Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Republic of Property

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  [Go to page]   1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Parental responsibility
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Jun 14, 2012
Posts: 995
I suppose it is not acceptable to wonder aloud about women who become who impregnated by tossers who don't pay?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline
Old Time Landlord

Joined: Feb 9, 2009
Posts: 365
croquette wrote:
I suppose it is not acceptable to wonder aloud about women who become who impregnated by tossers who don't pay?



Why aren't you wondering aloud about the tossers who don't pay rather than focusing on the women?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11764
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
croquette wrote:
I suppose it is not acceptable to wonder aloud about women who become who impregnated by tossers who don't pay?
Yeah, it would generally be seen as a bit tasteless. The law is there to ensure that fathers contribute towards their children, and it could be construed as inhumane to punish the children if they don't or can't.

In cases of rape or incest it wouldn't be unusual for the father not to contribute, and in some cases the mothers mightn't be comfortable with discussing those details in public. To suggest that such women should be excluded from social welfare might be regarded as sociopathic or needlessly cruel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 9019
paracetomol wrote:
croquette wrote:
I suppose it is not acceptable to wonder aloud about women who become who impregnated by tossers who don't pay?

Why aren't you wondering aloud about the tossers who don't pay rather than focusing on the women?

Fair point. That's where the state certainly does have a role. People can't force the other parent of their child to support them, but the state can.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline
Old Time Landlord

Joined: Feb 9, 2009
Posts: 365
I still think the State should go after the fathers and garnish their wages or welfare. The Child Support Agency in the UK from the 90s was poorly administered but the principle is sound. Far too many men not supporting their kids and it’s the mothers who get vilified. I had an amicable situation with my ex where he did his fair share but I knew of so many men who didn’t pay a penny towards their kids, and not necessarily the feckless stereotypes you’d think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17312
Location: To the right of the decimal place
paracetomol wrote:
I still think the State should go after the fathers and garnish their wages or welfare. The Child Support Agency in the UK from the 90s was poorly administered but the principle is sound. Far too many men not supporting their kids and it’s the mothers who get vilified. I had an amicable situation with my ex where he did his fair share but I knew of so many men who didn’t pay a penny towards their kids, and not necessarily the feckless stereotypes you’d think.

Even in the US many of the state agencies do a decent job of chasing fathers. It does rather depend on the mothers identifying the fathers though, which appears to be a thorny issue already here in terms of birth cents.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1993
Mantissa wrote:
paracetomol wrote:
I still think the State should go after the fathers and garnish their wages or welfare. The Child Support Agency in the UK from the 90s was poorly administered but the principle is sound. Far too many men not supporting their kids and it’s the mothers who get vilified. I had an amicable situation with my ex where he did his fair share but I knew of so many men who didn’t pay a penny towards their kids, and not necessarily the feckless stereotypes you’d think.

Even in the US many of the state agencies do a decent job of chasing fathers. It does rather depend on the mothers identifying the fathers though, which appears to be a thorny issue already here in terms of birth cents.



This is fine in principle but throws up absurd levels of practical issues such as:

-forcing Ms Y to identify Mr X as the father
-proving beyond all doubt that Mr X is the father
-determining where Mr X lives, if in the country at all
-discovering Mr X's income, particularly if he is in the informal sector
-contacting his employer to garnish income (privacy issues come into play here)
-monitoring and enforcement of maintenance payments


It is much simpler for the state to simply provide direct financial and housing support to the lone parent usually, of course, the mother.


You have (IIRC) argued in favour of a UBI elsewhere as it gets rid of the armies of bureaucrats needed to administer these kind of schemes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 9019
Skippy 3 wrote:
This is fine in principle but throws up absurd levels of practical issues such as:

-forcing Ms Y to identify Mr X as the father
-proving beyond all doubt that Mr X is the father
-determining where Mr X lives, if in the country at all
-discovering Mr X's income, particularly if he is in the informal sector
-contacting his employer to garnish income (privacy issues come into play here)
-monitoring and enforcement of maintenance payments

Genuine issues, but on the other side of the argument, the arrangement you propose basically encourages the least responsible people to have the most children, funded by the more responsible people who may have to cut back on the children that they would like to have.

It's a knotty one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17312
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Skippy 3 wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
paracetomol wrote:
I still think the State should go after the fathers and garnish their wages or welfare. The Child Support Agency in the UK from the 90s was poorly administered but the principle is sound. Far too many men not supporting their kids and it’s the mothers who get vilified. I had an amicable situation with my ex where he did his fair share but I knew of so many men who didn’t pay a penny towards their kids, and not necessarily the feckless stereotypes you’d think.

Even in the US many of the state agencies do a decent job of chasing fathers. It does rather depend on the mothers identifying the fathers though, which appears to be a thorny issue already here in terms of birth cents.



This is fine in principle but throws up absurd levels of practical issues such as:

-forcing Ms Y to identify Mr X as the father
-proving beyond all doubt that Mr X is the father
-determining where Mr X lives, if in the country at all
-discovering Mr X's income, particularly if he is in the informal sector
-contacting his employer to garnish income (privacy issues come into play here)
-monitoring and enforcement of maintenance payments


It is much simpler for the state to simply provide direct financial and housing support to the lone parent usually, of course, the mother.

I agree that it's not straightforward. Some of those issues are already in play here now and others have been tackled in other countries with varying degrees of success.

Skippy 3 wrote:
You have (IIRC) argued in favour of a UBI elsewhere as it gets rid of the armies of bureaucrats needed to administer these kind of schemes.

