Would you contribute €2 per week to solve homelessness?

Spanish Eyes

At this stage if they changed the word "Homeless" to "Shelterless" we'd all be grand and it would reflect the true meaning of the word homeless.

But there is a homeless industry out there, so it will last forever. It is self perpetuating, because it has to be, otherwise there would be no need for the CEOs, the offices, the junkets, the fundraising, the profiles, ah you get the picture. And why they all don't merge is beyond me. But anyway I'm sure someone has an explanation for that apart from egos and profiles.

Fr. Kevin in the Capuchins excepted, no CEOs there just good works for anyone who arrives at his door, no questions asked and no judgments made. I know he gets some funding from central Gov, but most of it is raised through donations. Always was a good cause to me, because of the lack of the smack of a "business venture" about it, unlike other charities around.

riffmongous

I would and I do give to certain groups (not in Ireland), where I trust that most of the the money actually gets to the people who desperately need it, soup kitchens, clean clothes, sleeping bags, the cold telephone for people in danger of freezing to death, that sort of thing.

lightspeed

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

At this stage if they changed the word "Homeless" to "Shelterless" we'd all be grand and it would reflect the true meaning of the word homeless.

But there is a homeless industry out there, so it will last forever. It is self perpetuating, because it has to be, otherwise there would be no need for the CEOs, the offices, the junkets, the fundraising, the profiles, ah you get the picture. And why they all don't merge is beyond me. But anyway I'm sure someone has an explanation for that apart from egos and profiles.

Fr. Kevin in the Capuchins excepted, no CEOs there just good works for anyone who arrives at his door, no questions asked and no judgments made. I know he gets some funding from central Gov, but most of it is raised through donations. Always was a good cause to me, because of the lack of the smack of a "business venture" about it, unlike other charities around.

Thats very true. Im sick of hearing how there are over 3000 homeless children in Dublin. It suggest there are 3000 children sleeping on the street in the cold and rain. This is of course a complete falsehood.

Some of those seem to be children living with their parents in the grandparents house while the parents save for a mortgage.

Im still living with my parents and no chance of a bank giving me a mortgage to get a place of my own right now. By the logic of some people, im homeless. Its strange i didnt even realise I was homeless before it became a crisis.

It reminds of a that South Park episode "Night of the living homeless". There is one funny scene where this guy tried to kill his wife as after 20 years of marriage he found out she was a homeless.

end of the road

hugely long distance commuting, and throwing everyone down the country, are not viable, sustainible or cost effective. outside the cities don't have the resources to deal with an influx of people and to build up the services would cost huge money. if people are complaining about housing people in dublin, they will definitely be complaining once they have to pay to sort out services in areas outside dublin. throwing people down the country can often mean those people having to give up their jobs, meaning an increase in the wellfare bill.
none of this has anything to do with political correctness rabel rabel or any other buzz term, it's just reality for a country our size. what is the norm in other cities isn't relevant to here as their whole culture and set up is different.
if someone is homeless and living in emergency accommodation they can only do so much as their income is only going to be so much. most are doing what they can, as they want to get out of there and back into accommodation.
the fact the definition of homeless has been braudened to include people who wouldn't be sleeping on the streets, doesn't mean there isn't a housing issue.

dwayneshintzy

lightspeed wrote: »

I visited hong kong a few months ago and from what I learned it was common for people to travel up to 2 hours or more via the metro to commute to and from work.

Not sure this is entirely accurate......the furthest between two points anywhere on the MTR is unlikely to be much over an hour, never mind two.

Arghus

gozunda wrote: »

I asked the OP to define what they meant by the term "homelessness" a while back. Thread went feral for lack of clarity imo.

Maybe. But in essence he asked a simple question.

It's analogous to this question:

Hypothetically, would you pay a tiny amount of money to receive a slice of delicious cake that was guaranteed to satisfy you - and it will be guaranteed to satisfy and once you paid the money you'd be guaranteed to receive it. It's a hypothetical magic cake

Instead of people simply answering yes or no to a simple closed thought experiment they've become preoccupied with irrelevant follow on matters such as: What kind of cake? Define cake. What if I don't like cake? Who would be in charge of the distribution of cake? Is cake really the healthiest option? Maybe we should have a wider discussion about cake? None of that matters, refer back the initial question.

Just yes or no please.

Agent Coulson

No

lazybones32

No. We give a colossal amount in overseas aid every year. This should be used here first. The homeless 'crisis' could easily be solved if there was political will.

screamer

No there are a lot more worthy causes than "houselessness". I'd rather donate to them.

