houses. Can I have one too?

Quazzie

NipNip wrote: »

Thanks to our rich economy, there should never be a question of us not being able to afford children.

Again you have avoided the question. It is about individuals and not the country as a whole.

Do you think that an individual should have a child if they can't afford to raise it?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.,

Frigga_92

NipNip wrote: »

Thanks to our rich economy, there should never be a question of us not being able to afford children.

But that is the reality and so it should be.
You didn't answer the question.

SCOOP 64

Quazzie wrote: »

.

Do you think that an individual should have a child if they can't afford to raise it?

Or in modern Ireland today..., should a couple not be able to afford to have a child.

Quazzie

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Or in modern Ireland today..., should a couple not be able to afford to have a child.

They should, if they work for what they get.

NipNip

I believe that if an economy cannot afford children, then there is something wrong. To have or not to have a child for financial reasons, is not a decision a first world country should have to face.
I believe that everyone should have the right and the choice to have a child, whether their individual means permit a high or a low standard of living for that child. Ideally, a decent minimal standard of living should be afforded to every child and adult in this country. We can well afford it.
So yes, I do believe people should be able to have children, even though their individual means do not stretch to meeting their every housing, educational, emotional, social and health needs.
The alternative is to privatise all housing, education, health etc. Then the rich only could have children. Just because someone is individually financially well off, this does not afford them a monopoly on reproduction.
Yes is the short answer. Though the question should not be one which should even be asked in this economy.

Frigga_92

The_Conductor wrote: »

At present- there is a perverse incentive for people who can't afford to have children- to have children. As a start- and this is across the board, not targeted at any group in particular- there should be a tapering of social welfare on an incremental basis- first child you get 200 Euro a month, secound child, 160, third child 120, fourth child 120- and so on. In addition- and akin to the UK- there should be a series of ceilings established where all disbursements, including medical card entitlements, are enumerated, and a ceiling put on entitlements. In the UK- it may be set at an artificially low level- so put it a bit higher- but as a minimum- no one should be better off on benefits than a worker on the average industrial wage (currently 32,800 per annum, *gross*)

In an ideal world I would like to see Children's Allowance abolished (why should the government give you extra money based on a choice you have made) but realistically I believe it should at least be capped after 2 children. Having a child is a choice, having a few children is a choice. We're basically paying people to have children.

Quazzie

NipNip wrote: »

I believe that if an economy cannot afford children, then there is something wrong. To have or not to have a child for financial reasons, is not a decision a first world country should have to face.
I believe that everyone should have the right and the choice to have a child, whether their individual means permit a high or a low standard of living for that child. Ideally, a decent minimal standard of living should be afforded to every child and adult in this country. We can well afford it.
So yes, I do believe people should be able to have children, even though their individual means do not stretch to meeting their every housing, educational, emotional, social and health needs.
The alternative is to privatise all housing, education, health etc. Then the rich only could have children. Just because someone is individually financially well off, this does not afford them a monopoly on reproduction.
Yes is the short answer. Though the question should not be one which should even be asked in this economy.

So. Hyptohetical situation. Me and my wife both work. We want to have kids, but feel we cannot afford to raise them with our current wages. Should we both leave our job so that we can afford to raise the child with state aid? Or how do you propose we raise the child we cannot afford to raise?

Frigga_92

NipNip wrote: »

I believe that if an economy cannot afford children, then there is something wrong. To have or not to have a child for financial reasons, is not a decision a first world country should have to face.
I believe that everyone should have the right and the choice to have a child, whether their individual means permit a high or a low standard of living for that child. Ideally, a decent minimal standard of living should be afforded to every child and adult in this country. We can well afford it.
So yes, I do believe people should be able to have children, even though their individual means do not stretch to meeting their every housing, educational, emotional, social and health needs.
The alternative is to privatise all housing, education, health etc. Then the rich only could have children. Just because someone is individually financially well off, this does not afford them a monopoly on reproduction.
Yes is the short answer. Though the question should not be one which should even be asked in this economy.

