How poor are the poor, really?

elshambo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are definitions of social class used by social scientists which are more up-to-date than the 19th century model referred to by asdasd. They are briefly summarised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade .

AAh the social sciences, screwing the human condition with mathematical formula that dont quite fit for the last 100 years:eek:

most of the mess we are in now can be traced back to work practices/conditions created using the formula of the social sciences:(

bullpost

Blangis wrote: »

I think that the most poor / working class people have enough money to smoke 20 cigarettes a day, and go to the pub and the bookies, and subscribe to Sky Sports, and buy tabloids every day, and drape their houses in lights every Christmas. And that most of them have nicer cars than I do, and they have flat screen tvs and the latest phones and I reckon that they manage to go away to the Costa del Sol at least once a year as well.

I also think that he vast majority of working class people, if they won the lotto tomorrow, would still send their children to the nearest free school and not bat an eyelid if they left at fifteen without having learned how to read, write, or perform basic arithmetic properly. And they would choose chips and chicken wings over brie from Sheridans and dinner in L'Ecrivain ten times out of ten.

I think that, despite all of the hand-wringing, we need to recognise that working class people in Ireland are completely different to middle class people. They have a totally different culture, different tastes, and different expectations. We might look at their lives and think: Oh how wretched! But they like the way they live.

I think for someone who is angry that assumptions are being made about a particular section of society, you have just made some jaw-dropping assumptions about the "working class" yourself.
Do you know any "working-class" people - Have you ever spoken to them about the communities in which they live and the aspirations of the people in those communities?

I think if you did you will find that your stereotypical views are just that.

I come from a working-class community and have seen many of my peers achieve success in business and the arts and other fields which you would probably feel are beyond their station.

Blangis

elshambo wrote: »

"And i bought a house i clearly could not afford at the top of the market because i assumed it would get higher in price

Actually, the main reason I went into my situation because I hoped to avoid the above coming up. I wanted to make it very clear that I am not a property speculator who made a bet and lost. I bought a house to raise a family in. I bought it when my family and I reached a stage where we wanted a permanent home. I paid the going price for it. I could afford it then, I can afford it now, and I will always be able to afford it. There is nothing blameworthy about my actions, really.

I have made my point over and over again: The assumption is that a certain section of society can afford to be hit again, and again, and again.

Because it keeps coming up, I'll make an addendum to it:

The thinking also goes that if these people can't afford to take hit after hit after hit, then it's their tough luck. They deserve to be punished because...

Maybe elshambo, Gurramok or AARRRGH could finish off this bit?

Suggestions:

(a) They should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it?

(b) We are a nation of petty-minded, vindictive peasants and we are glad to see them being taken down a peg or two?

(c) ?

bullpost

AARRRGH wrote: »

In Ireland, your 'class' is based on your accent.

Someone with a strong Dublin accent will never be considered 'middle class'. Just like someone with a D4 accent will never be considered 'working class'.

For example, I am from Blackrock in Dublin. I would be fairly 'well spoken', as in, I speak clearly and properly. It wouldn't matter if I was on the dole for the rest of my life, if you met me on the street, because I dress quite well and speak quite well, you would assume I am 'middle class'. Even if I told you I am on the dole, I would still be a 'middle class' person on the dole.

This is more prevalent in Dublin than in culchie land

gurramok

Blangis wrote: »

Actually, the main reason I went into my situation because I hoped to avoid the above coming up. I wanted to make it very clear that I am not a property speculator who made a bet and lost. I bought a house to raise a family in. I bought it when my family and I reached a stage where we wanted a permanent home. I paid the going price for it. I could afford it then, I can afford it now, and I will always be able to afford it. There is nothing blameworthy about my actions, really.

I have made my point over and over again: The assumption is that a certain section of society can afford to be hit again, and again, and again.

Because it keeps coming up, I'll make an addendum to it:

The thinking also goes that if these people can't afford to take hit after hit after hit, then it's their tough luck. They deserve to be punished because...

Maybe Gurramok or Aargh could finish off this bit?

Suggestions:

They should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it?

We are a nation of petty-minded, vindictive peasants and we are glad to see them being taken down a peg or two?

...

I've asked the question numerous times and all we get are changing on the goalposts.
What are those costs that puts a person like you in a money tight situation?

Its a 100% valid question considering a person on 75k+ pulls in 3500 a month.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

deadhead13

Blangis wrote: »

I think that the most poor / working class people have enough money to smoke 20 cigarettes a day, and go to the pub and the bookies, and subscribe to Sky Sports, and buy tabloids every day, and drape their houses in lights every Christmas. And that most of them have nicer cars than I do, and they have flat screen tvs and the latest phones and I reckon that they manage to go away to the Costa del Sol at least once a year as well.

