No contraception, no dole

darkpagandeath

Dean0088 wrote: »

I've heard of free condoms being dispensed in schools now. Along with GPs offices and other similar locations.

Also, contraception is a responsibility for an individual. If you're going to have sex you shouldn't need to involve the government. Any adult knows that creating a human life is a huge deal and can happen due to sex.

I've never once thought of contraception as anything other than a matter for personal responsibility and something you just have to do in order to have sex.

Something something burn in hell, Guilt trip sex is dirty...

Tasden

Dean0088 wrote: »

Because most people don't have a problem with families with at least one parent who has been in employment for a decent period of time. If that breadwinner loses his/her job then it's only fair that they be entitled to some help. After all, they paid into the pot as a kind of insurance for their family.

The main problem is people stratagizing and planning their family based off what kind of welfare bumps they'll get. Very often, these people never pay into the pot and never will.

So single mothers by their very nature have never worked and paid into the same pot no?
Many families have two parents who never worked. And many single mothers were once part of a family unit where one or both of them worked and now are unable to work as they are the sole carer of the children.

kjl

kylith wrote: »

Will the government cover the cost of the contraception?

pretty sure they already do.

VinLieger

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Fair enough I'm sure you will be telling all the other posters who mentioned any Irish context they are wrong also.

I am trying to think.. Has any Irish politician ever gone on about the dole... Hmmm Sorry my bad that has never ever happened here.

No cus theirs make sense as arguing and discussing whether we have the same problems here is completely different to accusing Irish politicians of proposing the same solutions that have been made by ONE person in Australia.

Of course Irish politicians have made comments in the past on the dole but none in this specific context which again was what you were suggesting.

BeerWolf

Soon to do what India does... that 'voluntary' sterilisation for cash.

darkpagandeath

Dean0088 wrote: »

You're basically saying that our elected politicians aren't allowed to discuss social welfare because of the 2007-10 crisis/bailout. It's idiotic.

No, I'm saying Welfare had nothing to do with the crash. So going on about welfare rates now that have not gone up is idiotic.

Can you guess why there are lots of people on the dole now ? It's not the level of dole payment that is the issue.

mynamejeff

I seem to recall condoms being handed out in the students union in WIT many many years ago.

to be fair i m sure we all know some people who shouldn't have been allowed to conceive children as they lack the personal responsibility to look after them selfs never mind another person.

care homes across the county are proof enough of that .

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Too right. Reproducing isn't a "right". Food, warmth, shelter and being happy are rights that all children have, and parents not bothering their backside to try provide for their family because they're relying on everyone else to fund their life style shouldn't be encouraged to bring children into poverty

CarpeDiem85

As was already mentioned on this thread and it's been suggested and will probably be brought in the UK, I would like to see parents paying maintenance at source. When I say parents, I mean the guys mostly and mothers who do a runner, never to be heard of again. The money should be automatically taken out of their payslip/social welfare. If this doesn't happen, then it would affect their credit rating going forward. I'm sick to death of the mothers always having to pick up the flack and all single mothers being tarred with the same brush. I think there has to be accountability on both sides. Not all single parents want to claim the OPFA but have no choice in some cases. Yes, there are those who have lots of children young but in a way society failed them. I worked with lots of these young girls and I don't think a lot of them do it because of the money, I think it's more they want a family and someone to love. A purpose in life as such.

Fukuyama

rob316 wrote: »

€150 for an abortion, your well misinformed sir. up to 14 weeks costs about €600, after 19 weeks its a surgical procedure that cost well over €2000. You will get a discount if you are from Ireland though.

Fair enough. I have up to 9 weeks for €300 here though.

Nevertheless, in an emergency even hard pressed individuals could ask family for assistance. If that's not an option (I'd imagine many in Ireland would never want to tell a soul) then I feel bad for them, however they've really only got themselves to blame (except for rape, obviously).

Contraception in 2015 is widely available, cheap and pretty damn good. If you're not using it then don't have full sex and stick to oral or other methods.

worded

We have the highest child care fees in the world in ireland.
Fine if you a surgeon etc you can afford to have a few kids in crèche.

