No contraception, no dole

Calina

Gerry T wrote: »

I know and mistakes do happen. But the system is being abused. So if your single and that happens then you should be looking to family / friends for help, not the state. If all you got on the dole was enough to support one person then people would be far more careful, less mistakes.

It sounds harsh I know, but forced contraception is never going to happen and those that make a life style choice to live off the dole need to be discouraged. Then there could be more given to those that are really dependent on the dole.

The point has been raised several times that education and education support is a far better method of reducing the risk of the poverty trap.

It's not harsh to say that forced contraception is never happen. Frankly, I cannot believe anyone seriously came up with the idea in the first place and yet we are discussing it.

In the meantime, the onus on those suggesting rather draconian measures of this nature to provide data proving that this is a serious, serious problem financially. I've noted above that the change in social welfare claimant numbers over the past 10 years suggests that most people would rather work than get stuck in a poverty trap.

Flem31

There seems to be a number who agree with this idea of no contraception no dole.
And the rationale is that it would save money.

Why stop there, why not include low paid workers as part of this.
For example if the paye\prsi\USC deductions are less than your current child benefit, then contraception for you also.

If we are going to apply social reengineering, why would it just apply to people on the dole ?

Idbatterim

DeJa VooDoo, you seem a little out of touch with the sectors of society that are causing these problems.

Many areas of Dublin are teaming with feral kids and local economies pulling huge amounts from SW, and little from employment. There's a sub-culture and attitude among many of all ages towards the country and it's welfare system. It's a massive, expensive problem and it's caused by people who feel entitled to a living.

agree with everything except that its caused by people who feel entitled to a living, its caused by coward, morally corrupt politicians who will do nothing about it and bleed working parents with kids dry!

Should our glorious public sector workers have their wages 'benchmarked' to the new reality of Ireland in 2015 or must we in the private sector continue to pay for them to be paid over the odds?

fairness doesnt come into it, relection is the name of the game...

Gerry T

.

Gerry T

Calina wrote: »

The point has been raised several times that education and education support is a far better method of reducing the risk of the poverty trap.

It's not harsh to say that forced contraception is never happen. Frankly, I cannot believe anyone seriously came up with the idea in the first place and yet we are discussing it.

In the meantime, the onus on those suggesting rather draconian measures of this nature to provide data proving that this is a serious, serious problem financially. I've noted above that the change in social welfare claimant numbers over the past 10 years suggests that most people would rather work than get stuck in a poverty trap.

Pre 2008 I would have had a different view, now with the cuts, additional taxes and the struggle to keep the ship afloat it does get to me that there are still people that work the system, so let them fend for themselves would be my attitude. If they are young and healthy they can find some sort of work, or at least try.
If someone aged 8 is looking at people 20 living of the state they may decide to follow that example, remove the opportunity and now the 20 yr old will lecture the 8 yr old -- go to school, study, get a job and don't end up like me.
There will always be people that can't work, for many reasons from depression, physical disabilities, being a carer for a loved one etc... and our society needs to look after these people.
Get the free loaders out of the system, stop paying them and they will have to get jobs. too many loop holes and complicated systems, you would need to give up work to figure it all out.
Over the past 3 years where I work we have had say 2 dozen people, maybe more walk in off the street looking for work, handing out CV's. Not one of them was a native Irish person. My guess is the majority of them got jobs.

na1

Dog of Tears wrote: »

The ability to reproduce should be strictly controlled and regulated by the State.

As a minimum, prospective parents should be required to undertake IQ tests and demonstrate minimum income levels prior to being allowed to have children.

Failure to comply with these requirements should result in heft fines and/or imprisonment for both partners and forced abortion of the foetus.

