Would you contribute €2 per week to solve homelessness?

SeanW

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.

There should be a "The questions is absurd" option. Because although most people would say yes, myself included, there are two facts that make this hypothetical about as realistic as "what would you do if the sky were pink with lime green polka dots".

1) Some people are homeless for reasons other than economics. There are limits to what can be done for them.
2) If you gave that money to the government, they would waste it, or make the problem worse long term. Good chance the same would happen with some private charities.

server down

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Eh? Firstly that is all relative. Secondly plenty of those houses and older sell for very high prices.

Wheeliebin30

Hopefully this right to a home comes in and I can stop paying my mortgage and other people's too.

server down

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Hopefully this right to a home comes in and I can stop paying my mortgage and other people's too.

The sense of victimhood here. Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

The sense of victimhood here. Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

server down

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

Sorry I almost choked on my vomit. I’ll reply later.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

If ever there was a classic example of a total misunderstanding of what evolution means, this is it.

Wanderer78

Forrest Fast Tire wrote: »

If ever there was a classic example of a total misunderstanding of what evolution means, this is it.

i do realise this is some what off topic, but i think you were explaining this before in another thread, can you explain it again? thank you

server down

weldoninhio

The reason we pay for others less fortunate is because we’ve seen the results when we don’t. Mass slums. Starving peasants. Broken workers. For most of history the top 1% partied while the rest suffered dire poverty.

By getting the rich and upper middle classes to pay taxes and getting employers to pay better wages we created the largely prosperous middle income groups we have now, we built infrastructure and educational systems that allowed more people to live good lives. Probably including you.

And if you want to go back to Dickensian London then fine, but it was a dire place. If you want no social housing at all then hundreds of thousands will be one the streets and crowded into slums, real 19C slums. Crime will skyrocket. And you may lose your job and end up in some poor house, like a lot of people did back then, wishing there was some system that could tide you over until the recession ends.

end of the road

server down wrote: »

The sense of victimhood here.

agreed. he forgets that he will own a property at the end of it as long as he pays it back in full. seems that's not enough for him though, he wants to be told how great he is for making the decisian to buy a property. i don't know about anyone else but he isn't going to be told that by me.

server down wrote: »

Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?

that's his view, yes . plenty of posts of his indirectly expressing the same nonsense

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

it's your job to help those in need. what other species do isn't relevant. an evolution/survival of the fittest mentality in human terms leads to large scale crime problems which will cost you way more then helping the weaker in the first place.

Cilar

Already paying 52% tax for low public service. Issue is not money, issue is the way it's currently wasted.

oceanman

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

But we are not animals, we have moved on and can now even walk without dragging our knuckles along the ground. We are human beings.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i do realise this is some what off topic, but i think you were explaining this before in another thread, can you explain it again? thank you

To keep it short : for a start Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. Survival of the fittest is a term that refers to the process of natural selection which is one mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest in popular usage implies that the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals are the survivors, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. The incorrect interpretation of "survival of the fittest" ignores the vital importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them. There is much more to it and for another day on another forum.

Wanderer78

Forrest Fast Tire wrote: »

To keep it short...

thank you again, it ll probably take me a while to process all that. ive recently discovered bio-mimicry, some believe that current human behavior, particularly in an economic sense, resembles some biological behavior which is at an immature phase due to our lack of cooperation. they believe when we become more cooperative, we have matured just like some biological forms, upon which these biological forms grow and prosper as a whole.

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

weldoninhio

The reason we pay for others less fortunate is because we’ve seen the results when we don’t. Mass slums. Starving peasants. Broken workers. For most of history the top 1% partied while the rest suffered dire poverty.

By getting the rich and upper middle classes to pay taxes and getting employers to pay better wages we created the largely prosperous middle income groups we have now, we built infrastructure and educational systems that allowed more people to live good lives. Probably including you.

And if you want to go back to Dickensian London then fine, but it was a dire place. If you want no social housing at all then hundreds of thousands will be one the streets and crowded into slums, real 19C slums. Crime will skyrocket. And you may lose your job and end up in some poor house, like a lot of people did back then, wishing there was some system that could tide you over until the recession ends.

