Man gets €840 a week on welfare

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

I feel very sorry for the kids. If you ask any child what they want to be when they grow up they will tell you something, none say "I want to live on welfare". These kids are disadvantaged from the start because they don't have a good record of school attendance and they are doubly disadvantaged by not having parents who can help with their education. What is really telling about the community is if you read the PP reports on Travellers and education they seem to lay most of the blame at the Gov and the settled society rather than focus on the culture that doesn't place a high value on education. As usual its always everyone else's fault.

No argument there. I don't like traveller culture or any of the travellers I've met. It's just I'm not that big on starving children to death or putting them in state care which costs 100 times more and gives pretty much the same result.

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No argument there. I don't like traveller culture or any of the travellers I've met. It's just I'm not that big on starving children to death or putting them in state care which costs 100 times more and gives pretty much the same result.

Not always. I don't think of care as being homes, I don't agree a children's home is a suitable place for a child. I was thinking of long term foster care. I'd have no issues at all taking in a foster child from the Traveller community.

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

Not always. I don't think of care as being homes, I don't agree a children's home is a suitable place for a child. I was thinking of long term foster care. I'd have no issues at all taking in a foster child from the Traveller community.

A two year old maybe, but a 13 year old? No thanks TBH.

snubbleste

Dan_Solo wrote: »

A two year old maybe, but a 13 year old? No thanks TBH.

Even if the State pays you €352 per child per week

bjork

evo2000 wrote: »

half 9 in the morning and your on here talking ****e... jesus you dont have much to be doing!

9.30am? That's drinking time in some cultures

Don't judge!!

Dan_Solo

snubbleste wrote: »

Even if the State pays you €352 per child per week

Can you adopt 8? :-)

Man of peace

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can you adopt 8? :-)

An episode of Futrarama springs to mind.

Dan_Solo

snubbleste wrote: »

Even if the State pays you €352 per child per week

TBH that's worse than yer man getting 840 a week for a family of 10! So foster three kids and you're on the equivalent of what, 80k per year?!?!

Galwayguy35

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The fact is it's better and cheaper for this man to get 840 a week for 10 people than to have them all in direct state care. UK figures say £100,000 to £200,000 PER CHILD per year.
http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/the-statistics.html
Again, UK figures, but this is what the care system produces. 10 times more likely to go to prison. 6 times less likely to make it to university. Sure, traveller stats aren't any better (probably worse with regards to uni) but that's for 84 a week for, not 3000.

Well maybe people should take personal responsibility and not make them in the first place, it's not the 1950s anymore where a lot of the population were clueless about sex.

Dan_Solo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well maybe people should take personal responsibility and not make them in the first place, it's not the 1950s anymore where a lot of the population were clueless about sex.

Could you tell us:
1. Your proposed earning cut off points for being allowed to have various numbers of children
2. How you will ensure people have no more children than their income allows
3. How you will ensure the parents will be guaranteed to continue at that income level so they don't lose their children? (assuming you're not proposing sending the children into care because dad lost his job).
Ta.

Galwayguy35

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Could you tell us:
1. Your proposed earning cut off points for being allowed to have various numbers of children
2. How you will ensure people have no more children than their income allows
3. How you will ensure the parents will be guaranteed to continue at that income level so they don't lose their children? (assuming you're not proposing sending the children into care because dad lost his job).
Ta.

After the first two kids no more money, I think we might all be surprised at the results.

I think you will find working people have a lot of cop on regarding the size of their families, they're not breeding like rabbits like yer man in the OP.

Man of peace

A few years in a workhouse for any extra kids and a cutting down on the free kids money for anything more than two kids might work as well.

end of the road

evo2000 wrote: »

Is pulling you re weight really, a punishment? plus giving people something to is a good thing i think, i mean i think its fair enuff to give someone a year to get back on there feet in terms of work

create the jobs, encourage companies to come here, then you may have a point. until then, not going to work

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

That would cost much more than it would save especially considering the attitude towards entitlement and "helping yourself" in this country those handing out the vouchers would have many fingers in the till!

A better solution would be home raids where valuable items like 60inch tellys and €400 games consoles are confiscated and any cars taken away as someone on welfare with any kids can't afford a car!

well, if you put all social wellfare recipients in an area with good public transport then you could take the car. if not, then the car stays

snubbleste

Dan_Solo wrote: »

TBH that's worse than yer man getting 840 a week for a family of 10! So foster three kids and you're on the equivalent of what, 80k per year?!?!

Yes!
It's a well-known route used by new immigrants to build up funds

muppetkiller

This is another example of how stupid the current system is if abused.
I have serious issues with travellers and their so called culture but the issue here is the system and nothing to do with who abuses it.