The middle class's (working poor) are effectively financially castrated

The only people who can have large famalies are the irresponsible and the rich.

There should be a disincentive to having baby after baby if neither you or your partner(s) are not or have never worked.

It's darwanism on its head. The Sucessful couples can't afford to have more than one kid because they pay for the unsuccessful ones to have as many as they choose. This is while paying huge childcare fees to go to work, the highest fees in the world.

Grab All Association

That whoopsy moderator will lock this. Its alright to post a dole bashing thread yet nothing is said about "lone parents". Nenagh or Templemore Town Council (can't remember which one) did an inspection of their housing stock a couple of years ago and found that the majority of single tenants had their drug dealing boyfriends living with them without declaring it to be the council and DSP.

I think child benefit should also be paid in vouchers to those on loan parent who have no contributions payed to the state (remember Centra child benefit drink deals also its not for car insurance or provident personal credit loans) also higher rates for those who have paid the most so the more you have paid the more you get back.

Lone parents should be forced on to JSA or BTEA whatever when the child reaches the age of 4. Now most spongers would go out and get pregnant as soon as they can but there's a way to curb this. Lets say Sharon Curley has baby number 1. Give her child benefit up until the baby reaches the age of 4 years but not allow another claim for a second baby for another 2 years.

The best thing is just to legalize abortion so the DSP can turn around to the skangers and say well why didn't you abort the baby and close the curtain on them.

zcorpian88

He's right really, lot of people out there procreating carelessly and then get handed extra benefits and the keys to a nicer house than my own off some ballbag parish pump TD looking for an extra vote.

Where's my house on subsidized rent? I'll be f**king waiting since I'm single and childless, stuck living at home like a complete tit.

darkpagandeath

Chris___ wrote: »

That whoopsy moderator will lock this. Its alright to post a dole bashing thread yet nothing is said about "lone parents". Nenagh or Templemore Town Council (can't remember which one) did an inspection of their housing stock a couple of years ago and found that the majority of single tenants had their drug dealing boyfriends living with them without declaring it to be the council and DSP.

I think child benefit should also be paid in vouchers to those on loan parent who have no contributions payed to the state (remember Centra child benefit drink deals also its not for car insurance or provident personal credit loans) also higher rates for those who have paid the most so the more you have paid the more you get back.

Lone parents should be forced on to JSA or BTEA whatever when the child reaches the age of 4. Now most spongers would go out and get pregnant as soon as they can but there's a way to curb this. Lets say Sharon Curley has baby number 1. Give her child benefit up until the baby reaches the age of 4 years but not allow another claim for a second baby for another 2 years.

The best thing is just to legalize abortion so the DSP can turn around to the skangers and say well why didn't you abort the baby and close the curtain on them.

Err if they all have drug dealing boyfriends why are they on the Social ?

Hear that whoops, this is all you fault. What did you invent those wombs for, goddess that you are 😄

mynamejeff

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Err if they all have drug dealing boyfriends why are they on the Social ?

ever hear of a tipp person turning down free money ?

ancapailldorcha

worded wrote: »

We have the highest child care fees in the world in ireland.

No you don't. Close, but not quite:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/21/child-care-costs-compared-britain

worded wrote: »

It's darwanism on its head. The Sucessful couples can't afford to have more than one kid because they pay for the unsuccessful ones to have as many as they choose. This is while paying huge childcare fees to go to work, the highest fees in the world.

The successful couples in this scenario are likely to be engaged in full time work, both of them and having a child is therefore a meticulously thought out process for them. I've a mate back in Donegal who's on FT SW with his missus. She's just had their first kid which was conceived because he couldn't be arsed walking 30 seconds to the local shop for condoms. I'm not saying that this is representative of the lower class of course. The government need to actually make sure it's worth it to be employed. The UK is rife with zero-hour contracts and minuscule wages topped up by tax credits but that's another discussion.

worded

worded wrote: »

There should be a disincentive to having baby after baby if neither you or your partner(s) are not or have never worked.