But we still have a subsection of society that don’t want to work. That will never work and never have. They take and take and give nothing. Contributing zero, but consuming resources that could be going to people who do contribute.

weldoninhio

oceanman wrote: »

But we are not animals, we have moved on and can now even walk without dragging our knuckles along the ground. We are human beings.

We are still animals. Just more high functioning than others.

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

agreed. he forgets that he will own a property at the end of it as long as he pays it back in full. seems that's not enough for him though, he wants to be told how great he is for making the decisian to buy a property. i don't know about anyone else but he isn't going to be told that by me.

Not too sure how you came to that conclusion from reading the post . I doubt the poster wishes to be 'told' anything by you tbh.

end of the road wrote: »

that's his view, yes . plenty of posts of his indirectly expressing the same nonsense

Yes believe it or not everyone is permitted their own opinion. Even you! If you disagree with a point of view then it is up to you to argue against that position. Declaring that it is 'nonsense' does not make it so ...

end of the road wrote: »

it's your job to help those in need. what other species do isn't relevant. an evolution/survival of the fittest mentality in human terms leads to large scale crime problems which will cost you way more then helping the weaker in the first place.

No it's not - unless the poster works directly in social services. I'm sure habitual criminals will be delighted to discover that their behaviour is in fact caused through the transmogrification of opinions posted on Boards.ie.

kurtainsider

2€ to end homelessness? Me and every worker in the country is reamed for €100's in taxes and it seems to make no difference.

Imagine if all the people who go out to work and pay their taxes decided that they "deserved" a free house. We'd have some craic then.

end of the road

kurtainsider wrote: »

2€ to end homelessness? Me and every worker in the country is reamed for €100's in taxes and it seems to make no difference.

Imagine if all the people who go out to work and pay their taxes decided that they "deserved" a free house. We'd have some craic then.

the amount who believe they "deserve" a "free" which isn't actually free to them house, are a very very very very small proportion of people, who's number is exaggerated and blown out of all proportion

kurtainsider

end of the road wrote: »

the amount who believe they "deserve" a "free" which isn't actually free to them house, are a very very very very small proportion of people, who's number is exaggerated and blown out of all proportion

I disagree with you. Listening to RTE Dublin is full of exactly these people and the politicians who champion the idea that the rich (f***ing eejits who work) should pay for everything. And RTE agrees with them!!

end of the road

kurtainsider wrote: »

I disagree with you. Listening to RTE Dublin is full of exactly these people and the politicians who champion the idea that the rich (f***ing eejits who work) should pay for everything. And RTE agrees with them!!

no the whole thing is over exaggerated because it sells. the stories from the very small few who think they "deserve" followed by the rabel rabel brigade shouting at them. it makes radio airtime and sells papers.

kurtainsider

end of the road wrote: »

no the whole thing is over exaggerated because it sells. the stories from the very small few who think they "deserve" followed by the rabel rabel brigade shouting at them. it makes radio airtime and sells papers.

Sorry end of the road, we'll just have to agree to differ. You can't turn on the radio now but you hear someone, be it a homeless person, politician or commentator saying how disgraceful it is that the government (the taxpayer) isn't providing a free house for every non-worker that wants one.

Like most "homeowners" I paid my 50% tax on what I earned, bought my house with what was left and was then further taxed to the hilt on the purchase of my house between VAT, "development fees" to the County Council and now property taxes. I'll own my house in 15 years if I'm able to keep working and paying my mortgage. Maybe I should have saved myself all that trouble and just gone on the radio to lament how disgusted I am at the taxpayer's failure to hand me over the keys that I'm entitled to.

end of the road

kurtainsider wrote: »

Sorry end of the road, we'll just have to agree to differ. You can't turn on the radio now but you hear someone, be it a homeless person, politician or commentator saying how disgraceful it is that the government (the taxpayer) isn't providing a free house for every non-worker that wants one.

trust me, those people are speciffically picked. the whole lot like that adds up to a very small few. it's designed to get people angry and equal radio airtime. same with the papers, they pick the most extreme cases to get you angry. don't fall for it.

kurtainsider wrote: »

Like most "homeowners" I paid my 50% tax on what I earned, bought my house with what was left and was then further taxed to the hilt on the purchase of my house between VAT, "development fees" to the County Council and now property taxes. I'll own my house in 15 years if I'm able to keep working and paying my mortgage.

