Child allowance for twins etc

I'm not going to repeat myself in the arguements I've made already- I don't see the point in repeating myself.

Your language like twin parents should be 'targeted' in the opening line and calling me 'silly' twice now, I take as agressive. Won't be withdrawing my opinion on that thanks.

Just interested as to why it seems so personal to you. Actually you know what, scrap that, I'm not :D
 
So, you have a 1% chance of multiples randomly and 20-40% if using IVF?
So, yes the chances are higher IF you use IVF.
But of people with multiples, those having used IVF would be a tiny subgroup. I don't really see the relevance?

Anyway I've put the counter arguements out there. They are valid for parents of multiples but if others don't want to see/ understand, that's fair enough too...each to their own and all that.
 
orka said:
Multiple births are no longer always random events - there has been a huge increase in multiple births since IVF has been available - surely this is a choice which comes with an accompanying risk of multiple birth whose affordability should be planned for?
Click to expand...

So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?

IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.
 
Complainer said:
So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?

IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.
Click to expand...

It's true, and fertility rates are generally in decline so this will become a more widespread issue one would think. It's sad that a lot of this thread seems to show such lack of empathy to others.
 
micheller; Your language like twin parents should be 'targeted' in the opening line and calling me 'silly' twice now, I take as agressive. Won't be withdrawing my opinion on that thanks.micheller
Click to expand...

Where exactly did I call you silly twice? Get your facts right! And what would you suggest I say rather than targeted? Softly approached perhaps?

I in fact wrote " the idea is silly, and IT is rather silly;though for some reason you seem to think I am speaking about you personally!!

micheller; Just interested as to why it seems so personal to you. Actually you know what, scrap that, I'm not micheller;
Click to expand...



Well that's pretty obvious!!

People who are not interested in others views ,now that's a new one!
If someone thinks that when a poster suggests something is silly,is being aggressive yet will mention " venom ", annoyance, anger in the same breath ,well the mind boggles!
 
Giving 3 payments for twins is too generous.

They do not incur 3x the cost of one child.

Giving a once-off extra payment of maybe 500-800 is fine, maybe again at another age.


We are too generous in this country, I'm sorry but we can't afford it.

Same goes for med cards to couple with one person over 70, even though they earn 1400 pw. Madness.

Same goes for not cutting public service pension.
 
micheller said:
So, you have a 1% chance of multiples randomly and 20-40% if using IVF?
So, yes the chances are higher IF you use IVF.
But of people with multiples, those having used IVF would be a tiny subgroup. I don't really see the relevance?
Click to expand...
Not a tiny subgroup at all (so therefore very relevant). From a quick search for available data, I reckon 20% to 25% is a conservative estimate of the percentage of multiple births that are due to IVF treatment.

Complainer said:
So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?

IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a choice - plenty of people choose not to go down the IVF route. And I really don't believe that couples choosing IVF even look at post-birth costs or benefits when deciding whether to go for another cycle - if they have the money now and the desire to try again, they will.
micheller said:
It's sad that a lot of this thread seems to show such lack of empathy to others.
Click to expand...
I have plenty for empathy for others, it's just that we, as a country, can't afford all the 'nice to have' benefits anymore - we are broke.
 
I think people are trying to hold on to what they have been given by an Zombie government who should never have allowed this situation to develop in the first place.That is understandable.

People then ,obviously become dependent on the state to subsidise their lives,and a threat to that is without doubt worrying.
I think the moral of the story is that the "generosity/silly decisions etc of the government ,has now come back to haunt us!
People are trying to hold onto something which we cannot afford and is not justifiable,because they may need two cots,a double buggy and car seats.The extra childcare is understandable as paying for two in a crèche may be hard to take on at the time,however those who have kids a year apart still end up paying the same amount...
 
Calling someones arguements 'silly' is essentially calling them silly, that's not difficult to get. And now underlining your whole response- is again a little agressive. Calm down, please!

As I said, I've given my points and if you don't care to see the other side, that's your own perogative. Maybe they should remove Child Benefit and give tax credits like the UK instead?
 
thedaras said:
Where exactly did I call you silly twice? Get your facts right! And what would you suggest I say rather than targeted? Softly approached perhaps?

I in fact wrote " the idea is silly, and IT is rather silly;though for some reason you seem to think I am speaking about you personally!!
Click to expand...
Just FYI, italics and underlines generally make text harder to read than plain text.
 
thedaras said:
The extra childcare is understandable as paying for two in a crèche may be hard to take on at the time,however those who have kids a year apart still end up paying the same amount...
Click to expand...

No they don't.