The most shocking thing about threads like this are the massive proportion of posters who think that the above is wrong. I mean, what the ****. What planet are some people on? Not planet taxpayer, I know that much.

DeJa VooDoo

yipeeeee wrote: »

Sorry my mistake.

It's the highest.

Don't forget to mention that it's down from 6.2% of births to under 20 year olds to 2.3% though, eh.

Where does it say it's the highest in Europe?

You might need to read that again.

Debtocracy

worded wrote: »

It's darwanism on its head. The Sucessful couples can't afford to have more than one kid because they pay for the unsuccessful ones to have as many as they choose. This is while paying huge childcare fees to go to work, the highest fees in the world.

I demand forced sterilization for all those who reference evolutionary theory inappropriately

yipeeeee

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Don't forget to mention that it's down from 6.2% of births to under 20 year olds to 2.3% though, eh.

Where does it say it's the highest in Europe?

You might need to read that again.

I read it in the article you linked.

Gone Drinking

Its not a bad idea in fairness. I earn an ok wage but if I totted up the different bills/expenses that come with having two kids, I can honestly say I couldn't afford to.

If I was jobless however.. where's the fairness in that?

DeJa VooDoo

listermint wrote: »

Oh god...

Groan.

Sarcasm!;)
It was the way the thread was going.....

Tasden

zcorpian88 wrote: »

He's right really, lot of people out there procreating carelessly and then get handed extra benefits and the keys to a nicer house than my own off some ballbag parish pump TD looking for an extra vote.

Where's my house on subsidized rent? I'll be f**king waiting since I'm single and childless, stuck living at home like a complete tit.

I'm a single mother- where's mine?

And from working with those at risk of homelessness it's actually not that easy to get a "free house" or rent somewhere and claim rent supplement anymore. Single mothers with kids or not. So many assumptions and generalisations in this thread.

DeJa VooDoo

yipeeeee wrote: »

I read it in the article you linked.

No you didn't.

CarpeDiem85

Could some people please educate themselves on the changes this government have made in Budget '14 to the One Parent Family Payment once a child turns 7. The parent is then automatically put onto JSA if still not working at that stage. Some people on this thread are coming up with ideas that are already in place!

yipeeeee

One quarter Of babies born in 2010 were to non nationals.

Interesting statistic.

DeJa VooDoo

yipeeeee wrote: »

One quarter me babies born in 2010 were to non nationals.

Interesting statistic.

Still claiming we have the highest rate of births to teenagers in the EU?

mickydoomsux

yipeeeee wrote: »

One quarter Of babies born in 2010 were to non nationals.

Interesting statistic.

Not really. Most people who came into the country were young with no roots in their home nation and they obviously reached their "having babies" stage when they were over here.

Plenty of Irish young wans firing out babies in the States, Canada and down under but we don't like to talk about that.

Tasden

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Could some people please educate themselves on the changes this government have made in Budget '14 to the One Parent Family Payment once a child turns 7. The parent is then automatically put onto JSA if still not working at that stage. Some people on this thread are coming up with ideas that are already in place!

Actually no, those that have been on opfp long term are put on jobseekers allowance transition. Which is quite different to jsa as the genuinely seeking full time work criteria and the 4 in 7 day rule don't actually apply.

yipeeeee

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Still claiming we have the highest rate of births to teenagers in the EU?

No you're right I read it wrong.

DeJa VooDoo

yipeeeee wrote: »

No you're right I read it wrong.

6th highest in the EU and falling.

yipeeeee

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

6th highest in the EU and falling.

Marvellous stuff.

lakesider

I think the australian guy has it sorted, but what about those hard working folks with kids who lose their job and end up claiming?..sure by his logic we gotta euthanise those kids cos they are now a burden on the state..well arent they?..but sure that will throw work when we build the child euthanisation camps which is good for the exchequer and will help us pay off the banks that have this country by the neck for generations to come..but thats neither here nor there!!!!!

