Pat kenny and poverty

FlutterinBantam

The issue here, is whether budget cuts should take cognisance of the fact that Social welfare recipients in certain situations may have a better income than a person working on circa 35k, and therefore is it fair that the employed person be asked to take cuts, while the social welfare recipient is exempt.

All discussion as to the whys and wherefores are largely irrelevant.


That was the issue on the PK show.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I would of thought the majority of people in this country would like to see better wealth distribution and more equality. They are hardly minority left wing views.

Actually I'm not convinced that what media pundits sell as better wealth distribution and more equality actually reflects general public opinion. Most people I talk to are more concerned with their own situation and how much the State takes from them than any higher notions of equality of wealth distribution.

Also, equality and "better" wealth distribution are really loose ideals, more buzzwords than anything else unless someone specifies exactly what they mean by them.

irish_bob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I would of thought the majority of people in this country would like to see better wealth distribution and more equality. They are hardly minority left wing views.

many make the mistake of thinking the irish media is an accurate reflection of irish public opinion , it is not , irish public opinion is much more conservative than that

if they were not minority views then the labour party would be a hell of a lot larger than they are

Stark

deadhead13 wrote: »

I heard various FF politicians use the disincentive rational for cutting benefits over the past few weeks, but where is the evidence that this is the case. It didn't happen 2 years ago when people had the choice between working and not working, are there a lot of job vacancy's going unfilled at present?

I wouldn't say it's as much about disincentives as it is about fairness. You shouldn't be punished financially for choosing to work instead of receiving handouts. And while there might not be too much of a disincentive now, there will be if you keep reducing the take home pay of workers while leaving social welfare completely untouched.

Dannyboy83

deadhead13 wrote: »

Go back 2 years and we essentially had full-employment. The unemployment benefits where more or less same as now, wages have gone done to certain extent but not by a substantial amount - yet people chose to work. There where a hardcore of around 28,000 who didn't but I don't see why everyone else who is currently unemployed should judged by that groups standards.

I heard various FF politicians use the disincentive rational for cutting benefits over the past few weeks, but where is the evidence that this is the case. It didn't happen 2 years ago when people had the choice between working and not working, are there a lot of job vacancy's going unfilled at present? Not that I know of. To me, it is politicians deflecting blame away for themselves and onto the the unemployed. The same politicians created the social welfare system as it currently stands and their management of the economy is, in a large part, responsible for the size of our dole queues.

I don't disagree.
In fact, I would argue its entirely their fault, based on incredible short sightedness and a complete lack of any form of contingency plans.

But the fact remains, people are €3-5K better off on the dole (according to that tax lawyer).
Morals issues aside, it will gradually destroy the middle class as has been happening in the UK and break the country as people start to emigrate.

Things were the way they were.
They need to be changed.
All part of the Irish reformation.

Mad_Max

Anyone know where I can find this discussion on the net?

I have heard many people giving out over the last year or two this but I never believed that it was working out better than someone on 35k!

Taxipete29

irish_bob wrote: »

many make the mistake of thinking the irish media is an accurate reflection of irish public opinion , it is not , irish public opinion is much more conservative than that

if they were not minority views then the labour party would be a hell of a lot larger than they are

I think its more the case that Labour has done a poor job of actually making the point that making the society more equal doesnt mean the end of capitalism. Many people do not view Labour as the left and the extreme left is in a word far too extreme for most peoples liking. You should bare in mind that FF have for a very long time proclaimed themselves the working mans party. They sold the idea quite well, while in the background pandering to property developers and bankers etc. It is only now that ordainary people can see the extent of this fallacy.

I dont think you can extrapolate the publics opinion on this from the relatively modest performances of the Labour party through history. I would ask you to show some evidence that the public opinion is conservative as you say.

Taxipete29

nesf wrote: »

Actually I'm not convinced that what media pundits sell as better wealth distribution and more equality actually reflects general public opinion. Most people I talk to are more concerned with their own situation and how much the State takes from them than any higher notions of equality of wealth distribution.

Also, equality and "better" wealth distribution are really loose ideals, more buzzwords than anything else unless someone specifies exactly what they mean by them.