I also think that he vast majority of working class people, if they won the lotto tomorrow, would still send their children to the nearest free school and not bat an eyelid if they left at fifteen without having learned how to read, write, or perform basic arithmetic properly. And they would choose chips and chicken wings over brie from Sheridans and dinner in L'Ecrivain ten times out of ten.

I think that, despite all of the hand-wringing, we need to recognise that working class people in Ireland are completely different to middle class people. They have a totally different culture, different tastes, and different expectations. We might look at their lives and think: Oh how wretched! But they like the way they live.

My standard of living is not higher than theirs, it is just different. I might read the Irish Times instead of the Sun and eat Parma ham and mozzarella instead of Denny waifos and easi singles, but that is simply a question of taste. My house is not bigger than theirs, it is just situated in a middle class area.

And my original point is that their standard of living is pretty much secure, while my standard of living is very precarious. All it takes is for the tax rate, or the ECB rate, to go up a few percent and I totally lose my standard of living, while almost nothing can threaten theirs.

I am sure that several posters on this thread would like to see nothing better than for me to lose my house, my credit rating, and my ability to buy another house for the next seven years. It is as if I committed a crime by buying a house during the boom and I deserve to be punished for it. So what is the crime? Is it wanting to bring up a family in a house that I own and have the freedom to do what I want, with rather than a rented place which we can be kicked out of at a month's notice? Is it not wanting to commute for hours and hours every day? Is it wanting to have my kids near good schools and amenities? Is it wanting to live somewhere relatively safe and pleasant?

Or is it that I was supposed to leave a large amount in reserve just in case the government needed to take it off me and give it to the deserving poor? I suspect this is the real reason for the venom directed against people like me, and this is the point I came here to make.

I also disagree with a point in the above post which seems to suggest that it is optional for middle class people to bring their children up to be middle class too. If we don't do this, and don't pay for private schools, trips abroad, college, sports and so on, then who is going to carry everyone else in the country in thirty years' time?

OP if the above post isn't an example of "petty-mindedness" I don't know what is.

AARRRGH

Blangis wrote: »

I have made my point over and over again: The assumption is that a certain section of society can afford to be hit again, and again, and again.

But we are ALL being hit.

Yes, you are being hit some more than others, but that's because you have more income than others. That's how the tax system works.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

The thinking also goes that if these people can't afford to take hit after hit after hit, then it's their tough luck. They deserve to be punished because...

Maybe elshambo, Gurramok or AARRRGH could finish off this bit?

Suggestions:

(a) They should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it?

(b) We are a nation of petty-minded, vindictive peasants and we are glad to see them being taken down a peg or two?

(c) ?

They should pay more because they should be able to afford more. The reason it's a problem for you is because you never should have bought a house during a property bubble. No doubt the house is what, 8 times your wage? 10 times? That's just retarded.

If I had huge credit card debt, would I also be entitled to feel hard done by, or would you think I was an idiot for racking up that debt?

Blangis

AARRRGH wrote: »

You should not have bought a house you cannot afford. You should be able to afford the levy increase.

I didn't, and I can, since we're still talking about me, for some strange reason.

But that tells me that your answer is:

(a) They should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it?

Giving us:

A certain section of society should be able to take hit after hit after hit, and, if they can't, then they deserve to suffer because they should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it.

Am I on the right track?

P. Breathnach

asdasd wrote: »

I am aware of those distinctions and I think them bollocks. Take B, Middle Class

Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional

rubbish. I see most office workers as working class, working for the man, can be fired, can own a 2up-2down in a mediocre part of town at best. There is no comparison between 40K and 220K - a consultants salary.

Creating your own definitions (or bringing 19th century definitions back) when there is a socially-agreed set of definitions is an obstacle to effective communication.

ntlbell

I thought we had moved away from the whole Class thing at this stage.

I mean is a carpenter earning 70k a year living in a 4 bed 400k house in lucan working class? if he is what do you require to be middle class?

We have a HUGE middle income in ireland are these all middle class people?

Maybe the reason they can afford to fill their house with xmas lights is that there not earning low income wages they could have two workers earning X amount of money usually middle income above especially over the last few years in construction, are these working class people? or wealthy working lcass people or poor middle class people?

can people rabbiting on about classes clear up the definition as I'm very confused.

P. Breathnach

ntlbell wrote: »

... I mean is a carpenter earning 70k a year living in a 4 bed 400k house in lucan working class? if he is what do you require to be middle class?

I'd say that he is skilled working class. Class and income level are not necessarily strongly linked in all cases, although there is some general correlation between class and income.