DeJa VooDoo

yipeeeee wrote: »

Marvellous stuff.

It is actually.
Shows what a bit of education and proper information can do.
Also kinda disproves a lot of the sh1te posted on this thread.

DeJa VooDoo

lakesider wrote: »

I think the australian guy has it sorted, but what about those hard working folks with kids who lose their job and end up claiming?..sure by his logic we gotta euthanise those kids cos they are now a burden on the state..well arent they?..but sure that will throw work when we build the child euthanisation camps which is good for the exchequer and will help us pay off the banks that have this country by the neck for generations to come..but thats neither here nor there!!!!!

The babies of today are, hopefully, the taxpayers of tomorrow.
We need them to pay off the debts.......

darkpagandeath

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Could some people please educate themselves on the changes this government have made in Budget '14 to the One Parent Family Payment once a child turns 7. The parent is then automatically put onto JSA if still not working at that stage. Some people on this thread are coming up with ideas that are already in place!

Yup it's amazing what people make up in their head about welfare. People not remember not long ago a few TD's were going to live off the dole for a few weeks ? What happened to that, Ah yeah I'm guessing they got told the rate of payment and what it would buy you. You know then having them look down their nose at people and coming out with stupid comments like “Cant pay the water charge” hmm were did you get that smart phone then...

Grab All Association

lakesider wrote: »

I think the australian guy has it sorted, but what about those hard working folks with kids who lose their job and end up claiming?..sure by his logic we gotta euthanise those kids cos they are now a burden on the state..well arent they?..but sure that will throw work when we build the child euthanisation camps which is good for the exchequer and will help us pay off the banks that have this country by the neck for generations to come..but thats neither here nor there!!!!!

To be fair those are the people who we should be looking after. The people who have never worked a day in their live are the ones we really can't afford to support anymore. The VEC had to close a training centre not too long ago because all the teenage girls got pregnant to get the full rate of of €188. They would have only got €100 if they had just of signed on. With a child you get the full €188. Those who worked and contributed should also get a bit more tbh when unemployed.

Kim Kardashi Un

super_furry wrote: »

Hahaha, some of you lot won't be happy until the government taxes getting the ride. Sex licences for some, jail terms for others.

Five euros a finger

darkpagandeath

Chris___ wrote: »

To be fair those are the people who we should be looking after. The people who have never worked a day in their live are the ones we really can't afford to support anymore. The VEC had to close a training centre not too long ago because all the teenage girls got pregnant to get the full rate of JSA. They would have only got €100 if they had just of signed on. With a child you get the full €188. Those who worked and contributed should also get a bit more tbh when unemployed.

Dam them for availing training opportunities... Did they get a free house too ?

CarpeDiem85

Anyone saying that they don't want their taxes to pay for other people's children are Hypocrites with a capital H! The children's allowance or child benefit as it's called now was introduced many moons ago to help families with the cost of bringing up a child. We have all benefited from it over the years as our parents were in receipt of it. I know it was a huge help to my parents. I can't now turn around and give out if other parents get money to help feed and clothe their babies. I ain't a hypocrite!

DeJa VooDoo

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Dam them for availing training opportunities... Did they get a free house too ?

And a 50" flat screen tv.....

wexandproud

Dean0088 wrote: »

My own experience. Let's not go down the usual route in AH of requesting figures which simply don't exist.

It's not like the Department of Social Protection can go around to people's houses and inspect their living rooms.

I'm from a working class area, and have worked in many others around Dublin. I have old acquaintances on the dole along with extended family, some of whom spend their lives going between jail cells and social housing.

I have eyes and it's fairly obvious to see. When someone who spends every weekday in a pub, wearing a tracksuit with five days stubble is telling me about how their new Smart TV connects to the internet, I can be fairly confident in guessing that they're not paying for it in a 9-5.

I have also had numerous people actually tell me how they bounce between SW schemes or dodge the "reviews" they get called in for every six months.