CalamariFritti

In principle I would, but realistically you're just sponsoring landlords.

The real problem is our dogma of the market ueber alles. I know people are saying PS sucks dry just like 'the market' and is only looking out for themselves and I will concede there has been that too. But still, I believe handing over crucial services like water, electricity, roads, schools hospitals etc to 'the market' is a big mistake. Yes public services will always try to turn it into a cushy number for themselves, nature of the beast, but 'the market' is obviously doing the same or worse and will always be more ruthless about it too.

When people say private is more effective then I have to say thats true. But what is it they're more effective at? Not in increasing service levels only in increasing profits while providing the bare minimum they will get away with.

The worst is public private partnership where 'miraculously' you get the disadvantages of either solution.

Wanderer78

Why are we paying so much debt? Does this benefit the majority?

Wanderer78

CalamariFritti wrote:

The real problem is our dogma of the market ueber alles. I know people are saying PS sucks dry just like 'the market' and is only looking out for themselves and I will concede there has been that too. But still, I believe handing over crucial services like water, electricity, roads, schools hospitals etc to 'the market' is a big mistake. Yes public services will always try to turn it into a cushy number for themselves, nature of the beast, but 'the market' is obviously doing the same or worse and will always be more ruthless about it too.

I'm now calling the construct we call 'the market', 'the unicorn theory'!

professore

Yes if it would work - but I have my doubts it would since the government already spends €32k a year per homeless person https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/news/government-spends-32k-a-year-for-every-homeless-person-31472649.html

grahambo

grahambo wrote: »

I keep hearing about "The Homeless" problem

In my eyes the only people that can help the homeless are themselves.

There are 3 kinds of homeless people
1: Young women in their 20's with kids and the father "isn't around"
2: People with serious drink/drug problems
3: People who have genuinely lost everything through a series of bad events <= These are the vast minority

There is no helping 1 and 2, and they are the vast majority.

I saw on RTE news earlier in the week some woman living in a hotel for the last few years with 4 kids, the youngest of which was only a couple of months old, finally got a house off the council.

WTF was she doing having another kid when she already had 3 and was living in the hotel?
Her eldest child (7 or 8 years old maybe) had to be put up in a separate room because for insurance reasons the hotel can't have more than 4 people in a room.

No sign of the Dad (Dad's)

I know a Homeless guy in Raheny, He lives in St Annes park. His family don't want anything to do with him as he a terrible alcoholic.
He needs to sort himself out before anything can be done to sort him out with accommodation.

There is a reason as to why people are homeless, and generally the reason is because they have serious antisocial/substance abuse/addiction issues.
No amount of money will be able to help them.
There's no helping someone that won't help themselves.

I know the above is harsh, but it's very true.

This is so wrong on so many levels

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so wrong on so many levels

Open your eyes. Just because something might hurt someones feelings doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Wanderer78

weldoninhio wrote:

Open your eyes. Just because something might hurt someones feelings doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes the truth hurts.

....and what 'truths' would they be?

PeterParker957

end of the road wrote: »

hugely long distance commuting, and throwing everyone down the country, are not viable, sustainible or cost effective. outside the cities don't have the resources to deal with an influx of people and to build up the services would cost huge money. if people are complaining about housing people in dublin, they will definitely be complaining once they have to pay to sort out services in areas outside dublin. throwing people down the country can often mean those people having to give up their jobs, meaning an increase in the wellfare bill.
none of this has anything to do with political correctness rabel rabel or any other buzz term, it's just reality for a country our size. what is the norm in other cities isn't relevant to here as their whole culture and set up is different.
if someone is homeless and living in emergency accommodation they can only do so much as their income is only going to be so much. most are doing what they can, as they want to get out of there and back into accommodation.
the fact the definition of homeless has been braudened to include people who wouldn't be sleeping on the streets, doesn't mean there isn't a housing issue.

Complete manure.

I have a 170km round trip to work each day - I end up doing a 13 hour work day 5 days a week including commute.

sbsquarepants

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Complete manure.

I have a 170km round trip to work each day - I end up doing a 13 hour work day 5 days a week including commute.

That's crazy - I do around about a 50-55km round trip and I wouldn't like to do much more. We originally looked at a place about 15km further out and I'm so glad we didn't buy there.

What's also crazy is my commute from where I previously lived was less than 10km round trip but took as long some days!

PeterParker957

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's crazy - I do around about a 50-55km round trip and I wouldn't like to do much more. We originally looked at a place about 15km further out and I'm so glad we didn't buy there.