Well, in reality it is actually proposed opposite: to make a Child Benefit means tested. which means literally:
-ones get paid to do the work
-others get paid to make kids

darkpagandeath

Gerry T wrote: »

Pre 2008 I would have had a different view, now with the cuts, additional taxes and the struggle to keep the ship afloat it does get to me that there are still people that work the system, so let them fend for themselves would be my attitude. If they are young and healthy they can find some sort of work, or at least try.
If someone aged 8 is looking at people 20 living of the state they may decide to follow that example, remove the opportunity and now the 20 yr old will lecture the 8 yr old -- go to school, study, get a job and don't end up like me.
There will always be people that can't work, for many reasons from depression, physical disabilities, being a carer for a loved one etc... and our society needs to look after these people.
Get the free loaders out of the system, stop paying them and they will have to get jobs. too many loop holes and complicated systems, you would need to give up work to figure it all out.
Over the past 3 years where I work we have had say 2 dozen people, maybe more walk in off the street looking for work, handing out CV's. Not one of them was a native Irish person. My guess is the majority of them got jobs.

Any fact based statistics on this or is it just my brothers cats dog knows a guy who knows a guy sure their all at it. And I bet they all get free sky hd

yipeeeee

It's called family planning and really isn't that difficult.

darkpagandeath

yipeeeee wrote: »

It's called family planning and really isn't that difficult.

Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a child as that's basically what's being proposed. Or is this only for the lower class.

Gatling

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a child as that's basically what's being proposed. Or is this only for the lower class.

How about they stop child benefit and extra payments for children ,

was.deevey

Pregnancy is not always a choice

Worst case Scenario, Abstinence is a choice, Pills, implants etc ... all exist and do work most of the time - The idea surrounding this is that when you are already an existing state burden and decide have a child, it will not benefit you.

condoms or the rhythm method in the list of approved methods of contraception.

However there would be no way to prove either method was used in the case of a pregnancy while claiming SW, hence the reason I mentioned the implant which is required to be removed surgically - thus giving proof the device failed if pregnancy occured if contested.

forgive me, I assumed that when you suggested a couple could choose whatever contraception they liked, you meant they could choose whatever method of contraception they liked, and not only from the subset of chemical contraception, responsibility for which falls on women.

Yes I mean anything they like - the implant example (it was only an example) gives one of the highest pregnancy protections and the easiest for the woman to prove was in-fact in use at the time the unexpected pregnancy occurred and thus, social welfare would then be allowed for that child.

If guys had some means of getting a temporary "Chemical Snip" I would also suggest that as an alternative, however I don't believe that is currently the case.

But yes in hindsight any contraception could be used so long as the financial burden of the unexpected pregnancy will not be shouldered by the state.

Nor have you addressed the idea that in fact, state sanctioned forced medication is not the hallmark of a mature society.

There is no forcing of medication, it was only an example as outlined about as a means of proof of trying NOT to have a baby or else everyone would just be claiming "the condom broke"

If you think the rhythm or condoms methods works for you, go for it, like rabbits if needs must. BUT don't look for additional Social welfare payments when that method fails and you have no prescription, surgery or sex tape to back up your story.

Why stop there, why not include low paid workers as part of this.
For example if the paye\prsi\USC deductions are less than your current child benefit, then contraception for you also.

Honestly I'd just scrap it and bundle it into the tax free allowance - there should not be a shortfall, I know there is currently, but there shouldn't be.

Bottom line is that people who have jobs (of any sort) should be able to afford things that people on the dole cannot - that includes kids.

darkpagandeath

Gatling wrote: »

How about they stop child benefit and extra payments for children ,

Grand so, You will be happy paying 100% cost to the state for schooling also yes ? Sure it's peoples idea to have children why should your tax money go on anyone's.

yipeeeee

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a child as that's basically what's being proposed. Or is this only for the lower class.

No I'm saying people should have the common sense themselves.

Unfortunately it's not the case.

Flem31

was.deevey wrote: »

Bottom line is that people who have jobs (of any sort) should be able to afford things that people on the dole cannot - that includes kids.

The basis of this proposal is a cost saving measure, and if the low paid are not net contributors to the tax system they should be subject to the same policies as other non net contributors. There shouldn't be a exemption just because you paid a fiver in tax last month.