For example- have your first child, and if you're working say you go back to work for a few months when pregnant and are then off again for a second child and take both out of childcare therefor paying 0 creche fees for the second leave. Then the older child hits the ECCE scheme and school a full year earlier thus reducing costs.Versus..

Have twins, and take a double hit on childcare costs all at once after returning to work from one maternity leave, and you may not be able to afford another child in close succession. As in my example there could be 16k in the difference of twin creche costs for one year.

Really, try to see the other side here. You may not agree but the arguements are quite clear!
 
orka said:
I have plenty for empathy for others, it's just that we, as a country, can't afford all the 'nice to have' benefits anymore - we are broke.
Click to expand...

Grand, fair enough.
Scrap the 'nice to have' CB and use tax credits instead- like others I pay plenty of tax and will be paying plenty more soon enough, a fact which I am resigned to.
 
orka said:
Not a tiny subgroup at all (so therefore very relevant). From a quick search for available data, I reckon 20% to 25% is a conservative estimate of the percentage of multiple births that are due to IVF treatment.
Click to expand...

Interested in how you arrived at this figure?
 
Em why don't you start a thread on those issues ?This is not about TDs salary's or bondholders,try stay on topic and eh,start a thread about what concerns you.
Click to expand...
Why should I when my post is extremely relevant to this thread? How can you not understand this?

If it wasn't for TDs Salaries and faceless bondholders etc, we wouldn't have to make any cuts.

Can you not see the connection there?
 
micheller said:
No they don't.

For example- have your first child, and if you're working say you go back to work for a few months when pregnant and are then off again for a second child and take both out of childcare therefor paying 0 creche fees for the second leave. Then the older child hits the ECCE scheme and school a full year earlier thus reducing costs.Versus..
Click to expand...
I understood that creches do not allow you to retain a place for free?
I would have thought most working parents in fact leave the child in the crèche,as they have to pay for it anyway?

Have twins, and take a double hit on childcare costs all at once after returning to work from one maternity leave, and you may not be able to afford another child in close succession. As in my example there could be 16k in the difference of twin creche costs for one year.
Really, try to see the other side here. You may not agree but the arguements are quite clear!
Click to expand...
So take two kids age 13 months and 3 months in a creche..is this not double the crèche fee?Logical then that any parent with more than one child should be subsidised by the tax payer.
Also there are a lot of parents of twins who are in fact not working,yet they still get the money..
Click to expand...
 
umop3p!sdn said:
Why should I when my post is extremely relevant to this thread? How can you not understand this?

If it wasn't for TDs Salaries and faceless bondholders etc, we wouldn't have to make any cuts.

Can you not see the connection there?
Click to expand...

We would be paralysed and unable to do anything about ridiculous decisions the government made,if we just keep saying ,no matter what is wrong in this country we will just let it go as longs as TDs are getting their undeserved salaries...how can you not understand this?
There is no doubt about the fact that we shouldn't have to make cuts,but because of Tds and faceless bondholders,we have too.its not right its not fair,it shouldn't have to happen,but we know the reason why we have too and it still means cuts have to be made,knowing the reason doesn't make it any easier.
Its about where the cuts are going to be made that is relevant here.Its not fair but its a fact.
 
micheller said:
Calling someones arguements 'silly' is essentially calling them silly, that's not difficult to get. And now underlining your whole response- is again a little agressive. Calm down, please!

As I said, I've given my points and if you don't care to see the other side, that's your own perogative. Maybe they should remove Child Benefit and give tax credits like the UK instead?
Click to expand...

So silly is aggressive but Using the words like "venom /Anger isn't..
The underlining was done to separate the two posts,however I have sorted that one out.
I could always say that you don't care to see the other side,I have if you read the posts, said there are cases where an extra amount is necessary ,I have also said that at the age of 4 and 12 the grant should be given,however you seem to have glossed over that fact and are failing to recognise your own inability to do as you say...
 
Mucker Man said:
this would save our government around €4 million a year, not very much when we are borrowing €20bn a year.
Click to expand...


but everything little helps. 4m saved here, another 4m saved from another scheme and suddenly you've now got 8m. remember the old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves"... its still a true one.

I've got 3 kids in close age - I still need to buy 3 sets of uniforms, 3 sets of shoes, 3 sets of xxxx. Its not begrugery that I don't extra allowances but I do think its just one of many payments that needs to be addressed.
 
Borrowing €20billion a year was quoted in this thread.

but everything little helps. 4m saved here, another 4m saved from another scheme and suddenly you've now got 8m. remember the old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves"... its still a true one.
Click to expand...
So, we just have to find 4999 similar things to also cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top