to be fair, you actually haven't "bought" the house yet. the bank, via a loan, has effectively bought it for you, and you are paying back the loan the bank gave you. once you pay back the mortgage in full, which you will i hope, you will own the house. until then, the bank owns your house. it's in your interest to knuckle down and insure you pay it off, never mind a small few who are scamming, they will be dealt with eventually.

kurtainsider wrote: »

Maybe I should have saved myself all that trouble and just gone on the radio to lament how disgusted I am at the taxpayer's failure to hand me over the keys that I'm entitled to.

why. that way you will never own a property.

weldoninhio

kurtainsider wrote: »

Sorry end of the road, we'll just have to agree to differ. You can't turn on the radio now but you hear someone, be it a homeless person, politician or commentator saying how disgraceful it is that the government (the taxpayer) isn't providing a free house for every non-worker that wants one.

Like most "homeowners" I paid my 50% tax on what I earned, bought my house with what was left and was then further taxed to the hilt on the purchase of my house between VAT, "development fees" to the County Council and now property taxes. I'll own my house in 15 years if I'm able to keep working and paying my mortgage. Maybe I should have saved myself all that trouble and just gone on the radio to lament how disgusted I am at the taxpayer's failure to hand me over the keys that I'm entitled to.

100% and the bull**** arguments for not dropping the dole or not providing social housing to those that pay nothing is normally that “crime will rise” etc, yet out of the other side of their mouth they’ll tell us that it’s a tiny percentage in social housing that are unemployed.

It’s either one or the other.

Ultimate Seduction

Gas how people say the council houses aren't free, they have to pay rent ect. Paying rent with free money, they pay taxes with their free money. Everything is free if you don't work, everything. How people end up homeless in a country where everything is free, it really is their own fault.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

trust me, those people are speciffically picked. the whole lot like that adds up to a very small few. it's designed to get people angry and equal radio airtime. same with the papers, they pick the most extreme cases to get you angry. don't fall for it.



to be fair, you actually haven't "bought" the house yet. the bank, via a loan, has effectively bought it for you, and you are paying back the loan the bank gave you. once you pay back the mortgage in full, which you will i hope, you will own the house. until then, the bank owns your house. it's in your interest to knuckle down and insure you pay it off, never mind a small few who are scamming, they will be dealt with eventually.



why. that way you will never own a property.

So people who were in social housing never ended up owning them?

LIAR!!!

bloodless_coup

Instead of giving 2 more euro a week to the wasters what I'd prefer is all those people living in hotel rooms for free should be ****ed out on thier ear. That way we could all make a bit extra very week than throw the 2 euro away.

oceanman

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So people who were in social housing never ended up owning them?

LIAR!!!

some people in social housing do end up owning them, but only after they have agreed to buy them from the local authority...they don't get them for free.

Lia_lia

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Gas how people say the council houses aren't free, they have to pay rent ect. Paying rent with free money, they pay taxes with their free money. Everything is free if you don't work, everything. How people end up homeless in a country where everything is free, it really is their own fault.

There are many people that work and pay taxes with council houses. Yes, some council tenants are on social welfare and essentially get their house for free but not everyone.

Wheeliebin30

oceanman wrote: »

some people in social housing do end up owning them, but only after they have agreed to buy them from the local authority...they don't get them for free.

At a discount of up to 60%.

Anyway not the point I was replying too.

PeterParker957

end of the road wrote: »

server down wrote: »

The sense of victimhood here.

agreed. he forgets that he will own a property at the end of it as long as he pays it back in full. seems that's not enough for him though, he wants to be told how great he is for making the decisian to buy a property. i don't know about anyone else but he isn't going to be told that by me.

server down wrote: »

Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?

that's his view, yes . plenty of posts of his indirectly expressing the same nonsense

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

it's your job to help those in need. what other species do isn't relevant. an evolution/survival of the fittest mentality in human terms leads to large scale crime problems which will cost you way more then helping the weaker in the first place.

I've noticed a theme in EOTRs posts that almost guarantee that of welfare is cut every recipient will turn to crime.