It's you who is suggesting a "monopoly on reproduction". I, and I'm sure many others, are merely suggesting that before you have a child you should at least factor in whether you have the money to do so which seems to me to be common sense but obviously not.

NipNip

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

In an ideal world I would like to see Children's Allowance abolished (why should the government give you extra money based on a choice you have made) but realistically I believe it should at least be capped after 2 children. Having a child is a choice, having a few children is a choice. We're basically paying people to have children.

Have you ever studied economics? Who is going to sustain the economy further down the line? With no children, in 60 years time, who works? Who pays taxes?

Would you prefer an entirely capitalist society? Slums and billionaires? In fairness, we're heading that way....

Frigga_92

NipNip wrote: »

Have you ever studied economics? Who is going to sustain the economy further down the line? With no children, in 60 years time, who works? Who pays taxes?

Would you prefer an entirely capitalist society? Slums and billionaires? In fairness, we're heading that way....

Yes, "who works, who pays taxes", exactly what this whole debate is about.

Idbatterim

In an ideal world I would like to see Children's Allowance abolished (why should the government give you extra money based on a choice you have made) but realistically I believe it should at least be capped after 2 children. Having a child is a choice, having a few children is a choice. We're basically paying people to have children.

The problem is, the responsible ones, i.e. the ones we want having kids have only 2 or max 3, because of financial realities. Its the ones we dont want having them, that are pumping them out. Simple answer, cap benefits or simply have free childcare for families where both parents are working, we can afford endless free handouts for the wasters, why not for the workers?

on_my_oe

Here's an alternative for you: the total of your state assistance is set at 90% of the minimum gross wage! plus child credits (which taper off as more children join the family, removing the incentive to have more children). Your rent is paid directly to the landlord - no ifs or buts. If you receive state housing, you don't get a choice - it is allocated on basis of need, reviewed bi-annually.
Your utility bills are paid from your total benefit value, ensuring bills get paid but also that you remain mindful of the cost.
Clothing must be brought using a quote system; you visit the store, select what you feel you need, and a quote is provided to social services who will approve it and deduct it either weekly or a lump sum from your benefit.
Five percent of your benefit is credited to your account in cash; this gives you free choice to spend it on alcohol, cigarettes, phone credit etc or more hopefully, activities with the kids.
Your remaining benefit is credited to a card which can be used in specific stores eg supermarkets, fruit and vegetable stores, butchers, pharmacies etc. some items are prohibited from purchase eg frozen meals, junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, make up, perfume. If you don't spend it all, it can be maintained in credit - rewarding careful budgeting, and an extra 10% of your credit balance is given at Christmas with the restrictions loosened for the credit bonus portion only. Replacement cards are charged at €6.50, discouraging selling, and all cards carrying a passport photo, again discouraging misuse.
Sole child parents must be engaged in training or working by the time the youngest child reaches 5, and 20 hours of free child are is provided to all families regardless of income to assist with this.
This is the NZ scheme to discourage people from seeing the benefit as a way to an easy life with a free house. If you don't want the state to meddle in your life, get a job or do training to get a job.

jd

riclad wrote: »

You don,t pass down house,s
i know someone was living in a 3bed house,
father passed away.
council told him, to move out,
gave him a 1bed flat.

Noticed this relevant High Court decision this morning
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/3adf2cdf9c17528f80257cda005100fa?OpenDocument

on_my_oe

NipNip wrote: »

Have you ever studied economics? Who is going to sustain the economy further down the line? With no children, in 60 years time, who works? Who pays taxes?

Would you prefer an entirely capitalist society? Slums and billionaires? In fairness, we're heading that way....