There should be no child benefit. They'd be much better off investing in Kitchens for schools and providing 2-3 meals a day along with free uniforms/books so that kids at least would get a healthy diet as well as an education. At least that way you'd know that the kids are being looked after.

It would also provide a huge amount of jobs in these kitchens and the industries that provide the produce etc.

McDermotX

Man of peace wrote: »

An episode of Futrarama springs to mind.

Not far off

Lookie here! My first government stipend cheque! 12 baby humans, 1200 wing-wangs!

AlekSmart

Smidge wrote: »

So your issue is not with someone receiving state housing(be they traveller or settled) but with the LOCATION of said housing.

I see........

You see...?

It would appear that,at some level,there is a comprehension deficiency at work here.

The location of this gentleman's housing is of no consequence.....on second thoughts I'd better elaborate on that.

THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSING IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

However,the added value (relative or otherwise) of this Traveller Specific entitlement IS of concern to me.

To suggest that specific entitlement to non-standard,uniquely designed and constructed dwellings,at miminal long-term rental levels does not carry a significant benefit of itself,would appear to be delusional at the very least.

I happen to believe that this State SHOULD be actively returning to the long-term rented dwelling market as it is very clear that the involvement of the Private Sector as currently understood,in Ireland has been socially catastrophic.

Mr Mc Donogh's problems,have not been proven to be the result of any failings of this State nor of the settled community.

To yet again,return to the OP,this man has form,significant form,if Judge Reilly's comments are to be taken on board.

Suggesting that €840 Per Week is the basic and ONLY State Support being allocated to this gentleman is disingenuous to say the least.

Having re-read the newspaper article,I would now be interested in how much the State has invested in past Legal Aid payments for the fellow.

Given that there is great appetite for accounting in relation to State Spending these days,perhaps this would be a worthwhile place to begin ?

ireland.man

AlekSmart wrote: »

You see...?

It would appear that,at some level,there is a comprehension deficiency at work here.

The location of this gentleman's housing is of no consequence.....on second thoughts I'd better elaborate on that.

THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSING IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

However,the added value (relative or otherwise) of this Traveller Specific entitlement IS of concern to me.

To suggest that specific entitlement to non-standard,uniquely designed and constructed dwellings,at miminal long-term rental levels does not carry a significant benefit of itself,would appear to be delusional at the very least.

I happen to believe that this State SHOULD be actively returning to the long-term rented dwelling market as it is very clear that the involvement of the Private Sector as currently understood,in Ireland has been socially catastrophic.

Mr Mc Donogh's problems,have not been proven to be the result of any failings of this State nor of the settled community.

To yet again,return to the OP,this man has form,significant form,if Judge Reilly's comments are to be taken on board.

Suggesting that €840 Per Week is the basic and ONLY State Support being allocated to this gentleman is disingenuous to say the least.

Having re-read the newspaper article,I would now be interested in how much the State has invested in past Legal Aid payments for the fellow.

Given that there is great appetite for accounting in relation to State Spending these days,perhaps this would be a worthwhile place to begin ?

Run-on sentences, random capitalistion and block writing, passive wording, sentence fragments, fragmented thoughts, convoluted phrasing... this post made me a little sea-sick.

AlekSmart

ireland.man wrote: »

Run-on sentences, random capitalistion and block writing, passive wording, sentence fragments, fragmented thoughts, convoluted phrasing... this post made me a little sea-sick.

There's bands ye can wrap around your wrist for this.

Ave Sodalis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Children hould be supported, by their parents but if I have children the amount of money I earn doesn't automatically go up. The amount extra money a person can earn from welfare by having children should be capped after two children. This should act as a disincentive towards having children by those who can't afford to have them.

Now I know you're going to say "but how is he supposed to raise all those children on no more than minimum wage" Well there are people out there raising large families on minimum wage but if he finds he can't handle it he has an incentive to go out and earn a job that pays higher than minimum wage. At the moment he has no incentive to work as he'll never earn that much money on the market.

As for those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury, no they should never earn more than minimum wage. why should they? Minimum wage is sufficient to live on. No one is being punished they're just not being given more than a person working minimum wage.

Newspapers started publishing articles long before my birth so the obvious answer to that question is no.

It does, you have child benefit, regardless of circumstance. Also, capping may or may not work for future people, it does nothing to solve the problem in the OP.

No, I wasn't going to say that. I also didn't say more than minimum wage. You said they shouldn't even get minimum wage and that's unfair on the people who genuinely can't work. Taxes are there to help society and I think those who can't work shouldn't struggle when it's not their fault.

Also, I meant articles on fraud which have only come out in the last number of years. If you read my post, you'd know that.

evo2000

AlekSmart wrote: »

You see...?