What's also crazy is my commute from where I previously lived was less than 10km round trip but took as long some days!

I do it by train so I'm kinda used to it by now - few beers on it on a Friday !!!

No way could I drive it. But on the upside I pay for a detached bungalow half what a colleague pays for a 2 bed apartment in the city.

jobless

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....and what 'truths' would they be?

i dont agree with some of that post but i watched that mother getting her house on the news, put forward as a great story but the facts of the matter is why on earth did she have a 4th child while living in a hotel?.... and where on earth are the father/fathers ?.... Some watching that will say im going to keep knocking out sprogs until i get what she has....

Id happily pay 2 euro if it when to educating this young women about birth control and personal responsibility.....

weldoninhio

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....and what 'truths' would they be?

That a lot of the on street homeless are junkies and a lot of the in hotel homeless won't take a house unless its in the area they want. There are outliers, but a lot a) either couldn't handle a house or b) are milking the system.

oceanman

the_pen_turner wrote: »

of course not,
its not that easy





what annoys me is that on the news its all about homeless living in cardboard boxes. what's that about, get a few pallets and a sheet of plastic , make a water tight shelter fairly easily. you would be amazed what you would find in a skip.
if you were smart enough you would build a decent little shelter

so you would be happy to see people on the streets living in make shift shelters build of plastic and pallets!.....this is not Calcutta,we are supposed to be a civilised country. What the government needs to do is start a huge programme of building social accommodation, houses, apartments ect. not just a few thousand but tens of thousands and not just for the next 10 or 20 years, but right into the future indefinitely. that's the only we will solve the homeless problem in the country once and for all. but we need to start right now if we are ever going catch up.

ohnonotgmail

If the €450 a week i give the government now is not enough to solve the problem i'm not sure how an extra €2 will be enough to solve anything.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

unfortunately true.

Beta Ray Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so wrong on so many levels

I know!
It's terrible, but it's the way things are in this country at the moment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GavRedKing

grahambo wrote: »

I keep hearing about "The Homeless" problem

In my eyes the only people that can help the homeless are themselves.

There are 3 kinds of homeless people
1: Young women in their 20's with kids and the father "isn't around"
2: People with serious drink/drug problems
3: People who have genuinely lost everything through a series of bad events <= These are the vast minority

No I wouldnt and the above options outlines why.

Everyone has a sob story and not all of them are genuine but there can be a sense of entitlement from some people to expect that theyre basically given a free house and thats insane.

However, if I was to give money to the "homeless" I'd be much more likely to give to option 3 than either 1 or 2.

Geuze

2 euro pw = 104 pa

Who is to pay this?

All workers?

Or all income-tax payers?

Or all adults?

If 3m adults pay, then it will raise 312m.

In 2017 we will already spend 120m on Dublin homelessness.

If the 312m was purely spent on new construction, is there the capacity in the building industry to supply?

Gbear

I don't really get the point of OPs question.
Is it a moral question? This post had been deleted.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a fan of the idea of people working remotely, at least not in most cases.

I think you lose something - motivation, productivity, co-operation and yes, even arguably, job satisfaction.

It'll depend on the person and the office of course.

Still, you could have the best of both world by allowing, for example, office workers to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week.
You could push certain tasks that are more mechanical and require less oversight and co-operation to those days.
You'd get some improvements in traffic, variety of work schedule, reducing burnout from commuting but also not losing the social and productivity benefits that working with other people directly gives you.

We're poorly adapted to this digital world and we should not lightly set aside interacting with people.

realdanbreen

PCeeeee wrote: »

Assuming everyone signed up this would bring in approx 10 million a year. Are we saying this would sort the 'homeless crisis'?

Since when has our population dropped to 90,000?

Hilly Bill

munchkin_utd wrote: »

you are born with an entitlement to one apparently.

There's a list with the council where people register to exercise this god given (birth)right to a free house but too many people were being born in the 80s and 90s so the government is struggling to keep up with its commitment to provide said free houses now that the people entitled to houses are now no longer living with their parents .

Now that the government has sorted peoples god given right to unlimited free water, maybe they'll figure how to clear the list of those waiting for the free houses.