I think thats the point. More people would favour these ideals if it was presented to them in a way that shows them how better there lives would be if there was more equality.I think it has to be more personalised and not just about abstract ideals that ordainary people dont feel they can relate to.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I think its more the case that Labour has done a poor job of actually making the point that making the society more equal doesnt mean the end of capitalism. Many people do not view Labour as the left and the extreme left is in a word far too extreme for most peoples liking. You should bare in mind that FF have for a very long time proclaimed themselves the working mans party. They sold the idea quite well, while in the background pandering to property developers and bankers etc. It is only now that ordainary people can see the extent of this fallacy.

I dont think you can extrapolate the publics opinion on this from the relatively modest performances of the Labour party through history. I would ask you to show some evidence that the public opinion is conservative as you say.

Honestly given the relative dominance of FG and FF since almost the foundation of the state I think that one would have to argue that the revealed preference is for mild conservatism. It doesn't mean that public opinion is actually conservative, it just means that they tend to vote for conservative parties but they aren't necessarily voting for them because they are conservative so trying to work out public opinion from seat counts is a mess really.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I think thats the point. More people would favour these ideals if it was presented to them in a way that shows them how better there lives would be if there was more equality.I think it has to be more personalised and not just about abstract ideals that ordainary people dont feel they can relate to.

Yeah but invariably for someone who works and pays taxes it means more taxes. For your average small business owner or PAYE worker "equality of wealth" means taking away money they've earned and handing some of it to people who haven't earned it. These aren't the super wealthy that Labour like to drum on about but ordinary people, some even over the magical 100K mark because of dual incomes.

Taxipete29

nesf wrote: »

Honestly given the relative dominance of FG and FF since almost the foundation of the state I think that one would have to argue that the revealed preference is for mild conservatism. It doesn't mean that public opinion is actually conservative, it just means that they tend to vote for conservative parties but they aren't necessarily voting for them because they are conservative so trying to work out public opinion from seat counts is a mess really.

Totally agree

asdasd

Honestly given the relative dominance of FG and FF since almost the foundation of the state I think that one would have to argue that the revealed preference is for mild conservatism.

I dont agree that we necessarily want more equality ( than we have) however a vote for FF historically is not a vote for developers, the founding of the welfare State - a fairly generous one too lies with FF - and land redistribution at the start of the State.

Taxipete29

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but invariably for someone who works and pays taxes it means more taxes. For your average small business owner or PAYE worker "equality of wealth" means taking away money they've earned and handing some of it to people who haven't earned it. These aren't the super wealthy that Labour like to drum on about but ordinary people, some even over the magical 100K mark because of dual incomes.

The policies of taxing those in the middle income brackets that you speak of are more akin to FF than Labour. How many tax breaks exist in our code that only favour the wealthy and super-wealthy?? Your average small business owner or middle income PAYE worker cannot avail of the vast majority of these breaks.

I am not simply talking about taxing the rich but rather making them pay at the level that your average PAYE worker does. We could remove tax breaks for those at the very top and pass them onto small business owners. Reducing their burden in order to build employment oppurtunities.

We have to force the rich to pay their share while at the same time force those seemingly too lazy to work to get off their asses.

Equality is an ideal and will remain as such until society as whole begins to change. I think this is always going to be extremely hard because peoples me fein attitudes make it difficult to initiate real change. I will not however give up on it just yet.

dodgyme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I find it difficult to keep a moderate tone.
You presume that she was to blame for having children. .

Dont tell tell me, the state looked after that side of things as well?:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You don't know why she didn't have a partner living with her and supporting her and the children. He might have been dead; he might have developed a drink or drugs problem; he might have become violent; he might have got into financial difficulties and absconded..

Its always the bad old man. I presume this is the same bad old man that doesnt get named on birth certs?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You simply blame her for being in a difficult situation.

No I am blaming her for the neck shown on PK yesterday. 12 years on the dole - 5 kids and arguing but pretending to be on the side of the tax researcher who has come with evidence that someone who works is 4k worse off than a similar person doing NOTHING

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is a repulsive attitude.

so far my attitude "stinks" and my attitiude is "repulsive", while this woman was kept by taxpayers for 12 years. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is?

asdasd

The fact about "equality" is this: the bottom 50-60% are equal already regardless of how many hours they work when you factor in transfers from the government. The question is whether this is fair or not. I personaly dont think it is. ( And it assumes, by the way that the underclass has no other income from say criminality, which is clearly false).

If we are going to redistribute then lets take it from the top. We'd all be in favour of banking bonuses being taxed I assume. If socialism could reduce the taxes on middle income earners and increase the tax on people earning 100- 1000 times more than them, it would be more popular.