It would appear that,at some level,there is a comprehension deficiency at work here.

The location of this gentleman's housing is of no consequence.....on second thoughts I'd better elaborate on that.

THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSING IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

However,the added value (relative or otherwise) of this Traveller Specific entitlement IS of concern to me.

To suggest that specific entitlement to non-standard,uniquely designed and constructed dwellings,at miminal long-term rental levels does not carry a significant benefit of itself,would appear to be delusional at the very least.

I happen to believe that this State SHOULD be actively returning to the long-term rented dwelling market as it is very clear that the involvement of the Private Sector as currently understood,in Ireland has been socially catastrophic.

Mr Mc Donogh's problems,have not been proven to be the result of any failings of this State nor of the settled community.

To yet again,return to the OP,this man has form,significant form,if Judge Reilly's comments are to be taken on board.

Suggesting that €840 Per Week is the basic and ONLY State Support being allocated to this gentleman is disingenuous to say the least.

Having re-read the newspaper article,I would now be interested in how much the State has invested in past Legal Aid payments for the fellow.

Given that there is great appetite for accounting in relation to State Spending these days,perhaps this would be a worthwhile place to begin ?

Lol poor smidge, this much of a whooping is boarderline bullying! :D

Pumpkinseeds

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Thinks keeping 8 children in care costs less than €840 a week... :rolleyes:

No, I never said that, you're putting your own spin on my posts to support your failing argument. I think that the way to end the cycle of scumbags choosing to spawn large families and live off the State should be stopped and taking the children into care is one way of stopping the cycle. It really is very simple, stop providing an incentive for these people to spawn and they'll stop spawning.

Ave Sodalis

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

No, I never said that, you're putting your own spin on my posts to support your failing argument. I think that the way to end the cycle of scumbags choosing to spawn large families and live off the State should be stopped and taking the children into care is one way of stopping the cycle. It really is very simple, stop providing an incentive for these people to spawn and they'll stop spawning.

Stop providing an incentive, but not at the expense of the children. What child isn't going to question why they were put into care all of a sudden. Why cause unnecessary suffering from seperation?

Pobb

I love seeing the how some people can't hide their contempt for people of a lower class deciding to have kids. It's the same in the single mother threads or any of the dole threads. Good, upstanding middle class people start a family whereas working class people: "spawn", "fire out", "breed", "drop" etc...

If you believed some people here, they aren't actually human beings at all.

suicide_circus

Those who have never contributed to society through income tax should receive part of their benefit payments in the form of a social welfare debit card which can only be used to buy food etc

yipeeeee

Pobb wrote: »

I love seeing the how some people can't hide their contempt for people of a lower class deciding to have kids. It's the same in the single mother threads or any of the dole threads. Good, upstanding middle class people start a family whereas working class people: "spawn", "fire out", "breed", "drop" etc...

If you believed some people here, they aren't actually human beings at all.

I think people just aren't comfortable with the idea of paying for someone's kids when said person can't afford to sustain themselves let alone their own kids.

Hunter456

cant help but think there is a few comments on here which are snotty like my self i'm unemployed for a number of years and i have 2 kids and a wife but it dose not stop me from seeking work and uploading my c.v to the job sites but the way the economy climate and work structure is going at the minute the look at a job is very fare in between. so my only means of feeding my family is to calm social welfare. but 840 euro a week is joke and and no doubt in my mind that this person is working on the sly. i'm sure there is thousands of people on here in the same predicament as me that went into a state of depression because they had no job and didn't know where their lives where going.

OldNotWIse

Pobb wrote: »

I love seeing the how some people can't hide their contempt for people of a lower class deciding to have kids. It's the same in the single mother threads or any of the dole threads. Good, upstanding middle class people start a family whereas working class people: "spawn", "fire out", "breed", "drop" etc...

If you believed some people here, they aren't actually human beings at all.

It's not contempt. It's that they are píssed because they work their ásses off to support themselves and their families while others take no responsibility for the sexual encounters and prefer to procreate indiscriminately while living for free off the taxpayer.

suicide_circus

Hunter456 wrote: »

cant help but think there is a few comments on here which are snotty like my self i'm unemployed for a number of years and i have 2 kids and a wife but it dose not stop me from seeking work and uploading my c.v to the job sites but the way the economy climate and work structure is going at the minute the look at a job is very fare in between. so my only means of feeding my family is to calm social welfare. but 840 euro a week is joke and and no doubt in my mind that this person is working on the sly. i'm sure there is thousands of people on here in the same predicament as me that went into a state of depression because they had no job and didn't know where their lives where going.

I think it's extremely important to make a distinction between people like yourself who have worked and paid tax and lost your job through no fault of your own and those who have never worked and have no intention of working.