The problem is, those who spend their childhood growing up on welfare are significantly less likely to grow up and get a job - instead they go on to repeat the cycle, and raise another family on welfare. Simple economics, if you continue to reproduce a group that does not gainfully contribute to society while the group that does make positive, insightful and responsible choices self limits itself, eventually the taxpayers will be outnumbered by the leeches. Too many people on welfare do not act with any responsibility, and expect others to pick up the tab for their lifestyle. If they want one kid, possibly two, great, but four or five, they're on their own, and as soon as the child is in school, they need to be contributing, either by studying, community service or undergoing training.

Greenmachine

I want to join the list. Free house, why not.

riclad

SO the council in dublin ,seems to allow a tenant to stay in a 3 bed house until he dies.
IF he is the original tenant and the rent is being paid.
And meanwhile there,s women with 2 kid,s who are waiting 6 plus years years to get a house.
And every month council houses are being sold off.

Danonino.

Some worrying and depressing replies in a lot of threads lately... Do people honestly think family's are not only 'wasters' by nature but like being in the lowest income bracket enough to have multiple children to remain as such?
Comments that practically paint children of low income family's as wasters from birth are disgusting.



Actually screw that. Last time I had any sort of discussion on this it ended terribly and had me looking at a long time friend in a completely different light.

on_my_oe

Danonino. wrote: »

Some worrying and depressing replies in a lot of threads lately... Do people honestly think family's are not only 'wasters' by nature but like being in the lowest income bracket enough to have multiple children to remain as such?
Comments that practically paint children of low income family's as wasters from birth are disgusting

I have a lot of admiration for someone who gets up every morning to work in a low income job, and has a reasonable number of children (1 or 2), requiring minimal state support.

I reserve my disapproval for those who spend a decade or more, expanding their family willy nilly, all the time becoming a larger drain on limited government resources (when the said resources would be better used supporting the sick, the elderly, or education), and making no contribution to society. To clarify, I perceive contribution as receiving an education or training, volunteering or working.

hawkwind23

Danonino. wrote: »

Some worrying and depressing replies in a lot of threads lately... Do people honestly think family's are not only 'wasters' by nature but like being in the lowest income bracket enough to have multiple children to remain as such?
Comments that practically paint children of low income family's as wasters from birth are disgusting.



Actually screw that. Last time I had any sort of discussion on this it ended terribly and had me looking at a long time friend in a completely different light.

you have empathy and compassion for what is being inflicted on our fellow man, woman and children, never change that.

only a matter of time before they start baying for the poor to be gassed, lined up and shot or chemically exterminated.

i agree , too many of the comments are disgusting and the people making them should be ashamed of themselves.

Villa05

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

One last time - do you think people should have children if they cannot afford them?

Is the issue people having children or the costs associated with child rearing. The aspects of childcare that are over inflating are state related. The state is wasting money and is targeting areas people have to spend to raise new taxation. Housing, transport, water, childcare legislation

Qualitymark

The_Conductor wrote: »

Before you think its a good idea to explore rent controls- it would be wise to check out some other European cities with rent controls.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

What I said - or what I meant; perhaps I wasn't clear - was that if the councils rented out homes to everyone, with their rents set at sensible levels in relation to renters' incomes, this would effectively prevent private rents from spiralling.

gaius c

Calhoun wrote: »

I would personally be in favour of laws that meant you had to name the father on the birth cert so the likes of anto would have to pay. All I care about is there seems to be a culture of people getting houses when they get a kid, the state shouldn't be enabling bad decision making.

As for the last point you get what you pay for if folk don't like the area , then they need to work to get out of it.

Spanish girl I worked with. Her sister got pregnant while in college and she had to move back in with the parents. When the sister finished college and got a job (harder than it sounds in Spain), she was able to move out and get her own place with some child minding help from family.

She was completely amazed by the notion that you would apply for a free house and later get upgraded to a bigger house for having more children you couldn't support. The Irish & UK welfare systems are pretty unique in this respect.

Of course, it helps that rents are very cheap in slightly unfashionable parts of Valencia so people on lower means can actually live relatively comfortably.

Bongalongherb

Housing should be a basic human right. Everyone should have a roof over their head especially with the crap weather in this country Ireland.