No such thing as a free house though, you won't own it and still have to pay rent and utilities bills.
If someone was thrown out of their previous one because they couldn't or refused to pay the bills then giving them another house isn't going to solve the problem.
Same goes for anti social behaviour and addictions.
There are plenty of accommodation out there you just have to start somewhere instead of waiting for the new house on a private development in the same area as your parents. It's agreed that there are accommodation in a shocking state and shouldn't be allowed to be available to rent and this is where the government should if they haven't already step in to make anyone in the rental market to have a licence to rent out their property with maybe a tax break and the licence only issued if the property is passed fit for living in and with an agreed rental structure. Those moving into temporary accommodation or the hap scheme or whatever its called should still keep their place on the housing list until they get put into long term accommodation.
More safe hostels is needed where you don't have to be thrown out in the day time.
Some would rather stay on the streets than go into a hostel as they find it safer so that needs to be addressed.
All the different homeless charities are just talking money from each other instead of there being just one big charity expanded all over the place.
As it stands the homeless issue is just another front for certain politicians to voice their fake concerns to score brownie points and the odd look at me photo opportunity for their Facebook page.

homerjay2005

djPSB wrote: »

Hypothetical situation.

Supposing the solution to the homelessness crisis was that every citizen in the country would contribute €2 per week. So hypothetically everyone would have to contribute, those on social welfare, students, low earners, high earners etc. Everyone.

And say, again hypothetically, the money was guaranteed to solve homelessness in Ireland, would you be happy to pay €2 per week?

Don't want to get into the 'Government would just waste the money debate'. Let's just assume for once the money was used resourcefully and solved the problem.

So essentially, your €2 will be used to give homeless people free shelter and food and ultimately a path to recovery.

money isnt the answer, there has been 100s of millions thrown at the problem over the last few years.

as pointed out, its the people themselves who need to help themselves first.

oceanman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We the taxpayers of course, that's how things work and that's the only way we will solve this problem, no quick fix here folks...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeterParker957

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Seriously wish i could thank this more than once.

AnneFrank

Mod note:We're NOT going there!

BTJ

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

Open your eyes. Just because something might hurt someones feelings doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes the truth hurts.

it doesn't no . the truth can't hurt as it's the truth. however, some cases are being over exaggerated to try and deny there is a housing issue and people at that are not telling the truth, but are agenda driven.

mariaalice

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't no . the truth can't hurt as it's the truth. however, some cases are being over exaggerated to try and deny there is a housing issue and people at that are not telling the truth, but are agenda driven.

Thats true, but there is also agenda driving by homeless organisation and political parties neither is right.

end of the road

jobless wrote: »

i dont agree with some of that post but i watched that mother getting her house on the news, put forward as a great story but the facts of the matter is why on earth did she have a 4th child while living in a hotel?.... and where on earth are the father/fathers ?....

because she did have another child. she shouldn't have, but it's to late now. as for the fathers, don't know where they are. even if they were in the picture, sounds like they wouldn't be the most responsible people either. but who knows, i don't know this woman. a news story can only tell me so much.

jobless wrote: »

Some watching that will say im going to keep knocking out sprogs until i get what she has....

sadly you will always have that mentality. that is why we need to start proper education in the schools to at least try knock this nonsense on the head. it's the only chance we have now.

jobless wrote: »

Id happily pay 2 euro if it when to educating this young women about birth control and personal responsibility.....

agreed.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

a lot, based on? no doubt there are such cases, but often the amount is over exaggerated to try and deny there is a housing issue.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

who paid for the last major social housing building programs.

mariaalice wrote: »

Thats true, but there is also agenda driving by homeless organisation and political parties neither is right.

i agree.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Beta Ray Bill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All the above aside, the thing to bare in mind is that Social housing is not the answer.
We've already learned lessons about social housing/council estates.

They move a bunch of people with problems into one area, which in turn creates an even bigger problem.

Darndale
Jobstown
Kilbarrack
Edenmore
Finglas
Cabra
Whitechurch
etc
etc

Major problems in these places with regard to crime/drugs/drink/antisocial behaviour

I don't think it's fair for the council to buy houses in private estates either.
I wouldn't like to have paid the guts of €400,000 for a house only to have the council move in some young wan in her 20's with her 4 or 5 kids from different fathers OR someone with drink/grugs problems into the house next to me.

I don't know what the answer is here. Maybe it's just "Take any kids into custody and leave them homeless" as awful as that sounds

PeterParker957

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't no . the truth can't hurt as it's the truth. however, some cases are being over exaggerated to try and deny there is a housing issue and people at that are not telling the truth, but are agenda driven.

Some cases are also being over exaggerated to make the housing issue WORSE.

