Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pat kenny and poverty
Options
Comments
-
My last post was not a denial of anything!
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.
I listened to the programme and I disagree with your summary.
She wasn't out of her depth,far from it.
I felt she was extremely articulate and put forward her point of view very well.
There are loads of dole spongers out there and welfare scroungers, but in my opinion this woman wasn't one of them.0 -
Folks, there is a lot of opinion being bandied around here and none of it on the really facts.
Take away rent supplement from the family on welfare and suddenly their income from welfare + child benefit goes down to under 23k.
Very different scenario.
If they are housed on social housing, by the way, they will be expected to make a net contribution to their housing costs - something between 25 and 40 euros a week. Not a lot, but the benefit there is there is a big cap between what their rent will max out at if one of the adults gets a job - from people I know I believe its around 100 a week, this still is only 1/3 of the market rent the rent subsidy for welfare subsidies. A market rent, which I would argue, by the way is being artificially generated, not by quality, location or size of housing, but by what rent level the HSE will pay for welfare tenants dependent on rent subsidies.
And lets be honest here, most of the property thats let to welfare tenants is in the shanty town bracket. I live in an area where there is a lot of it and those houses are total slums. But the landlords get away with charging way above the "real" rents that such slums would command on the free market because there is no real other option for private tenants on social welfare. I've seen the middle class, well heeled landladies come around in the BMWs, and its shocking that they are basically getting easily 500-600 a week and more from the state for providing such horrendous living conditions. The tenants are pretty flea bitten too, and many evictions, usually results in them coming back to break a few windows etc. It is shameful that the government are so complicit in subsidising slum standard accomodation to so many while ignoring the fact that huge profits are being milked by property owners at the states expense.
The main people getting these kinds of benefits are people who are either professional welfare beneficiaries who've consigned themselves to live like this, but increasing numbers are lower income earners and people who've fallen on hard times who were completely priced out of the property market - and there are hundreds and thousands of workers who had no real hope of every buying at the prices of a few years ago due to low saving, low incomes and sometimes weak credit. The people for whom Mummy and Daddy were not there with a free car at 18 or 19 and a nice lump sum to pay for the deposit later on. There are LOADS of people like that you know, who have had to stand on their own two feel.
So I would break down the rates a bit and take away the impact of housing costs. The state has a lot to answer for when you look at the huge percentage of TDs, Senators etc who are amateur landlords and profitting directly from this policy. If these folk were housed properly under social housing they would be then free to work and would be able to take lower paid jobs. We've generated a system where basically, if you are a parent, its impossible to survive without earning at least 35k a year.0 -
Folks, there is a lot of opinion being bandied around here and none of it on the really facts.
Take away rent supplement from the family on welfare and suddenly their income from welfare + child benefit goes down to under 23k.
indeed, also in the comparison the working family was also given a mortgage repayment of €2,100 a month
I have no idea how common that would be...but basically you'd need to see the details of the comparison laid out fully to see the actual comparison0 -
-
no its a statement.P. Breathnach wrote: »So "There have not been any major "attacks" on this woman" is not a denial?.
you seem tooP. Breathnach wrote: »I have the time.P. Breathnach wrote: »I am prepared to use some of it in the interests of fairness.
or what you perceive to be fair.12 year stint on the dole is a fair'd income?0 -
Advertisement
-
Some very valid points here. I have one residential property (my former home, before I left Ireland) and I have (lovely) SW tenants in place. I have reduced the rent twice in the last 12 months, due to the reduction in RS payments and the consequent drop in the going rate I currently keep it just below the market rate to hold on to my good tenants.Folks, there is a lot of opinion being bandied around here and none of it on the really facts.
Take away rent supplement from the family on welfare and suddenly their income from welfare + child benefit goes down to under 23k.
Very different scenario.
If they are housed on social housing, by the way, they will be expected to make a net contribution to their housing costs - something between 25 and 40 euros a week. Not a lot, but the benefit there is there is a big cap between what their rent will max out at if one of the adults gets a job - from people I know I believe its around 100 a week, this still is only 1/3 of the market rent the rent subsidy for welfare subsidies. A market rent, which I would argue, by the way is being artificially generated, not by quality, location or size of housing, but by what rent level the HSE will pay for welfare tenants dependent on rent subsidies.