It's very often routed into certain families. Little johnnie sees Mammy and Daddy sitting on their holes his entire life, so when he turns 18 he know the SW game better than most!

This country has a growing problem with long-term SW lifers who impoverish themselves. Ireland has a great SW welfare system with very generous amounts given. The UK give nothing compared to us. And yet, we still hear cries of "it's not enough".

You might claim that I'm talking through my hole here with 20% figure. But I guarantee that in my area and many others it'd be upwards of 60% of those on the dole are taking the piss. 20% would be a national average I reckon.

agree 100%.. yes of course there are people in need of social welfare and of course there are are people who would by far prefer to be working , but i think a lot of people need to take their head out of the sand and look around , there is a certain mindset out there who think its their god given right not to work and the government is obliged to keep them at a standard of living higher than people in jobs , and if people cant see that around them they must live on another planet

regarding the childrens allowance , unmarried mothers [the ones making a career out of welfare] should be made provide fathers name, and child support should be taken automatically from his welfare or salary and then given to the mother with child benefit reduced accordingly.

Fukuyama

Jesus wept.

Anyone who doesn't think our SW system is full of lifetime, career mothers and barstool layabouts are off their head.

We have a cushy system and as many have pointed out, people who go to college, work hard, get a good job actually can't afford to have kids.

There's a decreasing incentive to work in this country. We need a fairer model. I think one more heavily based on what you've contributed in the past would be better.

Right now JSA is a cushy weekly wage for many.

Tasden

wexandproud wrote: »

regarding the childrens allowance , unmarried mothers [the ones making a career out of welfare] should be made provide fathers name, and child support should be taken automatically from his welfare or salary and then given to the mother with child benefit reduced accordingly.

I'm assuming you mean their social welfare should be reduced if maintenance is paid (which currently happens as it stands) and not child benefit? Or do you actually think child benefit, a flat rate universal payment, should be reduced for single parents who receive maintenance?

Ave Sodalis

wexandproud wrote: »

regarding the childrens allowance , unmarried mothers [the ones making a career out of welfare] should be made provide fathers name, and child support should be taken automatically from his welfare or salary and then given to the mother with child benefit reduced accordingly.

Child benefit isn't just given to unmarried mothers, it's given to everyone. Also, there's such thing as single fathers. Also, it can be difficult enough to get a partner to pay maintenance at times, nevermind that.

Where are people getting all these "majority" "most" and other sweeping statements from? I'd also like to find out where to avail of these massive tvs and smart phones

DeJa VooDoo

wexandproud wrote: »

regarding the childrens allowance , unmarried mothers [the ones making a career out of welfare] should be made provide fathers name, and child support should be taken automatically from his welfare or salary and then given to the mother with child benefit reduced accordingly.

That was my suggestion earlier in the thread, well not reducing child benefit, reducing the weekly payment.
'the ones making a career out of welfare' isn't helpful btw if we're trying to have a rational discussion.

mikom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBzoUx7pUP4

VinLieger

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

That was my suggestion earlier in the thread, well not reducing child benefit, reducing the weekly payment.
'the ones making a career out of welfare' isn't helpful btw if we're trying to have a rational discussion.

They do exist though, I agree we have no idea of the real numbers and whether its a tiny minority or not but trying to make out they arent out there is just ignoring reality.

What we need is definitive statistics from the department of social welfare of how many people receiving the dole have never worked or have been on it longer than they have worked etc. It would put these arguments to bed once and for all about how many of these "spongers" actually exist.

Ave Sodalis

VinLieger wrote: »

They do exist though, I agree we have no idea of the real numbers and whether its a tiny minority or not but trying to make out they arent out there is just ignoring reality.

What we need is definitive statistics from the department of social welfare of how many people receiving the dole have never worked or have been on it longer than they have worked etc. It would put these arguments to bed once and for all about how many of these "spongers" actually exist.

What an awful lot of people do is try to make out that all or majority of dole receivers are spongers, and that's ignoring reality on a worse scale. I'd love to see those statistics, but they'd also have to define circumstance.