Yes the low paid should be able to afford things that the unemployed do not.......but having children is not things, and if they cannot afford them, they shouldn't have them anymore than someone on the dole.

was.deevey

Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a child as that's basically what's being proposed. Or is this only for the lower class.

I'd probably agree that there should be a minimum threshold of income prior to having kids - why on earth would you want kids if you cant (on your own dime) put food on the table ?

No I'm saying people should have the common sense themselves.

And many couples do

Unfortunately it's not the case.

The ugly truth.

darkpagandeath

yipeeeee wrote: »

No I'm saying people should have the common sense themselves.

Unfortunately it's not the case.

Yup that is unfortunate, Why we have crazy health and safety laws too. There is no magic bullet for any of this. Or other EU states would have no issues with unemployed single parents and so on.

COYVB

An awful lot of people in this these seen to have missed the fact that it's not about stopping payments to large families, but rather ensuring they get no larger while they can't afford it. Nothing too wrong with that IMO.

It wouldn't affect the mother of 5 whose husband recently died, nor the family with the recently redundant couple. Only those who take no steps to avoid getting having more children while their only income is from the state.

yipeeeee

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yup that is unfortunate, Why we have crazy health and safety laws too. There is no magic bullet for any of this. Or other EU states would have no issues with unemployed single parents and so on.

Dunno about your last point.

darkpagandeath

COYVB wrote: »

An awful lot of people in this these seen to have missed the fact that it's not about stopping payments to large families, but rather ensuring they get no larger while they can't afford it. Nothing too wrong with that IMO.

It wouldn't affect the mother of 5 whose husband recently died, nor the family with the recently redundant couple. Only those who take no steps to avoid getting having more children while their only income is from the state.

And how would you like to foot the bill for the Massive increase in crime.

seventeen sheep

It's a pretty stupid unrealistic suggestion, and would be basically impossible to implement. I mean, what about single women on the dole? They get forced against their will to put hormones into their body to get paid? What happens when some woman dies from a blood clot as a result of being put on the pill against her wishes?

I would be all for getting rid of child benefit and instead using a system like in America, where parents are given cheques that can only be used on formula, nappies, groceries, etc. It should be means tested in some way too.

I also think all forms of contraception and all medical appointments relating to contraception should be completely free for everyone (I think this is done in the UK already.) Whatever the cost, I imagine the state would still end up making huge savings on the reduced welfare payments.

Calina

was.deevey wrote: »

However there would be no way to prove either method was used in the case of a pregnancy while claiming SW, hence the reason I mentioned the implant which is required to be removed surgically - thus giving proof the device failed if pregnancy occured if contested.

You really are clueless. This is exactly why there is a problem. The only traceable options are hormonal ones which you suggested could be traced through medical card claims.

was.deevey wrote: »

There is no forcing of medication, it was only an example as outlined about as a means of proof of trying NOT to have a baby or else everyone would just be claiming "the condom broke"

The only methods of contraception which match your requirements for traceability involve state sanctioned medication and target women only.

This idea of forcing people to take a hormonal contraception is gender specific and discriminatory. Not only that, hormonal contraception is contraindicated for some people. Forcing people to take medicine like this for economic rather than health reasons is an idea that is so utterly stupid I cannot believe someone came up with it. And before you bleat once more that if there was an equivalent for men, you'd sanction that too, deal with the reality that right now there isn't.

Oh and don't bother saying that this isn't state sanctioned or forced. If you link it to state benefits or welfare support, it is forced and state sanctioned.

Again, the primary method by which you can reduce the risk of the poverty trap is through education, education support and opportunity improvement.

was.deevey

The basis of this proposal is a cost saving measure, and if the low paid are not net contributors to the tax system they should be subject to the same policies as other non net contributors. There shouldn't be a exemption just because you paid a fiver in tax last month.

Taxpayers, however little they pay are in-credit with the country as a whole. Even if thats just a fiver, they are not in-debt of the initial 188 per week + child benefit. (I would not allow benefits for workers to outweigh total deductions however).

