2 child cap UK welfare - Ireland no cap welfare

They're taxed through cigarettes and scratch cards though

What's the point of the thread? You're complaining that some women are getting money to have kids while complaining it's too expensive for other women to have kids.

The country needs to encourage people to have children, and there are far far more genuine working couples with more than 2 children that scroungers.

And it's not "reckless" to have more than two children.

Just another austerity move by the Brits to make the working poor even poorer.

Dead right. People who can't close their legs/pull out in time popping out kids they're incapable of looking after and expecting the state to pick up the tab. I think Ireland should vote on it, going forward limit it to 2. For the ones who already have a hape, limit it to no-more. Won't happen though.

Ah, that's basic. People who are content to live in poverty, have no ability to plan for the future, go on interesting trips with the children, have education funds for the children, have no investments or retirement fund and so on, can have more children.

Those who work don't have more children because they're not content to live in poverty. Children are expensive.

As a country we need more children. We either need to accept that we won't have what our parents generation would call a middle class/comfortable lifestyle, or else we need to make work pay a lot more.

I wonder are there any stats showing how many children born to families claiming SW go on themselves to claim SW vs working full time and being a contributor to the economy. (For the sake of this argument of course I acknowledge the SW claimants contribute to tax by paying VAT argument).

I doubt there are stats on how many children born to families claiming SW go on themselves to claim SW vs working full time and being a contributor to the economy. Claiming SW is transitory. I doubt thee are many people who only visit SW and never work and loads of people who claim SW a few times in their lives in periods between work. So the stars would be messy and probably wouldn't support your point as you hope.

But I'd also imagine that children of parents who work consistently are more likely to work consistently themselves.

Would you support spending more money on the children of unemployed parents to give them the skills and education they need to break the cycle?

The biggest issue in having a very low value social welfare system like you have in Britain and Northern Ireland is that it encourages crime in a certain cohort and those who try and keep to the rules find themselves in abject poverty - so much so that teenage girls can't afford sanitary items and families can't afford food some days.

Whilst the Irish system is generous and some do take advantage of it, overall it is far far better for all of us and most of the money gets recycled into the economy.

No it doesn't, if the country were to encourage more people to have children then things will definitely get worse, we need lots of housing first and then young taxpayers not children due to the huge cost of raising children.

Short sighted thread. Or medium sighted thread. I'd agree in principle that we need to weed out the perennial scroungers. But we should be encouraging and enticing the middle classes to have more children in order to help for the big pension disaster coming down the tracks.

We have three kids, both of us work full time and the child benefit is a great benefit to us. I would expect our kids to be tax paying members of society just like their parents always have been. It's definitely helped with buying clothes and I'd bet, putting food on the table for some.

I'd say for the vast majority of parents, of which the vast majority are working, it is greatly appreciated.

I would support whatever brings the most economic benefit to the country.
If that means spending more money on the children of the unemployed so that they will then better themselves and contribute to the economy then yes I’d be all up for that.
I wonder are there any stats showing this effect though?

Right, if you're waiting for the government to sort out housing then you're in for a long wait for 2 reasons but both amount to voters wouldn't reward it.

1. Home owners tend to be older people. Hone owners are very happy indeed to see the value of their house rise and wouldn't praise a politician who brags about building so many houses that their house price has frozen.

2. It would cost a lot of money to invest in houses and people with higher earnings also tend to be older (up to retirement age anyway). And they would be hit with higher tax or reduced services to pay for building houses and associated services like schools, roads, hospitals etc.

In the meantime, we need more children to run the country and pay tax when the current adults get old and start needing more and more services like health and pension age services.

Don't wait for housing to start addressing population because you'd be waiting for Godot

Cause mammy and daddy won't send them in? Going back can be stressful

In this day and age there are practically no schools that are traumatizing. That's ridiculous

Does education correlate with career and earnings? Yes, yes it does.

It's not simple though because household culture contributes to educational attainment. A household which values education is an advantage.

Tge single strongest correlationwith a child's education level (degree, PhD, leaving cert etc.) is their mother's education level. So it's a 3 generation problem to get a population from workless household with low education to working with high education.

It woukd mean making schools in low work/education areas, the best in the country so those children can overcome the disadvantages through were born into. Devilish expensive. Still interested?

…yup, a highly ignorant doctor, a doctor thats not aware of the complexities of social structures, noting doctors tend to be of higher class, hence very disconnected from the needs of lower classes, also noting, doctors dont know everything, but we ve managed to place them on a pedestal, some are also highly narcissistic…..

We don't need more children, maybe your forgetting about the huge sum of money is costs the government to get them to 18 with no guarantee of a return on this investment.

I have said for year 3, but 2 I wouldn't mind either

Unfortuneatly a number of people just see children as an extra income and the welfare is not given to the children

Remove it is the best option

…so you want to try exasperate these situations, which would result in worsening health issues, including mental health issues, addiction problems and probably crime to….

…great plan!

Most absenteeism is caused by mammy and daddy giving their child a couch day or not being bothered to bring them to school

I'm Not. Maybe you're forgetting about the much higher cost of keeping a pensioner for their last decades?

Is it meant to cover the full cost? No.

Its €1680 per year. Easily covers all clothes, shoes for a year.

Children U7 have free gp care. If you are eligible you get almost free prescriptions

Food costs are extra, but sure you're already buying food for adults so it's only a few more bits on top of it.

That's incredible logic.