AARRRGH

Blangis wrote: »

I didn't, and I can, since we're still talking about me, for some strange reason.

But that tells me that your answer is:

(a) They should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it?

Giving us:

A certain section of society should be able to take hit after hit after hit, and, if they can't, then they deserve to suffer because they should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it.

Am I on the right track?

No, the Government are utterly useless and corrupt but that's a different discussion.

You should be able to survive no bother whatsoever on 75k+.

We shouldn't even be having this conversation. It's ridiculous.

You have obviously overstretched yourself (you admit this yourself), but that was your choice. The levy should not be pushing you over the edge.

You sound like one of the brats up grew up during the celtic tiger, and the idea of giving up their caramel lattes every day has them requiring prozac.

ntlbell

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd say that he is skilled working class. Class and income level are not necessarily strongly linked in all cases, although there is some general correlation between class and income.

What if he also has a masters in cyber psychology

what is he now?

asdasd

Creating your own definitions (or bringing 19th century definitions back) when there is a socially-agreed set of definitions is an obstacle to effective communication.

Social Scientists believe all kinds of rot. The increase in the number of people going into university, for instance, does not make a middle class, it produces working class people who have gone to university. Although not a marxist, I take the Marxist definition.

Private Sector workers who have to work for the Man - the capitalist classs - are working class. The skilled workers in the 19th century had a relative position in society equal to, or better than, many members of the Office working professional classes today.

Or to put in another way, defining the middle classes as people who have degrees means that a class of people stuck as renters, or out in the boondocks in shoe boxes in Outer Dublin close To Meath are in the same class as the inhabitants of Howth, or FoxRock. This is nonsense. In fact most graduates could not, even now, buy a house in the entire South side of Dublin.

It is benefical to the Established middle class to pretend that people on middle incomes are of the same class as them. In fact if we wanted to do something about class, and distribution of wealth, we would tax not income but wealth and property.

big b

No real surprise at the amount of stereotyping going on here!
Everyone on the dole screws the system & is worry-free.
Everyone on a good wage doesn't need the system & is worry-free.

Both generalisations are, of course, complete bollox. For every dole scammer there's a tax fiddler, vat fraud,offshore account et al. But there's a damned sight more somewhere in the middle, doing the best they can without screwing anyone.

The low earners & unemployed I know would happily swop the security of their 200 or 300 a week & take their chances on fretting how to make the most of the opportunities that 75k a year presents.

How many, in all honesty, of the 75K bracket would swop their lot with that of the unemployed/low earners, for whom a day out is walking from Lidl to Aldi, because the bread is cheaper in Lidl but the milk's cheaper in Aldi? For them, discount supermarket shopping is not a statement, it's a necessity.

If they have a tenner a week left over to save/put towards new tyres/blow on sweets for the kids, it's because a tenner is what they have left after buying the necessities of life.
If the family on 75K have a tenner left over, it's because they've spent a hell of a lot of money on optional items. It was their right to do so if they wished, but they'll be a long time looking for sympathy because they've overstretched themselves.

P. Breathnach

ntlbell wrote: »

What if he also has a masters in cyber psychology

what is he now?

If he works as a carpenter, then he is skilled working class. If somebody is qualified as a surgeon, but works as a labourer on a building site, then he is would be categorised as working class (semi-skilled or unskilled).

asdasd

How many, in all honesty, of the 75K bracket would swop their lot with that of the unemployed/low earners, for whom a day out is walking from Lidl to Aldi, because the bread is cheaper in Lidl but the milk's cheaper in Aldi? For them, discount supermarket shopping is not a statement, it's a necessity.

Depends on circumstance. With a family of four the per-capita income could well be lower than one person on the dole. I gave those statistics.

I think people are suffering from a sort of money illusion here. One person on 75K is, of course, equal to two on 32.5K - a very normal wage. Given that most households are double income that is not all that much.

asdasd

If somebody is qualified as a surgeon, but works as a labourer on a building site, then he is would be categorised as working class (semi-skilled or unskilled).

So in that case income triumphs over qualification. So why, oh why, is the Office drone earning less than both middle class?

P. Breathnach

asdasd wrote: »

So in that case income triumphs over qualification. So why, oh why, is the Office drone earning less than both middle class?

Not exactly income: how it is earned. It is the convention that class is linked with occupation, not with income.

ateam

Is it just me or is there a lot of people going onto the dole straight after leaving school or doing one year's doss in college and using that period as some sort of purgatory before work? I know a lot of people like this, unwilling to resign themselves to the fate of minimum wage because of their lack of work in school.