Its not just cost saving, its could also be country standard raising in the long term (a generation or two maybe)

TheSheriff

Havent read the whole thread, I am sure there are some very valid arguments in it.

Just wanted to contribute to the "its a good idea" team.

I think it is a brilliant idea. I know of several women living in North Cork who have had children with the sole aim of going on benefits.

Sickening bunch. We need progressive moves like this in Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

>Enters thread
>Sees link to the Daily Fail
>Walks away shaking head

Gerry T

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Any fact based statistics on this or is it just my brothers cats dog knows a guy who knows a guy sure their all at it. And I bet they all get free sky hd

Something like that. Just because I don't have documented evidence I think we all know what goes on. This report took me 5min to find. Pg 7 shows in 2012 11,900 reports were made of people claiming and working, I'm sure there are far more working & claiming that were reported.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/dsp_fraud_initiative_progress_report_to_end_dec_%202012.pdf

Calina

TheSheriff wrote: »

We need progressive moves like this in Ireland.

This is not progressive.

na1

rob316 wrote: »

I would imagine its against your human rights to be forced to take contraception in any circumstance.

you have a choice: take contraception & the welfare money, or no contraception & no money

Calina

na1 wrote: »

you have a choice: take contraception & the welfare money, or no contraception & no money

That's not actually a choice if the alternative is not eating.

hatrickpatrick

na1 wrote: »

you have a choice: take contraception & the welfare money, or no contraception & no money

In other words, "take potentially dangerous hormonal medication, or starve to death".

TheSheriff

Calina wrote: »

This is not progressive.

I disagree. What you see as progressive is not necessarily how everyone else sees it.

Calina

TheSheriff wrote: »

I disagree. What you see as progressive is not necessarily how everyone else sees it.

The idea of medicating a section of the population for economic grounds, and doing it on a gender discriminatory basis comes under the heading of totalitarianism.

Gerry T

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Grand so, You will be happy paying 100% cost to the state for schooling also yes ? Sure it's peoples idea to have children why should your tax money go on anyone's.

Education is key, one of IRL resources is our educated workforce attracting hi tech, pharma and finance industries.

Put it this way. A child gets "free education" from the state. When that child starts working they will contribute hopefully 40yr's of tax, many multiple times the "free education" benefit he/she received.

Education is far from free, books, "voluntary contributions" , then at 3rd level exam registration fees. Far from free.

wexandproud

hollster2 wrote: »

Why has this thread gone to attacking single mothers?? I was working and my partner (now ex) was working at time I got pregnant I stayed home with baby and he worked, Weve 3 children and unfortunatly im by myslef now I get lone parent this is not by choice its the situation im in, Im living with my parent at the moment no 50inch plasma like someone said, Ive a college degree behind me, not all of us choose to sit on are bum all day grabbing off the state id love to be out working but at the moment im being a mother and a single one at that some of you are so obnoxious dont be so quick to judge people!

if you had read the whole thread you should be able to see that nobody on here is against people who are in situations like yours or similar , people who were in stable relationship with regular income and for whatever reason circumstances changed, in fact this point was made by a number of posters. What people have the problem with is the kind of ones ' the sherriff ' referred to above , fresh out of school and start a family with no earned income

hollster2

wexandproud wrote: »

if you had read the whole thread you should be able to see that nobody on here is against people who are in situations like yours or similar , people who were in stable relationship with regular income and for whatever reason circumstances changed, in fact this point was made by a number of posters. What people have the problem with is the kind of ones ' the sherriff ' referred to above , fresh out of school and start a family with no earned income

I did read it and there were a few saying it I understand that point of it maybe just be being sensitive some comments were making me feel crap that im on a payment and would love to be working like im being judged in ever single mother catagory!

Gerry T

hollster2 wrote: »

I did read it and there were a few saying it I understand that point of it maybe just be being sensitive some comments were making me feel crap that im on a payment and would love to be working like im being judged in ever single mother catagory!