If true - which of course it's not - then a) why should we allow a threat to society to reproduce and b) why not use the welfare budget saved to fund Gardai numbers on the streets/intelligence?

And to clarify it is not "MY job" to fund the workshy and feckless. Its my job to be productive, pay my bills, obey the laws of the land and be a good citizen.

Atoms for Peace

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Show me a country - anywhere in the world, or any time in history - which has "solved homlessness".

I already contribute a lot more than €2 per week providing social safety nets, keeping people fed, sheltered and off the street.

East Germany?:pac:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

East Germany?:pac:

Not quite, although the East German authorities described homelessness as being 'minimal'. And, of course, the East German authorities only ever spoke the truth.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I've noticed a theme in EOTRs posts that almost guarantee that of welfare is cut every recipient will turn to crime.

If true - which of course it's not - then a) why should we allow a threat to society to reproduce and b) why not use the welfare budget saved to fund Gardai numbers on the streets/intelligence?

And to clarify it is not "MY job" to fund the workshy and feckless. Its my job to be productive, pay my bills, obey the laws of the land and be a good citizen.

I think it's more a case of if welfare was scrapped altogether (and I'm not implying that this was suggested), there'd be an increase in crime and no amount of police are army is going to stop it. It's called "social" security for a reason.

Would I pay? Technically I aready do. But if the question is would I pay it to address and attemtp to resolve the problem completely, then yes - but only so long as the money was actually used to help the homeless - which is something I'm not sure I'd trust a government to do.

Samaris

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

Because that is what a society does. Do you advocate that elderly people should be left to die? After all, they are not contributing to society or directly benefiting you. What about children born with certain debilitating conditions? Sure, they may never contribute; best to do what the Spartans did and leave them on a exposed rock to die. The weak and useless don't deserve support though so death by exposure it is!

People who support mad selfish notions like that tend to rapidly change their tune when they leave their prime earning years, get sick, suffer a misfortune or have children that need help. Funny that.

Also, yes, there are examples in the animal world, especially primates, but also animals with a herd structure. Herds will often come to the assistance of a member, particularly young, even if individual animals involved did not physically birth that young. Saw a vid recently there of a baby elephant that got stuck in a watering hole and the entire herd working to free it (they eventually succeeded). Dolphins have been known to assist humans in the water (also sometimes attack them, so, like humans, responses vary).

As a final point, that is not what "survival of the fittest" as a phrase means, nor are your views of intrasocietal relations particularly connected to the mechanics of gene and trait heritability, bar the specifics of inherited diseases. True enough that killing children that express negative traits will eventually eliminate said traits, but not worth the social damage to societal structure for that limited benefit.

jonnny68

yes and shame on anyone who voted no, remember no matter what troubles you have there's always someone much worse off than you and at least you have a roof over your head.

However a better idea still is for TD's to take a massive pay cut as in 40% and that money put towards the homeless crisis, but the chances of that ever happening are practically zero,a corrupt shambles of a government.

weldoninhio

Samaris wrote: »

Because that is what a society does. Do you advocate that elderly people should be left to die? After all, they are not contributing to society or directly benefiting you. What about children born with certain debilitating conditions? Sure, they may never contribute; best to do what the Spartans did and leave them on a exposed rock to die. The weak and useless don't deserve support though so death by exposure it is!

People who support mad selfish notions like that tend to rapidly change their tune when they leave their prime earning years, get sick, suffer a misfortune or have children that need help. Funny that.

Also, yes, there are examples in the animal world, especially primates, but also animals with a herd structure. Herds will often come to the assistance of a member, particularly young, even if individual animals involved did not physically birth that young. Saw a vid recently there of a baby elephant that got stuck in a watering hole and the entire herd working to free it (they eventually succeeded). Dolphins have been known to assist humans in the water (also sometimes attack them, so, like humans, responses vary).

As a final point, that is not what "survival of the fittest" as a phrase means, nor are your views of intrasocietal relations particularly connected to the mechanics of gene and trait heritability, bar the specifics of inherited diseases. True enough that killing children that express negative traits will eventually eliminate said traits, but not worth the social damage to societal structure for that limited benefit.

If the elderly have worked to help society then they should be looked after, their taxes will have helped and some should have been put aside to help them be comfortable in old age.