Yes, I think that's preferable. But if we decide that single parents are deserving of additional state supports I think that it's worth expending significant effort to chase the non-participating parent, on principle of personal responsibility if nothing else.

Worth noting that there are claims that some people claim to be single parents when they are not, in order to receive these allowances. A robust enforcement regime against the absent parent would remove this incentive whether real or perceived.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Last edited by Mantissa on Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1993
Barney Gumble wrote:
Genuine issues, but on the other side of the argument, the arrangement you propose basically encourages the least responsible people to have the most children, funded by the more responsible people who may have to cut back on the children that they would like to have.

It's a knotty one.


Completely.

Having children is a basic human right however.

There are pretty much no circumstances where the state should (or indeed can) censor the decision of a fertile woman to have a baby.

Policy has to be shaped around this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
Old Time Landlord

Joined: Feb 9, 2009
Posts: 365
Mantissa wrote:
Skippy 3 wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
paracetomol wrote:
I still think the State should go after the fathers and garnish their wages or welfare. The Child Support Agency in the UK from the 90s was poorly administered but the principle is sound. Far too many men not supporting their kids and it’s the mothers who get vilified. I had an amicable situation with my ex where he did his fair share but I knew of so many men who didn’t pay a penny towards their kids, and not necessarily the feckless stereotypes you’d think.

Even in the US many of the state agencies do a decent job of chasing fathers. It does rather depend on the mothers identifying the fathers though, which appears to be a thorny issue already here in terms of birth cents.



This is fine in principle but throws up absurd levels of practical issues such as:

-forcing Ms Y to identify Mr X as the father
-proving beyond all doubt that Mr X is the father
-determining where Mr X lives, if in the country at all
-discovering Mr X's income, particularly if he is in the informal sector
-contacting his employer to garnish income (privacy issues come into play here)
-monitoring and enforcement of maintenance payments


It is much simpler for the state to simply provide direct financial and housing support to the lone parent usually, of course, the mother.

I agree that it's not straightforward. Some of those issues are already in play here now and others have been tackled in other countries with varying degrees of success.

Skippy 3 wrote:
You have (IIRC) argued in favour of a UBI elsewhere as it gets rid of the armies of bureaucrats needed to administer these kind of schemes.

Yes, I think that's preferable. But if we decide that single parents are deserving of additional state supports I think that it's worth expending significant effort to chase the non-participating parent, on principle of personal responsibility if nothing else.


Agreed.
And there’s nothing wrong with personal responsibility – I do get irritated at well-meaning knights on white horses defending all single mothers as saintly types who should be supported to stay at home for as long as they want. This is not the case even in lefty paradises like Sweden and Norway where the majority of single mothers work and are expected to work. I suppose it’s a kind of reaction to the extreme punishment formerly doled out in Ireland to single mothers, but it doesn’t fit in with European norms.
Of course, the housing clusterf*ck and most expensive childcare in Europe make welfare traps even worse for single parents than partnered ones, but that’s a whole other rant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5154
paracetomol wrote:
I do get irritated at well-meaning knights on white horses defending all single mothers as saintly types who should be supported to stay at home for as long as they want. This is not the case even in lefty paradises like Sweden and Norway where the majority of single mothers work and are expected to work. I suppose it’s a kind of reaction to the extreme punishment formerly doled out in Ireland to single mothers, but it doesn’t fit in with European norms.

Leaving aside the issue of who pays, a parent working on low pay while their children are in professional childcare represents only a very marginal increase in net productivity.

Excessive use of creches feels a bit Brave New World to me, and I've used them myself for full-time care for two children.

So if I'm going to have pay (through taxes) either way, I'd be happier supporting parents to stay at home if that's what they want. Or go out to work if that's what they want.

Unhappy parents make for unhappy kids. Unhappy kids are more likely to grow up to make other people's lives unhappy.

I'd prefer if the word "mother" was kept out of the policy discussion, though it's relevant in this specific case. It only serves to further marginalise stay-at-home and single fathers.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1993
I know a lone parent in her late 30s with two kids under five and zero support from the recently-departed husband (abroad, and for good).

She has an otherwise well-paying, secure job.

From what I can tell she is struggling from paycheck to paycheck though. Childcare in Dublin is punitive and public transport is slow and expensive. A car is close to a necessity with two small children and motoring is very expensive in Ireland.

The whole tax-benefit system provides her with next to nothing bar his tax credits and in recent years free under-5 GP visits.

Compare this with a woman who had never had a steady career or bought a house in the same situation:
-She would almost certainly have housing support if not tenure for life
-She would get jobseekers allowance (without having to actually seek work), qualified child payments and a medical card
-Access to community creches at very low rates


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Nov 4, 2011
Posts: 5789
Location: SthDub
I think that basic difference between the single mother who works hard and isn't ion the headlines v's those who do eff all bar reproduce and expect everything for free...it mostly boils down to where they are from/how they are brought up.

If they grew up around other single mothers who got everything for free, they feel they are 'entitled' to everything for free also. They now no different.
Those that grew up in stable homes, had hard working parents etc are more likely to follow that route themselves despite having to rear a kid alone.
Not in every case of course!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Homeless campaigner Erica 'refused' two house offers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1993
Eschatologist wrote:
Leaving aside the issue of who pays, a parent working on low pay while their children are in professional childcare represents only a very marginal increase in net productivity.


This is indeed very true.

Over the long run however a career interruption of several years in a person's thirties is very bad for labour income long run.

Studies generally show that professional men and women earn about the same until about 30 when women usually take time out of the workforce to take care of children. Even when women return their earnings never catch up.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  [Go to page]   1, 2  Next

    Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Republic of Property

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com