I'm on here giving out about people having babies they can't afford. I most definitely was not talking about you or the situation you find yourself in. Hard times can hit anyone of us, at any time and you should feel that the rest of us will be there to support you, and the majority of us are, sorry if you took any offence in any of my posts.

COYVB

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And how would you like to foot the bill for the Massive increase in crime.

You honestly reckon people would turn to crime instead of taking the pill?

hollster2

Gerry T wrote: »

I'm on here giving out about people having babies they can't afford. I most definitely was not talking about you or the situation you find yourself in. Hard times can hit anyone of us, at any time and you should feel that the rest of us will be there to support you, and the majority of us are, sorry if you took any offence in any of my posts.

No worries Gerry wasn't you're post but Thank you!

Roger Hassenforder

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol, what TV isn't nowadays?

well f**k you Mr. 42" , laughing at my 40"smart TV!

wexandproud

hollster2 wrote: »

I did read it and there were a few saying it I understand that point of it maybe just be being sensitive some comments were making me feel crap that im on a payment and would love to be working like im being judged in ever single mother catagory!

no offence meant , i have a lot of sympathy for people in your situation I have friends in same situation. keep your spirts up things have a habit of working out

hollster2

wexandproud wrote: »

no offence meant , i have a lot of sympathy for people in your situation I have friends in same situation. keep your spirts up things have a habit of working out

Thank you

Unknown Soldier

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this but I'm interested in where you get the 80%/20% figure from.

Possibly Pareto's law

Vomit

Sounds like eugenics to me.














Bring it on!

Streetwalker

I don't know what's more disturbing the actual idea or the fact so many on here agree with it.

moc moc a moc

hollster2 wrote: »

Ive a college degree behind me

I have a hard time believing that, given the lack of punctuation in your post.

CarpeDiem85

^Don't be mean! She could have written her post in a rush.

hollster2

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

^Don't be mean! She could have written her post in a rush.

Thanks I did doesn't bother me if he/she wants to be childish dont have time for that.

SMJSF

sup_dude wrote:

Why the implant? Many doctors refuse to put it in, my own included as the side effects occur so often that they haven't had one that they haven't take out within a month or two. What if a woman has a bad reaction? What if you use the injection and she has a bad reaction? If you're going to go down this route, at least think of the consequences...

I can't myself get the implant, coils, or oral pill, because of a current problem with my sight and if I take anything else other than my two options I'd go blind.... so it's the depo provera (injection) or tubes cut...
so I agree with you!

Ave Sodalis

SMJSF wrote: »

I can't myself get the implant, coils, or oral pill, because of a current problem with my sight and if I take anything else other than my two options I'd go blind.... so it's the depo provera (injection) or tubes cut...
so I agree with you!

Exactly, and Depo Provera has caused side effects for me and I'm waiting for it to wear off before going down other routes. Shoving every woman on the dole on contraception is a narrowminded idea that involves no thought in the slightest. Hormones are very sensitive things. They're essentially what keeps our body systems working. You can't just go messing with them without thought, which is why everything is done through qualified doctors. Heck, with my last depo prescription, they're so strict on it that I had gotten it from a doctor in one county and went to a pharmacist in another and the pharmacist rang the doctor to make sure. Same with the doctor who gave me the injection, asking where I got the prescription, what pharmacist gave it to me etc.
They're strict on these things for a reason. You can't go forcing people to use them without thinking of the side effects which can range from mild to severe.

lmimmfn

give all women on the dole of birthing age and with no kids a 1000euro bonus per year for not having kids, if they have had a kid anytime they lose the bonus. Simples.

big.bird84

It's sad we have to have such discussions. My partner is unemployed a year (not for lack of trying to get a job), I lost my job in the summer and we have one child (we were both working when we had her). I went straight out and got the coil fitted to be absolutely sure we wouldn't end up trapping ourselves on SW with 2 kids. I have now gotten a new job but there will definitely be no more kids until I am made permanent in my job and I'm there at least 2 years. It's sensible decision making. We can afford the one we have but no more. Why would ya have something you can't afford?!