Re: debilitating illnesses, with the advances in science and tests to tell if a foetus has DS at the moment, I can only see these improving, so children with debilitating illness won’t be a thing in the future hopefully.

Why should I pay for someone who has no interest or intention of contributing anything to society?? Who’ll spawn 4/5/6 more leeches to sponge in the future? What happens when the tipping point is reached when we’ve less contributors (workers) than receivers (leeches)??

oceanman

Samaris wrote: »

Because that is what a society does. Do you advocate that elderly people should be left to die? After all, they are not contributing to society or directly benefiting you. What about children born with certain debilitating conditions? Sure, they may never contribute; best to do what the Spartans did and leave them on a exposed rock to die. The weak and useless don't deserve support though so death by exposure it is!

People who support mad selfish notions like that tend to rapidly change their tune when they leave their prime earning years, get sick, suffer a misfortune or have children that need help. Funny that.

Also, yes, there are examples in the animal world, especially primates, but also animals with a herd structure. Herds will often come to the assistance of a member, particularly young, even if individual animals involved did not physically birth that young. Saw a vid recently there of a baby elephant that got stuck in a watering hole and the entire herd working to free it (they eventually succeeded). Dolphins have been known to assist humans in the water (also sometimes attack them, so, like humans, responses vary).

As a final point, that is not what "survival of the fittest" as a phrase means, nor are your views of intrasocietal relations particularly connected to the mechanics of gene and trait heritability, bar the specifics of inherited diseases. True enough that killing children that express negative traits will eventually eliminate said traits, but not worth the social damage to societal structure for that limited benefit.

totally agree with all of that

Tenigate

djPSB wrote: »

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.

Sure, i would. In fact, i already do make such contributions in the form of payroll taxes, vat, etc... The government just doesn't use it resourcefully.

Second point but while you can ask an individual to contribute there is no way you should force people. By taking eur104 a year from a struggling family, it may cause them to miss a rent payment.

By taking €104 from someone planning on doing a course, it might be enough to make them defer a year, stay on benefits, remain in a poverty trap.

So despite any nice spin you're putting on something, you cannot tax your way to prosperity, and you can't spend your way to it either.

So while I'd happily pay €2 a week to solve homelessness, I might as well give it to cure cancer, end drug addiction or create world peace... For all the good it would do.

Samaris

weldoninhio wrote: »

If the elderly have worked to help society then they should be looked after, their taxes will have helped and some should have been put aside to help them be comfortable in old age.

Re: debilitating illnesses, with the advances in science and tests to tell if a foetus has DS at the moment, I can only see these improving, so children with debilitating illness won’t be a thing in the future hopefully.

Why should I pay for someone who has no interest or intention of contributing anything to society?? Who’ll spawn 4/5/6 more leeches to sponge in the future? What happens when the tipping point is reached when we’ve less contributors (workers) than receivers (leeches)??

Immigration.

The situation you describe is already happening, not down to emotional hysteria about leeches and spawns, but down to simple population dynamics. We are getting to a stage of having too many who cannot contribute due to age. Longer lifespans, better medical treatment and a general unwillingness to go Spartan on people who cannot contribute. Those that will not are a relatively small proportion and exiling/killing/rendering into poverty those oeople won't actually solve the issue (good for spurring crime though). The historically common way to solve it is temporary (or permanent) importing of people who want to work in our economy and contribute to the taxes that support those who can no longer contribute.

If you're one of those who think 'immigration' is a dirty word though, we're back to murdering the elderly, sick and potentially non-contributing members of society again.

PeterParker957

Samaris wrote: »

If you're one of those who think 'immigration' is a dirty word though, we're back to murdering the elderly, sick and potentially non-contributing members of society again.

So because I'm against mass unchecked immigration without the infrastructure bring there and our own people in need - I must want to kill the elderly and sick????

Seriously??? The left get more out of touch with reality with every passing day.

Samaris

PeterParker957 wrote: »

So because I'm against mass unchecked immigration without the infrastructure bring there and our own people in need - I must want to kill the elderly and sick????

Seriously??? The left get more out of touch with reality with every passing day.