The amount of homeless on the streets of Dublin is shocking, it's really bad now.

gaius c

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Housing should be a basic human right. Everyone should have a roof over their head especially with the crap weather in this country Ireland.

The amount of homeless on the streets of Dublin is shocking, it's really bad now.

Does this right extend to new born babies?
Could we be practical and house them in Adamstown perhaps?

Bongalongherb

gaius c wrote: »

Does this right extend to new born babies?
Could we be practical and house them in Adamstown perhaps?

You know what I mean :rolleyes:

gaius c

Aye but do they have a right to a free house?
The streets of Valenica are not mobbed with homeless people and they don't hand out free houses to folk with kids they cannot support. If you are genuinely in need, you get accommodation and in Spain, there's a clear understanding that you're going to be housed in a slum. If you don't like that, you work to afford something better for yourself, just like my friend's sister did.

Bongalongherb

gaius c wrote: »

Aye but do they have a right to a free house?
The streets of Valenica are not mobbed with homeless people and they don't hand out free houses to folk with kids they cannot support. If you are genuinely in need, you get accommodation and in Spain, there's a clear understanding that you're going to be housed in a slum. If you don't like that, you work to afford something better for yourself, just like my friend's sister did.

I don't believe a person will be housed in a slum, you are given 3 options in different areas so it would be a choice for the person to refuse a home in a slum. Well the amount of taxpayers money wasted in relation to paying off un-guaranteed bondholders is worse when that money could have been used for social housing to give people a roof over their head. Money well spent imo.

AlekSmart

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

One last time - do you think people should have children if they cannot afford them?

As a rather simplistic question,this is very valid...however the clarity needed to answer it becomes blurred when one has to do sums such as might be required here......

https://www.google.ie/search?q=father+of+13+on+%E2%82%AC77,000+benefit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=e7B4U4fUC6yv7AbXmYCwBw

I'm not really concerned with the specific aspects of the Court Case,but rather the 13 children-€77,000 pa NET figure-Long Term Unemployed calculation.

Much of our systemic Housing Policy problem today appears to stem in our decision to directly adopt,lock,stock and barrell, the Housing Policies of Margaret Thatcher's various Governments.

BOY !, were our Local Administrators transfixed by the success-stories of po' folks from Council Estates in the North of England being facilitated to buy and own their rented houses,as an integral part of their onward march towards millionaire status.....well,that was the plan anyway...did'nt quite work out that way for Baroness Thatcher and it's not going to end well for us either......:(

State housing should not necessarily be reserved for Poor Folks,it needs to be regarded as a universally available basic entry grade,which can,should it be affordable,left behind at the appropriate time as the individual makes their way through life and it's styles..onwards and upwards ?

Calhoun

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I don't believe a person will be housed in a slum, you are given 3 options in different areas so it would be a choice for the person to refuse a home in a slum. Well the amount of taxpayers money wasted in relation to paying off un-guaranteed bondholders is worse when that money could have been used for social housing to give people a roof over their head. Money well spent imo.

If this thread had of talked about broad government policy in the past few years maybe the bond holder point would be valid but two wrong's don't make a right.

The big theme of this thread has been personal responsibility and people being grateful for what they are given. Yes the government ****ed up by paying back unsecured bond holders it still doesn't mean that an individual on welfare deserves a permanent place of residence in a place they desire.

Bongalongherb

Calhoun wrote: »

If this thread had of talked about broad government policy in the past few years maybe the bond holder point would be valid but two wrong's don't make a right.

The big theme of this thread has been personal responsibility and people being grateful for what they are given. Yes the government ****ed up by paying back unsecured bond holders it still doesn't mean that an individual on welfare deserves a permanent place of residence in a place they desire.

I do agree with this as a person that does get a free apartment or house should never be allowed choose the place they want to live. You take the first offer, well I would. To refuse a free home is just not on, it's a roof over their head, so people should be happy with being offered one in the first place.