And lets be honest here, most of the property thats let to welfare tenants is in the shanty town bracket. I live in an area where there is a lot of it and those houses are total slums. But the landlords get away with charging way above the "real" rents that such slums would command on the free market because there is no real other option for private tenants on social welfare. I've seen the middle class, well heeled landladies come around in the BMWs, and its shocking that they are basically getting easily 500-600 a week and more from the state for providing such horrendous living conditions. The tenants are pretty flea bitten too, and many evictions, usually results in them coming back to break a few windows etc. It is shameful that the government are so complicit in subsidising slum standard accomodation to so many while ignoring the fact that huge profits are being milked by property owners at the states expense.
The main people getting these kinds of benefits are people who are either professional welfare beneficiaries who've consigned themselves to live like this, but increasing numbers are lower income earners and people who've fallen on hard times who were completely priced out of the property market - and there are hundreds and thousands of workers who had no real hope of every buying at the prices of a few years ago due to low saving, low incomes and sometimes weak credit. The people for whom Mummy and Daddy were not there with a free car at 18 or 19 and a nice lump sum to pay for the deposit later on. There are LOADS of people like that you know, who have had to stand on their own two feel.
So I would break down the rates a bit and take away the impact of housing costs. The state has a lot to answer for when you look at the huge percentage of TDs, Senators etc who are amateur landlords and profitting directly from this policy. If these folk were housed properly under social housing they would be then free to work and would be able to take lower paid jobs. We've generated a system where basically, if you are a parent, its impossible to survive without earning at least 35k a year.
Rent supplement DOES indeed serve as an artificial floor on rents, for all rental property. I would agree that rent supplements need to be reduced dramatically for the good of the nation. I will undoubtedly suffer a financial consequence but the country can't afford rent supplements at the current levels. As for landlords who supply sub-standard accommodation, well, the minimum standards for such accommodation are really quite low and should be improved. This doesn't excuse landlords who knowingly supply sh!te housing but there is a LOT of good housing available so tenants should move.0 -
no its a statement.
Bollocks. You have a strange relationship with the truth.you seem too
Is it to be held as a point against me that I have time?or what you perceive to be fair.12 year stint on the dole is a fair'd income?
Quite possibly. It's certainly preferable to having a separated woman and her young children cut off without a penny.0 -
I can work out what is a statement versus what is a denial:rolleyes:P. Breathnach wrote: »Bollocks. You have a strange relationship with the truth..
Do you want it to be?P. Breathnach wrote: »Is it to be held as a point against me that I have time?..
no that didnt happen, johnny taxpayer was there as the provider for 12 years. Thats alot of money!P. Breathnach wrote: »Quite possibly. It's certainly preferable to having a separated woman and her young children cut off without a penny.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Do you know why she was a lone parent? Or is it simply self-evidently wrong for a woman to be responsible on her own for the upbringing of five children? Should we stone widows with children, and cast deserted wives into prison?
You make it sound like everyone is honest.
I happen to know a group of single mothers from Ballyfermot and they and their friends use every method they can think of to get as much money as possible from the government. This includes all sorts of nonsense like having loads of kids and pretending to be single, etc.
I guarantee if you put them on the radio they'd be talking about how hard their life is, even though everything they've done has been a conscious decision and they have a better lifestyle than me, an above average earner.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
You make it sound like everyone is honest.
I happen to know a group of single mothers from Ballyfermot and they and their friends use every method they can think of to get as much money as possible from the government. This includes all sorts of nonsense like having loads of kids and pretending to be single, etc.
I guarantee if you put them on the radio they'd be talking about how hard their life is, even though everything they've done has been a conscious decision and they have a better lifestyle than me, an above average earner.
I was reacting to an attack on a particular individual, and an implication that everybody in a difficult situation is dishonest.0 -
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »I was reacting to an attack on a particular individual, and an implication that everybody in a difficult situation is dishonest.
I agree that not everyone in a difficult situation is dishonest, but there are a lot (too many) people out there who know how to milk the system and are milking it.
I would be slightly suspicious of anyone who has been on the dole for the past 12 years, considering how incredible our economy was for most of this decade.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Time I prefer to apply to useful purposes.