Uhm, did you read anything up to that, get any context whatsoever or even mull for a New York Second what I might be talking about, or did you read one sentence out of context, decide it was a partisan issue and blow your lid?

It has nothing to do with either "unchecked immigration" or the current migrant crisis, it was a comment on population dynamics and the previoys poster's impractical views about how a society relates to those within it unable (and as a small subset of that unwilling) to fully support themselves, so, y'know, chill a bit please. Not everything is a wild conspiracy of "the left".

Doltanian

I would gladly contribute not only €2 per week but €5 to ensure that this country got its act together, end welfare as a lifestyle choice, stop payments to single mothers with more than 2 children, end social housing and instead invest massively in important infrastructure like Motorways, Railways and Fibre Optic Broadband. At the same time helping the squeezed middle, all judges should be jailed and made to live with the scum they unleash upon the public everyday. Bring in a proper justice system with real punishment (Including the death penalty), also bring back Mental institutions and lock in liberals and politically correct do-gooders because clearly they are mentally unstable with what damage they have caused to this country already.

Tenigate

Samaris wrote: »

If you're one of those who think 'immigration' is a dirty word though, we're back to murdering the elderly, sick and potentially non-contributing members of society again.

Leftist propaganda.

Samaris

Tenigate wrote: »

Leftist propaganda.

Context is a valuable thing.

end of the road

Doltanian wrote: »

I would gladly contribute not only €2 per week but €5 to ensure that this country got its act together, end welfare as a lifestyle choice, stop payments to single mothers with more than 2 children, end social housing and instead invest massively in important infrastructure like Motorways, Railways and Fibre Optic Broadband. At the same time helping the squeezed middle, all judges should be jailed and made to live with the scum they unleash upon the public everyday. Bring in a proper justice system with real punishment (Including the death penalty), also bring back Mental institutions and lock in liberals and politically correct do-gooders because clearly they are mentally unstable with what damage they have caused to this country already.

ireland has almost enough motor ways for it's needs. social housing is necessary as it's not just the small few who don't work in them but mostly working people who don't have enough income for mortgages or market rent. ending the payments to single mothers who have more then 2 children sounds good in practice but isn't viable in reality. the death penalty is not financially viable, or anything else viable. it is to expensive for no returns and is murder.

PeterParker957

end of the road wrote: »

Doltanian wrote: »

I would gladly contribute not only €2 per week but €5 to ensure that this country got its act together, end welfare as a lifestyle choice, stop payments to single mothers with more than 2 children, end social housing and instead invest massively in important infrastructure like Motorways, Railways and Fibre Optic Broadband. At the same time helping the squeezed middle, all judges should be jailed and made to live with the scum they unleash upon the public everyday. Bring in a proper justice system with real punishment (Including the death penalty), also bring back Mental institutions and lock in liberals and politically correct do-gooders because clearly they are mentally unstable with what damage they have caused to this country already.

ireland has almost enough motor ways for it's needs. social housing is necessary as it's not just the small few who don't work in them but mostly working people who don't have enough income for mortgages or market rent. ending the payments to single mothers who have more then 2 children sounds good in practice but isn't viable in reality. the death penalty is not financially viable, or anything else viable. it is to expensive for no returns and is murder.

We announce now that is will be the policy in a year.

You have a kid after then we're not coughing up for it.

end of the road

PeterParker957 wrote: »

We announce now that is will be the policy in a year.

You have a kid after then we're not coughing up for it.

still not viable, as we can see from countries which have no benefits what soever, yet still have high birth rates.

Ultimate Seduction

Means test the children's allowance.
Scrap the bonus for long term unemployed
Scrap the free travel for 'disabled'


Let people keep there 2euro

2Mad2BeMad

Nope

I'd gather a good guess and say half the homeless people are not actually homeless, its just young women who have kids and the father is apparently not around, I actually know a few of these parasites.

Have a kid and get a free house and never work a day in your life seems to be the way them girls were raised.
Not to mention the drug users.

I'd happily give 50euro a week to a person/family who are genuinely homeless because or unfortunate events that led them their (loss of job then losing the house etc....)

but for the other parasites who think its normal to have a child just so you can get a free house the rest of your life, You belong on the street for thinking that way and the kid should be taken off you