Mrcaramelchoc

No but id pay 3 euro a week if it solved our health care problem.

mariaalice

grahambo wrote: »

All the above aside, the thing to bare in mind is that Social housing is not the answer.
We've already learned lessons about social housing/council estates.

They move a bunch of people with problems into one area, which in turn creates an even bigger problem.

Darndale
Jobstown
Kilbarrack
Edenmore
Finglas
Cabra
Whitechurch
etc
etc

Major problems in these places with regard to crime/drugs/drink/antisocial behaviour

I don't think it's fair for the council to buy houses in private estates either.
I wouldn't like to have paid the guts of €400,000 for a house only to have the council move in some young wan in her 20's with her 4 or 5 kids from different fathers OR someone with drink/grugs problems into the house next to me.

I don't know what the answer is here. Maybe it's just "Take any kids into custody and leave them homeless" as awful as that sounds

But what about if the council move Joe and Josephine and their 3 polite children in to the estate, prior to this they all lived in a one bed apartment, they cant afford to buy a house as driving a delivery van and being a hairdresser does not pay a huge amount, where should they go?

Where has the narrative that every one in social housing is an unemployed scobie come from?

gozunda

Arghus wrote: »

Maybe. But in essence he asked a simple question.

It's analogous to this question:

Hypothetically, would you pay a tiny amount of money to receive a slice of delicious cake that was guaranteed to satisfy you - and it will be guaranteed to satisfy and once you paid the money you'd be guaranteed to receive it. It's a hypothetical magic cake

Instead of people simply answering yes or no to a simple closed thought experiment they've become preoccupied with irrelevant follow on matters such as: What kind of cake? Define cake. What if I don't like cake? Who would be in charge of the distribution of cake? Is cake really the healthiest option? Maybe we should have a wider discussion about cake? None of that matters, refer back the initial question.

Just yes or no please.

I disagree. By failing to define "homelessness" we have had pages of debate and argument as to who or what the hell the OP wants to use the money for.

To put it very simply - there would have been no need to discuss the what type of confectionary - magical or otherwise was involved if it had been made clear in the first place.

Your want to be a right eegit to put your hand up every time someone asked some ill defined hypohethetical question.

NIMAN

I would for sure, but you can guarantee large sections of the country wouldn't be interested.

And these folk would have the likes of Boyd Barrett and Paul Murphy on defending them, saying it's all someone's fault and a roof over your head is a right.

So many would contribute nothing while others would have to cover their share.

end of the road

grahambo wrote: »

All the above aside, the thing to bare in mind is that Social housing is not the answer.
We've already learned lessons about social housing/council estates.

so what is the answer? paying large subsidies to the private rental market? that's not proving sustainible.
yes we learned lessons about throwing people into council estates with nothing, so we don't repeat them when building new council estates.

grahambo wrote: »

They move a bunch of people with problems into one area, which in turn creates an even bigger problem.

Darndale
Jobstown
Kilbarrack
Edenmore
Finglas
Cabra
Whitechurch
etc
etc

so we do it differently. that's what most countries do, they learn from their mistakes and implement the policy differently. we just go to the opposite extreme and shur itl be grand begorra.

grahambo wrote: »

Major problems in these places with regard to crime/drugs/drink/antisocial behaviour

fund the gardai and have them enforce the law, and learn the lessons so that these issues won't continue.

grahambo wrote: »

I don't think it's fair for the council to buy houses in private estates either.

it's very fair if that is all that is availible and you don't want social housing. you can't have it both ways, you can't have no social housing and then expect the council not to buy properties in private estates.

grahambo wrote: »

I wouldn't like to have paid the guts of €400,000 for a house only to have the council move in some young wan in her 20's with her 4 or 5 kids from different fathers OR someone with drink/grugs problems into the house next to me.

sure, but that's the gamble of property. we all knew when we bought property we were taking a gamble and that someone could move in next door who may get a property cheap. it's a kick in the teeth, but life isn't fair sometimes.

grahambo wrote: »

I don't know what the answer is here. Maybe it's just "Take any kids into custody and leave them homeless" as awful as that sounds

the costs would be extremely ridiculous for that to happen. leaving people homeless and to their own devices can lead to huge crime problems, having the kids ripped off their families has the potential to do damage to them, and the care system isn't exactly able to cope with the children it has got. by the time you would pay for it all, including getting the care system up to the high standard needed to take every child off every social tenant including working parents in the country, , you would have built houses.

PeterParker957

We've started to define "homeless" as "no forever home with a peppercorn rent that's within walking distance to mammy".

No wonder it looks like the problem is worse than it is