Well off you go then but I did love her parting comments on the medical card
"you get the worst kind of healthcare in ireland when on a medical card."
I know alot of people particularly retired people who worked all their lives and are grateful to have the medical card and have said this to me. I have never heard them say anything like
"you get the worst kind of healthcare ..when on a medical card."
they thank god for it. This entitlement mentality that exists is unreal.0 -
This did irk me a lot when I heard her say it, although I'm not agreeing with most of your points dodgy."you get the worst kind of healthcare in ireland when on a medical card."
I also found it a bit rich when she stated that the mortality rate from serious diseases was much higher in poorer areas - one word for that - smoking (I'm a smoker myself before you try to get me off my high horse).
Roll up to the door with major cancer in Beaumont and they don't care if you're public or private - everyone's on the same waiting list - even if you have private medical insurance it's the luck of the draw if you get a private room.
We've a pretty good social welfare system in this country - the speaker was testament to it having utilised it to bring up five children and undertake a degree at the same time.
I grew up in a working-class area not a million miles away from Kilbarrack, I even went to Greendale, started working at 18, paid my own way through TCD for my grad and masters degrees and now run my own small business.
Why after all that did I still come away thinking that she had a chip on her shoulder?0 -
-
DublinWriter wrote: »I also found it a bit rich when she stated that the mortality rate from serious diseases was much higher in poorer areas - one word for that - smoking (I'm a smoker myself before you try to get me off my high horse).
Smoking is unarguably a major component in health problems, and it is well-recognised that low-income people tend to smoke more. But that does not go anywhere near explaining everything. Other factors that cause higher morbidity among people in deprived communities are poor diet, insufficient health awareness, inadequate heating, inferior housing, vulnerability to drink and other drugs, violence, depression. Some, but not all, of these can be controlled by the individual.Roll up to the door with major cancer in Beaumont and they don't care if you're public or private - everyone's on the same waiting list - even if you have private medical insurance it's the luck of the draw if you get a private room.
The real problem is not with the quality of care when you get in. It is access. Not everybody is on the same waiting list. The system for getting on to the waiting list is unequal. Remember Suzie Long? In effect, she died because she relied on the public system.We've a pretty good social welfare system in this country - the speaker was testament to it having utilised it to bring up five children and undertake a degree at the same time.
I agree that our social welfare system is generally not too bad, but don't overstate things. If you read the link about Cathleen O'Neill I furnished earlier, you will see that she could manage the degree only with the help of her by-then adult children.I grew up in a working-class area not a million miles away from Kilbarrack, I even went to Greendale, started working at 18, paid my own way through TCD for my grad and masters degrees and now run my own small business.
Good for you - and I mean that.Why after all that did I still come away thinking that she had a chip on her shoulder?
I can't explain your reactions, but I see her differently. I see anger, and I see a concern for the welfare of people in her community.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »The real problem is not with the quality of care when you get in. It is access. Not everybody is on the same waiting list. The system for getting on to the waiting list is unequal. Remember Suzie Long? In effect, she died because she relied on the public system.
But in fairness if you and I drop from a heart attack tomorrow in Cork we'll both be seen by the same people regardless of whether we have health insurance. Emergency care is blind to such, all you get is a nicer room after they've patched you up if you've got insurance.
The problems are in "elective" procedures and their waiting lists but honestly I think the above can't be emphasised enough. Though waiting lists are an inevitable evil of centralised medicine tbh.0 -
But in fairness if you and I drop from a heart attack tomorrow in Cork we'll both be seen by the same people regardless of whether we have health insurance. Emergency care is blind to such, all you get is a nicer room after they've patched you up if you've got insurance.
I'll agree with that, and I hope that you share my wish that we don't have to test it.
I have been through that particular hoop (you may be pleased to learn that my experience was not fatal). The hospital asked me about my medical insurance before I got into the ICU, which I thought showed excessive zeal on that front. After I got out of ICU the public hospital in which I was cared for arranged for further investigations to be carried out in a private hospital, and these were paid for by my insurer. I have a suspicion that a public patient might not have been brought through this extra stage (I was glad that I was).The problems are in "elective" procedures and their waiting lists but honestly I think the above can't be emphasised enough. Though waiting lists are an inevitable evil of centralised medicine tbh.