The so called poor in Ireland can not be compared with the poor of Ireland 50 years ago. Social welfare is very generous, too generous. There's no poor people living in Ireland. Council estates are full of satellite dishes etc. Now I do not want to go back to Ireland 50 years ago (high infant mortality rate etc), social welfare is necessary but I think it needs to be redesigned. People have become dependent on it.

Blangis

AARRRGH wrote: »

We shouldn't even be having this conversation. It's ridiculous.

I agree that it is ridiculous to keep bringing me and my circumstances back into this discussion, and I wish you would stop.

What this thread is about is the belief (that you clearly hold) that a certain section of society should be able to take twice as much pain as another section of society. You keep saying that people who earn 75k+ should be able to take levies at twice the rate of other people.

Therefore, different rules apply to us than to people who earn less than us. While it is ok for them to budget for a tax increase of X% amount, we should be prepared for an increase of 2X%.

In addition, if one of the hits we take pushes us over the edge, we suffer much more than the less well off section of society, but if this happens, we deserve it.

Please just explain what the basis for this is?

big b

asdasd wrote: »

Depends on circumstance. With a family of four the per-capita income could well be lower than one person on the dole. I gave those statistics.

I think people are suffering from a sort of money illusion here. One person on 75K is, of course, equal to two on 32.5K - a very normal wage. Given that most households are double income that is not all that much.

errr....not quite!

Skipping over the dodgy arithmetic, even a combined income of 75K is well in excess of what many couples I know are earning.
Do I think 75K is "fantasy wages"? No, not at all. Do I think it's better than 2 times the average wage in the area where I live - so about 45-55k- or better than being on the dole & the ignomony of being means-tested for a bit of a hand with the ESB bill? I certainly do.

Blangis

ntlbell wrote: »

What if he also has a masters in cyber psychology

what is he now?

A working class nerd.

ntlbell

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If he works as a carpenter, then he is skilled working class. If somebody is qualified as a surgeon, but works as a labourer on a building site, then he is would be categorised as working class (semi-skilled or unskilled).

so it's not background.

It's not education.

It's not salary.

It's not your address.

It's your job title.

This is news to me.

Learning every day.

I've just promoted myself to the echelons of the middle classes.

Get in.

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

A working class nerd.

That sounds about right.

P. Breathnach

ntlbell wrote: »

... I've just promoted myself to the echelons of the middle classes...

Welcome aboard.

deadhead13

Blangis wrote: »

I agree that it is ridiculous to keep bringing me and my circumstances back into this discussion, and I wish you would stop.

What this thread is about is the belief (that you clearly hold) that a certain section of society should be able to take twice as much pain as another section of society. You keep saying that people who earn 75k+ should be able to take levies at twice the rate of other people.

Therefore, different rules apply to us than to people who earn less than us. While it is ok for them to budget for a tax increase of X% amount, we should be prepared for an increase of 2X%.

In addition, if one of the hits we take pushes us over the edge, we suffer much more than the less well off section of society, but if this happens, we deserve it.

Please just explain what the basis for this is?

The whole basis of your arguement has been somewhat undermined by your prejudice and narrow minded views on the working class. Not to mention your misplaced superiority complex.

gurramok

Blangis wrote: »

I agree that it is ridiculous to keep bringing me and my circumstances back into this discussion, and I wish you would stop.

What this thread is about is the belief (that you clearly hold) that a certain section of society should be able to take twice as much pain as another section of society. You keep saying that people who earn 75k+ should be able to take levies at twice the rate of other people.

Therefore, different rules apply to us than to people who earn less than us. While it is ok for them to budget for a tax increase of X% amount, we should be prepared for an increase of 2X%.

In addition, if one of the hits we take pushes us over the edge, we suffer much more than the less well off section of society, but if this happens, we deserve it.

Please just explain what the basis for this is?

Because people on 75k+ can afford to take the hit and still have a comfy lifestyle in contrast to someone on 30k.

Blangis

gurramok wrote: »

Because people on 75k+ can afford to take the hit and still have a comfy lifestyle in contrast to someone on 30k.

You are not being completely forthcoming there. What you mean is that you think that people on 75K+ are supposed to be able to take the hit and still have a comfy lifestyle. And, if they are not able to, then they deserve to suffer, because they must have made some decisions that you find repugnant.

Offensive decisions like buying a house to raise a family in, for example.

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

You are not being completely forthcoming there. What you mean is that you think that people on 75K+ are supposed to be able to take the hit and still have a comfy lifestyle. And, if they are not able to, then they deserve to suffer, because they must have made some decisions that you find repugnant.

Offensive decisions like buying a house to raise a family in, for example.

If they bought a house well within their means they shouldn't have much of a problem

if they bought one that they couldn't afford and overstretched themselves they might have a problem

but that problem is not my or anyone else's problems it's their own problem.