Vyse

creeper1 wrote: »

I
Now in Tallagh you can also see this type of thing.

Because you wouldn't see it anywhere else in the country:rolleyes: At least learn how to spell the place before you go stereotyping it.

Riskymove

dodgyme wrote: »

No I am blaming her for the neck shown on PK yesterday. 12 years on the dole - 5 kids and arguing but pretending to be on the side of the tax researcher who has come with evidence that someone who works is 4k worse off than a similar person doing NOTHING

this particular woman had her kids before ending up on the dole after she seperated from her husband

as she was left to look after 5 kids its hardly surprising that after that she could not get a job and instead needed to look after said kids

its also mentioned early in this thread that this women managed to get a qualification in her own time and now runs some sort of social service in the area

in the circumstances I cannot see how people can be so critical (and indeed downright contemptuous) of this woman.

we all have concerns about welfare fraud and poverty traps etc but this seems far from that


lastly, its seems very easy for people to describe someone looking after children as "doing nothing" and other things

asdasd

True, in her particular case it was not too bad.

However she is an example of the poverty trap. She cant really work without losing money.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The policies of taxing those in the middle income brackets that you speak of are more akin to FF than Labour. How many tax breaks exist in our code that only favour the wealthy and super-wealthy?? Your average small business owner or middle income PAYE worker cannot avail of the vast majority of these breaks.

I am not simply talking about taxing the rich but rather making them pay at the level that your average PAYE worker does. We could remove tax breaks for those at the very top and pass them onto small business owners. Reducing their burden in order to build employment oppurtunities.

We have to force the rich to pay their share while at the same time force those seemingly too lazy to work to get off their asses.

Equality is an ideal and will remain as such until society as whole begins to change. I think this is always going to be extremely hard because peoples me fein attitudes make it difficult to initiate real change. I will not however give up on it just yet.

You're talking about the uber rich though, not the average 100K a year PAYE worker. Those guys can literally move their wealth and earnings out of the country, removing the tax breaks for them won't earn us more income just a sense of social justice.

DublinWriter

Mad_Max wrote: »

I have heard many people giving out over the last year or two this but I never believed that it was working out better than someone on 35k!

She worked out the figures and the total package was 41K for someone with a family on benefits when you factor in all the allowances etc.

Daithinski

Riskymove wrote: »

in the circumstances I cannot see how people can be so critical (and indeed downright contemptuous) of this woman.

This is because some people seem to take pleasure in being bigoted and ignorant.

Even on boards.ie:eek:! You know who you are...

dodgyme

Riskymove wrote: »

lastly, its seems very easy for people to describe someone looking after children as "doing nothing"

She was looking after HER children. She was doing nothing as far as contributing.

dodgyme

Daithinski wrote: »

This is because some people seem to take pleasure in being bigoted and ignorant.

Even on boards.ie:eek:! You know who you are...

simply looking at the material facts matey is now bigoted and ignorant. Infact its the opposite!

P. Breathnach

creeper1 wrote: »

I used to work on night shift so I am familiar with "the Jeremy Kyle show". Now in Britain the type of guy that you describe above is seems prime father material. Such a guy has supersperm and gets all the local girls pregnant.

So the girls have to go on Jeremy Kyle for a DNA test to prove whether or not he is the dad. There could be as many as 4 candidates for the title of "father". However I would describe none of them as 'winners'. Quite the opposite really.

Now in Tallagh you can also see this type of thing.

Some babies are actually born drug addicts because their mothers are junkies.

However there really is nothing we can do about this problem. People have guaranteed human rights and morality was lost long, long ago.

This post sheds some light on why I was so angry at some of the earlier contributions to this discussion. Programmes like Kyle's show the extreme cases of dysfunctional families and feckless individuals among the socially deprived, and make it easy to suppose that all people in difficulties live lives as messy as those depicted. Most people in difficult situations are not like that. [Sadly, as we see more "okay" people (i.e. people like ourselves) lose their jobs and become dependent on social welfare, we might become a bit more tolerant of those who have problems in their life circumstances.]

Because those who attacked this person did not adduce any evidence to justify their attacks, I did some research. Her name is Cathleen O'Neill, and she is a full-time community development worker in Kilbarrack. She was married for 15 years and says it was a bad marriage; she chooses, as is her right, to say no more about it than that. It's not clear if the marriage ended in separation, divorce, or the death of her husband. It seems a fair guess that her husband did not contribute to the support of the family. These few facts, in my judgement, show no justification for the attacks on her made by a couple of our less temperate contributors.

asdasd

P. is right. This woman is a decent skin. My assumption, based on not knowing the facts, was that she was on the dole the whole time. I retract.

irish_bob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I think its more the case that Labour has done a poor job of actually making the point that making the society more equal doesnt mean the end of capitalism. Many people do not view Labour as the left and the extreme left is in a word far too extreme for most peoples liking. You should bare in mind that FF have for a very long time proclaimed themselves the working mans party. They sold the idea quite well, while in the background pandering to property developers and bankers etc. It is only now that ordainary people can see the extent of this fallacy.

I dont think you can extrapolate the publics opinion on this from the relatively modest performances of the Labour party through history. I would ask you to show some evidence that the public opinion is conservative as you say.

fianna fail are all things to all men , no politician encapsulated this more than bertie aherne who doubled wellfare but also done deals with cowboy developers , they are neither left nor right but populist
far left radical thinkers are regulary wheeled out on rte , much more often than what would be refered to as monetarists , i would wager that their are more monetarists in the general population than marxists like ciaran allen who wish to see the state take over private property and wealth , ireland has an extremley generous wellfare state , any country where its often more rewarding to do nothing than work even when minimum wage is itself very high , shouldnt be placing increasing equality and wealth distribution at the top of its priority list

dodgyme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because those who attacked this person did not adduce any evidence to justify their attacks, I did some research. Her name is Cathleen O'Neill, and she is a full-time community development worker in Kilbarrack. She was married for 15 years and says it was a bad marriage; she chooses, as is her right, to say no more about it than that. It's not clear if the marriage ended in separation, divorce, or the death of her husband. It seems a fair guess that her husband did not contribute to the support of the family. These few facts, in my judgement, show no justification for the attacks on her made by a couple of our less temperate contributors.

There have not been any major "attacks" on this woman. She got 12 years of dole money and brought up her 5 children on benefit. She was on PK saying how hard it is on the dole. The person opposite her was on the panel arguing that someone working was worse off. My "attacks" on her is that she should have been grateful to live in a place where after her marriaige breakup the taxpayer was there to keep her and her 5 children. The tax researcher was simply making the point that families that work at a certain level are statistically more impoverished then those that dont with the figures to back this up. In many ways she wasnt the right person to be countering the point. She is a community development officer and not an economist or financial wizzard.

P. Breathnach

dodgyme wrote: »

There have not been any major "attacks" on this woman. She got 12 years of dole money and brought up her 5 children on benefit. She was on PK saying how hard it is on the dole. The person opposite her was on the panel arguing that someone working was worse off. My "attacks" on her is that she should have been grateful to live in a place where after her marriaige breakup the taxpayer was there to keep her and her 5 children. The tax researcher was simply making the point that families that work at a certain level are statistically more impoverished then those that dont with the figures to back this up. In many ways she wasnt the right person to be countering the point. She is a community development officer and not an economist or financial wizzard.

Let those who are interested in this denial read back through the thread and judge for themselves.

While I don't agree with everything Cathleen O'Neill said, I think she is well qualified both from life experience and formal credentials to debate such matters with a journalist. You can learn a bit about her here: http://www.tallgirlshorts.net/marymary/cathleentext.html. I am impressed.

dodgyme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let those who are interested in this denial read back through the thread and judge for themselves. .

My last post was not a denial of anything!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You can learn a bit about her here: http://www.tallgirlshorts.net/marymary/cathleentext.html. I am impressed.

You must have a lot of time on your hands to read all that. She basically was on about the work she did (basically like the web page you pasted) on PK and really it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. In the context of the discussion on PK she was waffling. It would be interesting if the discussion was on general life chances and education policy etc. But afraid she was not the right person to be on PK the last morning. She was out of her depth on the topic which IMO wasnt her fault. She was there as a dole sympathiser.

ronbyrne2005

Social welfare is now unaffordable. The payments were much less in real terms in say 2000 yet people survived fine back then. I think it must be reduced back to around year 2000 levels in real terms. FF pumped up pensions,social welfare etc well in excess of inflation to buy elections , that is a big part of reason why we are where we are.