Elective is a slippery word. It might be applied to anything that is not immediately or directly life-threatening. Is a hip replacement elective if I lose my mobility? I wouldn't feel that it was, but the system would describe it so. The Suzie Long story shows the system at its very worst, because a diagnostic procedure to determine whether she had a life-threatening condition was delayed.0 -
Advertisement
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »Elective is a slippery word. It might be applied to anything that is not immediately or directly life-threatening. Is a hip replacement elective if I lose my mobility? I wouldn't feel that it was, but the system would describe it so. The Suzie Long story shows the system at its very worst, because a diagnostic procedure to determine whether she had a life-threatening condition was delayed.
Yup thus my use of scare quotes. It's elective in that it isn't an emergency right now or something.
Edit: Sorry I should give you a better answer.
We need to draw a line between treatments that are needed now and treatments that can be delayed. Stuff like most hip replacements are like that, it's invariably quite an "inconvenience" for the sufferer but medicine is a scarce resource and needs to be rationed out we can't afford to have such an abundance of it so that hip replacements can be a quick "done in a week" job on any reasonable tax system.
Waiting lists are a bitch, I don't think anyone disagrees but it's really hard to see a better way to do things. Lists need some flexibility so those most in need get treatment sooner but that's scarce comfort to those with problems who get bumped down the list to make room.0 -
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
I for one would never like to see the state take over wealth and private property. Equality in my opinion does not just mean in monetary terms.
Taking the example of the people who simply refused to work during the boom times. They milked the system and sat back while others worked their asses off to pay for houses etc. These people are not seen as equal by many who work for their living. They are not seen as equal as those who haved recently lost their jobs. This is a fair point. In order to bring equality to this situation we need to rid the system of people who are just bon idle. Obviously this is harder now given the current circumstances but equality is a long term project. Getting these people working increases their self-esteem while removing the stigma that may be attached to them. This is just one example. So do you honestly believe that this is not in the best long term interests of the country??0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »I for one would never like to see the state take over wealth and private property. Equality in my opinion does not just mean in monetary terms.
Taking the example of the people who simply refused to work during the boom times. They milked the system and sat back while others worked their asses off to pay for houses etc. These people are not seen as equal by many who work for their living. They are not seen as equal as those who haved recently lost their jobs. This is a fair point. In order to bring equality to this situation we need to rid the system of people who are just bon idle. Obviously this is harder now given the current circumstances but equality is a long term project. Getting these people working increases their self-esteem while removing the stigma that may be attached to them. This is just one example. So do you honestly believe that this is not in the best long term interests of the country??
i dont believe that inequality ( and im not convinced that the terms is little more than a buzzword for left wing posers tbh ) is an issue in this country , education is free for everyone , including 3rd level , we have a social wellfare system that provides for far more than the basics , anyone who wants to better themselves has every chance , to me , calling for more equality means little more than taking more off the successfull in taxes and increasing social wellfare rates0 -
i dont believe that inequality ( and im not convinced that the terms is little more than a buzzword for left wing posers tbh ) is an issue in this country , education is free for everyone , including 3rd level , we have a social wellfare system that provides for far more than the basics , anyone who wants to better themselves has every chance , to me , calling for more equality means little more than taking more off the successfull in taxes and increasing social wellfare rates
Nobody metioned incresing social welfare rates.
You obivously dont have kids in school if you think education is free.
Have you seen 3rd level registration fees??
We have a two tier health service.
Corrupt politicians and bankers walk away free from their respective crimes yet we imprison people for not paying their TV licences.
Yeah your right, we have no equaltiy issues in this country :rolleyes:0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »Nobody metioned incresing social welfare rates.
You obivously dont have kids in school if you think education is free.
Have you seen 3rd level registration fees??
We have a two tier health service.
Corrupt politicians and bankers walk away free from their respective crimes yet we imprison people for not paying their TV licences.
Yeah your right, we have no equaltiy issues in this country :rolleyes:
3rd level is redicolously cheap for students in this countr
as for the health service , its a mish mash of public and private which only really benefits the consultants , i would like to see it entirely privatised , as our wellfare in this country is so generous , thier is no reason why anyone could not have themselves insured , the only role of the goverment should be to ensure insurance companies do not engage in gouging , thier has to be a 3rd way between the american system and our own heavily unionsed and overly political mess0 -
The reason much council housing stock (with some shining exceptions) is in a poor aesthetic state is because the inhabitants have it that way. There is a council estate ( a small enough one-thirty or so houses) near enough to me, that has in the last three years or so, gotten it's own tenant liason officer, a shiny playground costing about 150k, and some nice landscaping that is maintained on an ongoing basis. They won't even bother their holes cutting their own grass.
We live in a ten year old development of mostly 4 bed detached homes within sight of this place, and we can't even get the local town council to run a ride on over the grass every few weeks. I cut my "own" green space, and my neighbour down the road is engaged with his immediate neighbour in some kind of a stand off over grass cutting-with the result that half "their" green is like a pool table, and half like a jungle.
I changed the fireplace in my dining room a couple of years ago, and the guy selling it to me was fitting one of similiar value in one of the houses in this local authority estate the same day. Only difference is, the nice lady whose live in sperm doner of that month had put a sledge through the previous one a week earlier was getting hers for nowt, whereas mine was a mere two grand.
All these personal anecdotes aside, the sense of entitlement among these micro communities (and in my work related dealings with them on a one to one level) is palpable, and wholly misplaced.
I can surely be forgiven for being somewhat disenfranchised, based on my experiences and the amount of tax I pay.0 -
3rd level is redicolously cheap for students in this countr
as for the health service , its a mish mash of public and private which only really benefits the consultants , i would like to see it entirely privatised , as our wellfare in this country is so generous , thier is no reason why anyone could not have themselves insured , the only role of the goverment should be to ensure insurance companies do not engage in gouging , thier has to be a 3rd way between the american system and our own heavily unionsed and overly political mess
How does privatising the Health service change anything?
Why would any private insurance company get involved in a business where the Government would dictate the profit levels they can earn because thats exactly what your suggesting with this proposal.
The idea that our welfare system is generous enough that people can afford private health insurance is laughable. I know many couples, both working and they have children and yet they cant afford it( and they would be earning alot more than they would if they were on welfare).
1500 is still alot of money to have to pay out for registration fees. I am not against fees for 3rd level provided a suitable vehicle for student loans is put in place. I would prefer to see the money spent on 3rd level spent on primary and secondary schools( buildings and facilities not wages).0 -
We need to draw a line between treatments that are needed now and treatments that can be delayed.
I had never heard that Suzie Long story before, but it seems like such a tragic, senseless death.
What was the resulting change in procedure arising from that?
I presume much more resources are now diverted diagnostic procedures so you can figure out who has a life threatening condition?
At the very least, they could go to another country.Waiting lists are a bitch, I don't think anyone disagrees but it's really hard to see a better way to do things. Lists need some flexibility so those most in need get treatment sooner but that's scarce comfort to those with problems who get bumped down the list to make room.
Hypothetical situation: Everybody in the country pays mandatory private health insurance from wage or social welfare deduction.
Would this lead us back to the same dilemma as waiting lists , i.e. dual waiting lists, pub/pri?
Do those with private health insurance benefit primarily because others don't have it, meaning there is no waiting list?
Or would the extra money generated resolve that dilemma?0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »How does privatising the Health service change anything?
Why would any private insurance company get involved in a business where the Government would dictate the profit levels they can earn because thats exactly what your suggesting with this proposal.
The idea that our welfare system is generous enough that people can afford private health insurance is laughable. I know many couples, both working and they have children and yet they cant afford it( and they would be earning alot more than they would if they were on welfare).
1500 is still alot of money to have to pay out for registration fees. I am not against fees for 3rd level provided a suitable vehicle for student loans is put in place. I would prefer to see the money spent on 3rd level spent on primary and secondary schools( buildings and facilities not wages).
im single and presently pay 13 quid a week for health insurance , for a couple with four kids , the cost is around 50 euro per week , many familys on wellfare spend 50 quid a week on booze , burgers and bookies
insurance companies can still make money without gouging like happens in america , the goverment without being too overbearing can monitor proceedings0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement