The Frederick St protest and reaction

PlaneSpeeking

blackwhite wrote: »

Only if you accept that €33k is correct - despite it being considerably lower than any estimate made earlier in the thread.

Single parents is 198 plus 31.80 per child.
That’s €21,871 pa on its own.
Jobseekers is €193 - so another €10,036 pa.
Child benefit is €140 per month - another €11,760.

That’s before looking at any other possible “entitlements” that she might be claiming.

You’re already downplaying by a min. €10k how much she’s getting.

Thats €43k a year tax-free, plus the expectation that all housing costs will be paid by the state as well.

No childcare costs either because she doesn’t want have to work to provide that €43k.

No wonder she can afford all the sessions with her buddies.

+1

And after 30 years of graft I don't quite earn 43k GROSS.

Yeah she's a poor downtrodden unfortunate and no mistake.

There really are some gullible people around.

blackwhite

.

blackwhite

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

+1

And after 30 years of graft I don't quite earn 43k GROSS.

Yeah she's a poor downtrodden unfortunate and no mistake.

There really are some gullible people around.

Should have spent your younger years on your back and knocked out a few kids (in between trips down the country to not break into people’s homes of course).

Carlos Orange

blackwhite wrote: »

Single parents is 198 plus 31.80 per child.
That’s €21,871 pa on its own.
Jobseekers is €193 - so another €10,036 pa.
Child benefit is €140 per month - another €11,760.

You also get €31.80 per child per week with jobseekers but maybe you can't get the job seekers €31.80 and the €31.80 single parents at the same time. They should really have an entitlement calculator to keep things simple.

BBFAN

Sweet.Science wrote: »

So buying shoes for €300 is living in poverty ?

Having €33,000 disposable income is poverty ?

Having medical fees paid for is poverty ?

Where can i sign up and become poor ?

Down in your local social welfare office.

BBFAN

blackwhite wrote: »

Only if you accept that €33k is correct - despite it being considerably lower than any estimate made earlier in the thread.

Single parents is 198 plus 31.80 per child.
That’s €21,871 pa on its own.
Jobseekers is €193 - so another €10,036 pa.
Child benefit is €140 per month - another €11,760.

That’s before looking at any other possible “entitlements” that she might be claiming.

You’re already downplaying by a min. €10k how much she’s getting.

Thats €43k a year tax-free, plus the expectation that all housing costs will be paid by the state as well.

No childcare costs either because she doesn’t want have to work to provide that €43k.

No wonder she can afford all the sessions with her buddies.

What makes you think that someone gets single parents allowance and jobseekers?

NIMAN

=A Tyrant Named Miltiades!;108135165g child benefit) of €33,600.

Anyone who's ever had children would be daunted by trying to raise 2 of them on that income, let alone 7!

I have 3 young kids, and yes its very hard work at times, but thats the reason I wouldn't have 7. It would kill me.

But you see me and the OH decided NOT to have any more for that reason. Was Ms Cash held down and impregnated? No-one forced her to have 3, or 5, or 7?

If she is living on limited income, did she ever think "I think maybe I should stop having kids now?"

And she's only 28.....I would have a bet with you that she will hit the 10 mark before the menopause.

blackwhite

BBFAN wrote: »

What makes you think that someone gets single parents allowance and jobseekers?

Are you saying it’s not possible to be a single parent and seek a job?

BBFAN

blackwhite wrote: »

Are you saying it’s not possible to be a single parent and seek a job?

No, simply saying you don't get paid both allowances at the same time.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

Only if you accept that €33k is correct - despite it being considerably lower than any estimate made earlier in the thread.

Single parents is 198 plus 31.80 per child.
That’s €21,871 pa on its own.
Jobseekers is €193 - so another €10,036 pa.
Child benefit is €140 per month - another €11,760.

That’s before looking at any other possible “entitlements” that she might be claiming.

You’re already downplaying by a min. €10k how much she’s getting.

Thats €43k a year tax-free, plus the expectation that all housing costs will be paid by the state as well.

I'm not downplaying anything, just not aware of what 'single parents' is -- is that the OPFP?

If so, that is a taxable payment, and it may also affect an applicant's eligibility for the full jobseeker's payment, so I suspect your figure may be exaggerated.

edit: poster above has clarified this.

blackwhite

BBFAN wrote: »

No, simply saying you don't get paid both allowances at the same time.

So she only gets a minimum of €34k per year tax free? Before any other allowances or claims?

No wonder she needs to involve herself with gangs carrying out rural robberies then :rolleyes:

Deebles McBeebles

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have seven kids, so!

There's a very good reason why most people don't have large families anymore - whether they're on welfare or not. And it has nothing to do with social responsibility, it's because they don't want to live in poverty!

Should those in poverty (and with apparently no intention to work to get out of it) not be socially responsible enough to keep the amount of kids they have to a minimum? Or not have any if they just can't afford it.

Her sponging footprint will multiply by 7 in the next generation and so on. And before anyone says how do I know they will be spongers, its bred into them. Their grandfather won't have worked a day in his life either.

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Should those in poverty (and with apparently no intention to work to get out of it) not be socially responsible enough to keep the amount of kids they have to a minimum? Or not have any if they just can't afford it.

Her sponging footprint will multiply by 7 in the next generation and so on. And before anyone says how do I know they will be spongers, its bred into them. Their grandfather won't have worked a day in his life either.

You clearly know it all already Deebles, and have an ability to peer into the future, I'm sure there's no point in asking me any questions. I'm just saying I admire the woman's ability to make a convincing speech.

sexmag

The way the housing worked was it was a point system and the people with the most points get bumped up on the priority list, 1 point per kid,point per sex of children as you cant have boys and girls in the same room, point for disabilities, point for joblessness and so on and so on,meaning a family with 2 boys and a girl need a 3 bedroom as box room will be find for the girl, only problem with Ms.Cash is she priced her self out of the market with 7 kids being boys and girls, they realistically need a 4 bed house and they are very very rare to come by anywhere but in dublin hardly a chance, she can stand outside the dail with her megaphone but until they build her a house she has very little chance of getting what she wants

Deebles McBeebles

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You clearly know it all already Deebles, and have an ability to peer into the future, I'm sure there's no point in asking me any questions. I'm just saying I admire the woman's ability to make a convincing speech.

I just see things logically and realistically, that's all, no magic powers required.

What you actually said (in a separate thread) was "Margaret Cash for President, anyone?" but given that you're already stepping away from that statement I guess you know its ridiculous.

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I just see things logically and realistically, that's all, no magic powers required.

What you actually said (in a separate thread) was "Margaret Cash for President, anyone?" but given that you're already stepping away from that statement I guess you know its ridiculous.

Of course I'm not suggesting she run for president ffs!

I'm simply saying she possesses an ability to deliver a good speech. And that I reckon she could be an effective politician.

You claim to be logical and realistic, but writing-off a group of little children as 'spongers for life' strikes me as a little vindictive; it has little to do with logic.

People are losing the run of themselves when they come out with stuff like that. Is it really necessary to have a go at this woman's children, like?

Deebles McBeebles

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course I'm not suggesting she run for president ffs!

So just to get a rise out of people, fair enough.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm simply saying she possesses an ability to deliver a good speech. And that I reckon she could be an effective politician.

She thinks only of herself so would be a cracking politician, absolutely.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You claim to be logical and realistic, but writing-off a group of little children as 'spongers for life' strikes me as a little vindictive; it has little to do with logic.

That's the realism bit.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

People are losing the run of themselves when they come out with stuff like that. Is it really necessary to have a go at this woman's children, like?

I'm having a go at her and the system that allows her and her ilk. I feel sorry for the kids that their lives will be a continuation of hers.

PlaneSpeeking

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course I'm not suggesting she run for president ffs!

I'm simply saying she possesses an ability to deliver a good speech. And that I reckon she could be an effective politician.

You claim to be logical and realistic, but writing-off a group of little children as 'spongers for life' strikes me as a little vindictive; it has little to do with logic.

People are losing the run of themselves when they come out with stuff like that. Is it really necessary to have a go at this woman's children, like?

Reversing so much you should be beeping for safety.

That was a great speech in fairness. She should stand for election, I'd vote for her.

She seems very driven, very energetic, articulate and she's standing up for the little guy.

Those are pretty good traits in a politician, in my book. You don't have to like her to think she'd be an effective politician.

In fairness to her, not many politicians could deliver a speech like that even with notes. she reminds me of a young, female Michael D!

Margaret Cash for President, anyone?

And don't say you were sarcastic, you were asked outright if you were joking and said "not at all".

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And don't say you were sarcastic, you were asked outright if you were joking and said "not at all".

Ah here, believe that i was being serious about the Presidency if you prefer to.

I'm going to bow out of this thread. Not fair of me to be taking all the attention away from the sexual and criminal innuendo against Margaret Cash, and the personal attacks on her kids.

Stay classy.

hatrickpatrick

The funny thing is, everyone's talking about the €30k figure here - absolutely this should be considered an incredibly decent annual income and up until recently it would have been, but when average rents are €1,304 per month (June figures, most recent available), that means you're spending roughly half of that per annum on rent. So you've €15k left and that still has to cover electricity, heating, transport (public or private, ridiculously expensive in Ireland either way), groceries (more expensive in Ireland than in most EU countries - and exponentially more expensive in Dublin than anywhere else in the country) etc.

It's absolutely ridiculous that so many people are stating that the extortionate cost of living in Ireland and particularly in Dublin (not just rents, essentials across the board) is not a problem which should be addressed by democratic public policy. Sure, "muh free markets" and all that but the objective of democratic government policy should be to maximise quality of life for as many members of the population as possible. Allowing the cost of living to skyrocket like this and not doing anything to bring it down because "tough sh!t, that's capitalism for you" is a betrayal of democratic values - and will inevitably lead to social unrest over time. It's a foregone conclusion. What we've had in the West since the advent of neoliberalism is what's called stagflation - prices increase, but average income either increases too slowly to match it, or doesn't increase at all. The inevitable mathematical conclusion is a reduction in average quality of life.

Anyone who thinks that this is not a matter for government to address is either incredibly misguided, or an ideological nihilist on some level (nothing really matters, people don't matter, society doesn't matter, individual happiness doesn't matter). Being the latter is fine - you're free to hold any view you feel like in a democracy, after all - but IMO it's totally disingenuous for anyone to pretend that they genuinely feel that this is the best thing for society. If you don't care one way or another then that's absolutely fine, but talking as if this is somehow just or good comes across as deliberately disingenuous.

It's easily documented throughout history that any society which allows stagflation of this kind to continue unchecked eventually faces some form of social unrest of upheaval. Recent events in the UK and US are obvious examples. So if people genuinely believe in this cold, clinical attitude to how society should work, I'd advise bracing for trouble down the line.

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The funny thing is, everyone's talking about the €30k figure here - absolutely this should be considered an incredibly decent annual income and up until recently it would have been, but when average rents are €1,304 per month (June figures, most recent available), that means you're spending roughly half of that per annum on rent. So you've €15k left and that still has to cover electricity, heating, transport (public or private, ridiculously expensive in Ireland either way), groceries (more expensive in Ireland than in most EU countries - and exponentially more expensive in Dublin than anywhere else in the country) etc.

It's absolutely ridiculous that so many people are stating that the extortionate cost of living in Ireland and particularly in Dublin (not just rents, essentials across the board) is not a problem which should be addressed by democratic public policy. Sure, "muh free markets" and all that but the objective of democratic government policy should be to maximise quality of life for as many members of the population as possible. Allowing the cost of living to skyrocket like this and not doing anything to bring it down because "tough sh!t, that's capitalism for you" is a betrayal of democratic values - and will inevitably lead to social unrest over time. It's a foregone conclusion. What we've had in the West since the advent of neoliberalism is what's called stagflation - prices increase, but average income either increases too slowly to match it, or doesn't increase at all. The inevitable mathematical conclusion is a reduction in average quality of life.

Anyone who thinks that this is not a matter for government to address is either incredibly misguided, or an ideological nihilist on some level (nothing really matters, people don't matter, society doesn't matter, individual happiness doesn't matter). Being the latter is fine - you're free to hold any view you feel like in a democracy, after all - but IMO it's totally disingenuous for anyone to pretend that they genuinely feel that this is the best thing for society. If you don't care one way or another then that's absolutely fine, but talking as if this is somehow just or good comes across as deliberately disingenuous.

It's easily documented throughout history that any society which allows stagflation of this kind to continue unchecked eventually faces some form of social unrest of upheaval. Recent events in the UK and US are obvious examples. So if people genuinely believe in this cold, clinical attitude to how society should work, I'd advise bracing for trouble down the line.

Well you seem to forget that in Me. Cashs case she gets rent allowance so her annual rental outgoings might be 2400 at a push,leaving her with 28k for all other expenses you have listed off.

So your example shows how the working class are being screwed and the people on social welfare are benefiting

Brendan Bendar

sexmag wrote: »

Well you seem to forget that in Me. Cashs case she gets rent allowance so her annual rental outgoings might be 2400 at a push,leaving her with 28k for all other expenses you have listed off.

So your example shows how the working class are being screwed and the people on social welfare are benefiting

Another thing to remember is the ‘gunthering’ that is going on.

That is,tipping around doing ‘this and that’ all cash in hand, no records, no vat, no names no pack drill .

Country is riven with that kind of operation, make no mistake about it.

Middle Ireland needs to be vigilant otherwise they will end up sledding up and down the commuter routes to support the scobies,whilst working themselves into an early grave.

Won’t happen.

Edgware

sexmag wrote: »

Well you seem to forget that in Me. Cashs case she gets rent allowance so her annual rental outgoings might be 2400 at a push,leaving her with 28k for all other expenses you have listed off.

So your example shows how the working class are being screwed and the people on social welfare are benefiting

The gob****es of the Left like Murphy and Barrett don't care about the wage slaves of the working class. They have their useful idiots of the dole lines to support them

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

Well you seem to forget that in Me. Cashs case she gets rent allowance so her annual rental outgoings might be 2400 at a push,leaving her with 28k for all other expenses you have listed off.

So your example shows how the working class are being screwed and the people on social welfare are benefiting

But it's not a zero sum game as you seem to be suggesting (one side has to be screwed if the other is to benefit) - Unused or misused land is not a scarce resource in Dublin. All we're missing is the ideology, because the current prevailing ideology is "do nothing, and it'll fix itself". We've been following this third way BS for close to three decades now despite the very obvious indications that it doesn't work, and indeed that it never has worked. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the jump in quality of life in the early 1990s was an anomaly caused by many other factors, and that the line people keep drawing between it and the advent of third way neoliberalism is a correlation which is conclusively not a causative relationship.

There's an article in the Irish Times today detailing the amount of derelict and unused land within the Dublin City area and its immediate environs. The online version gives an interactive map which shows the values of each of the sites, and also shows the staggering number of them which are council or otherwise state-owned:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/city-vacant-dublin-s-hundreds-of-multi-million-euro-empty-sites-and-properties-1.3635595

So straight away, the cost of land is a non-issue when it comes to providing social housing. If the cost of building materials has increased enough to make it prohibitively expensive since the last large-scale social housing build in the 1980s (when the country was in a far worse economic position than it is now, I might add) then this is part of the cost of living issue I mentioned, and is something that needs to be tackled at the democratic policy level.

One random example which popped into my head this morning - why don't we have public-run quarries? The private quarrying industry was decimated during the crash, is this not an opportunity for the state to establish a non-profit quarrying agency to source materials publicly? That's one solution to the cost of materials issue just off the top of my head - surely there are enough educated folk in the local and national civil services who could come up with other such ideas.

People act as if we're helpless or impotent to circumstances such as the high cost of building materials, but the whole point of living in a democracy is that the state can intervene in various ways to avoid this. The fact that this is seen as some kind of "impassable" obstacle is yet more evidence that the neoliberal ideology - "the free market will provide everything and it's somehow morally wrong to get things done by any other mechanism" - is ridiculously deeply embedded in the psyches of many people. Despite the fact that, once again, it's only a couple of decades old compared with 50-60 years of public housing policy in Ireland which preceded it, and which got things done.

hatrickpatrick

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Middle Ireland needs to be vigilant otherwise they will end up sledding up and down the commuter routes to support the scobies,whilst working themselves into an early grave.

You seem to be also falling for the fallacy that buildable land is a scarcity in Dublin and therefore that "it's us or them" in terms of who gets to live in urban areas. Have a read of this and see if you still feel that way:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/city-vacant-dublin-s-hundreds-of-multi-million-euro-empty-sites-and-properties-1.3635595

Ask yourself if you've never passed by an empty lot over the years which hasn't changed at all except perhaps becoming more and more overgrown, and having its fencing slowly rust away over time. I could have cited dozens of these without even having read the article.

Brendan Bendar

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You seem to be also falling for the fallacy that buildable land is a scarcity in Dublin and therefore that "it's us or them" in terms of who gets to live in urban areas. Have a read of this and see if you still feel that way:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/city-vacant-dublin-s-hundreds-of-multi-million-euro-empty-sites-and-properties-1.3635595

Ask yourself if you've never passed by an empty lot over the years which hasn't changed at all except perhaps becoming more and more overgrown, and having its fencing slowly rust away over time. I could have cited dozens of these without even having read the article.

I not even near to referencing building land Patrick.

I’m referring to to people who are gaming the system, operating under the radar, and screwing the compliant ones to the floor.

Seth Brundle

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Anyone who's ever had children would be daunted by trying to raise 2 of them on that income, let alone 7!

If you want to get rich, the most foolish thing you can do is be unemployed and have children.

Myself & Mrs. Brundle discussed our ability to have children against our finances.
We didn't go at it like rabbits and not give a crap as to whether we could afford the outcome.
To have one or maybe two kids by accident happens.
To have seven kids when you can't even afford to keep yourself just shows that you're not fit to be a parent!

hatrickpatrick

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I not even near to referencing building land Patrick.

I’m referring to to people who are gaming the system, operating under the radar, and screwing the compliant ones to the floor.

I got that, but you seemed to be going for the "they're illegitimately taking too much of the pie so there's not enough left for the rest of us" argument. I'm countering that the pie is vastly bigger than people seem to think, that a lot of modern-day scarcity is totally artificial and manufactured, and therefore the "if they get things, it means there isn't enough for us to get things" argument is demonstrably false. There's more than enough to go around in terms of resources in Ireland, if we didn't have an administrative state which is either deliberately malicious or horrendously incompetent in how it manages those resources.

Franz Von Peppercorn

There’s lots of dereliction even in the city centre.

Right across from the IFSC this one. On the quays.

https://goo.gl/maps/Vjo9yZu4J4k

You see lots of that and wonder why isn’t it sold or developed.

Potential-Monke

Ah, I work 39 hours a week on a salary of €27000. She's already getting more than me. Then I pay tax of €5400 (single male, no dependants). That leaves me with €21600. Then let's get rid of the rest of that:

Rent: €2400 (€50 pw - living at home thus the cheapness)
Bills: Approx €2400 (€50 pw)
Car Insurance: €890 (TPFT)
Car Tax: €710 (can't afford a car with cheaper tax)
Loans: €2400 (€50 pw - paying back a loan to clear an unaffordable mortgage on a house I've sold already)
Petrol: €3840 (€80 pw thanks to raising prices - 50 mile round trip every day)
Phone credit: €240
Food: €2400 (€50 pw on a good week)

Total: €12880

Take that from my income, leaves me with €8720. I have to pay for doctors myself and with a bad chest, it's usually 10+ trips a year. Medication on top. I'm left with very little to 'enjoy' my life, while this 'person' (I have to be careful, I got barred from another thread for saying what she actually is) and others of her ilk get more than I make in a year for free, plus a roof over their head? I'm the favourite of a Government, single male with no dependants so paying tax and entitled to SFA.

I don't care that she has 7 kids, she opened her legs for them, her own responsibility and fault. But the Government has made a claim culture that appeals to the lazy and inbred. Why would someone break their balls working 39+ hours a week for a wage that's less than what they get for free?

A massive change is needed, and the start is taking the 3rd and subsequent child from anyone on welfare going forward, and cap the welfare. You can pop out as many as you like, but on welfare you can't supply them properly so they are removed. People need to realise that opening your legs should not get you further in life than working. I don't have all the answers, but this is a start imo.

Oh, and no, I don't feel sorry for the kids. History has shown what they will grow up to be, because it's their culture. Not everyone has to have that maternal feeling, and I certainly don't. I couldn't care less about kids in general and I'll never have one. So I don't feel sorry for anyone that does and are struggling and on welfare as a life choice.

end of the road

Potential-Monke wrote: »

A massive change is needed, and the start is taking the 3rd and subsequent child from anyone on welfare going forward, and cap the welfare. You can pop out as many as you like, but on welfare you can't supply them properly so they are removed.

not going to happen. the days of effectively stealing children (taking children from their parent/parents because the parents have done something someone doesn't like) are gone thankfully. the state care system is for children who are in serious danger, not to be used because people don't agree with someone on wellfare having 3 children. a wellfare cap doesn't work either because of ireland's constantly rising costs.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

People need to realise that opening your legs should not get you further in life than working.

it ultimately doesn't.

Arghus

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ah, I work 39 hours a week on a salary of €27000. She's already getting more than me. Then I pay tax of €5400 (single male, no dependants). That leaves me with €21600. Then let's get rid of the rest of that:

Rent: €2400 (€50 pw - living at home thus the cheapness)
Bills: Approx €2400 (€50 pw)
Car Insurance: €890 (TPFT)
Car Tax: €710 (can't afford a car with cheaper tax)
Loans: €2400 (€50 pw - paying back a loan to clear an unaffordable mortgage on a house I've sold already)
Petrol: €3840 (€80 pw thanks to raising prices - 50 mile round trip every day)
Phone credit: €240
Food: €2400 (€50 pw on a good week)

Total: €12880

Take that from my income, leaves me with €8720. I have to pay for doctors myself and with a bad chest, it's usually 10+ trips a year. Medication on top. I'm left with very little to 'enjoy' my life, while this 'person' (I have to be careful, I got barred from another thread for saying what she actually is) and others of her ilk get more than I make in a year for free, plus a roof over their head? I'm the favourite of a Government, single male with no dependants so paying tax and entitled to SFA.

I don't care that she has 7 kids, she opened her legs for them, her own responsibility and fault. But the Government has made a claim culture that appeals to the lazy and inbred. Why would someone break their balls working 39+ hours a week for a wage that's less than what they get for free?

A massive change is needed, and the start is taking the 3rd and subsequent child from anyone on welfare going forward, and cap the welfare. You can pop out as many as you like, but on welfare you can't supply them properly so they are removed. People need to realise that opening your legs should not get you further in life than working. I don't have all the answers, but this is a start imo.

Oh, and no, I don't feel sorry for the kids. History has shown what they will grow up to be, because it's their culture. Not everyone has to have that maternal feeling, and I certainly don't. I couldn't care less about kids in general and I'll never have one. So I don't feel sorry for anyone that does and are struggling and on welfare as a life choice.

Jesus.

You do have a heart don't you? Not just some black lump of coal that slowly emits smoke...

Whatever sympathy or not a person may or may not have for parents in such circumstances. How can you not at some level have sympathy for the children in such situations? They've no control over whatever life situation they find themselves in, they are, as best as anyone can be, blameless and innocent. What you had to say was disgusting.

hatrickpatrick

Arghus wrote: »

Jesus.

You do have a heart don't you? Not just some black lump of coal that slowly emits smoke...

Whatever sympathy or not a person may or may not have for parents in such circumstances. How can you not at some level have sympathy for the children in such situations? They've no control over whatever life situation they find themselves in, they are, as best as anyone can be, blameless and innocent. What you had to say was disgusting.

I don't think the poster you're replying to is actually one of the genuinely heartless right-wingers who just don't believe in the concept of a minimum acceptable quality of life - the post reads more as someone who has, as I outlined above, fallen for the artificial scarcity fallacy. The post is underpinned by the "there's not enough to go around for everyone, therefore it's either her or me who's going to get something so we have to be against eachother in this argument".

It's very convenient for the powers that be that this ideology has managed to fool so many people for the last three decades, but it's demonstrably bullsh!t as the Irish Times article on dereliction and waste of urban land shows. Once again, for those who haven't read it:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/city-vacant-dublin-s-hundreds-of-multi-million-euro-empty-sites-and-properties-1.3635595

The idea that competition for housing is necessary because it's a scarce resource for which demand naturally and inevitably outstrips the finite amount available is a fallacy and a falsehood. We will reach that point at some point in the future if population growth in Dublin continues unabated, but we're very far from reaching it at the moment. If we used these resources properly and dropped the moronic ideology that housing is a commodity and not a national resource, there's no reason that those (rightfully) complaining about being stuck in the suburbs with long commutes cannot be housed right alongside the people on welfare who they regard as their competition for the aforementioned resource.

Simple analogy: There's no need for two people to argue about who's more deserving of the last slice of cake if there are, in fact, two slices of cake left. In the case of vacant land in Dublin which could be used for high density housing, there's actually numerous slices of cake left in the same two-person analogy. But it's very convenient for those profiting from the "housing as an asset" model if people continue to believe the scarcity myth, and thus it persists.

Potential-Monke

Ok, I take your points, but why is it so hard to believe someone doesn't care for kids? Why does everyone have to like them? I hate them, i hate everything about them, they're smelly, loud, entitled, just being around one stresses me. So I avoid them and anything to do with them. Am I not allowed this opinion?

And I'm not left or right wing, I don't get involved in politics. I have my views, they are mine. I shared them on a forum and people are saying that it's wrong. If you knew me in real life, you would know that I help others to the detriment of my own happiness, something I'm working on. Just because I don't like kids doesn't immediately make me a stain on society!

upandcumming

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ok, I take your points, but why is it so hard to believe someone doesn't care for kids? Why does everyone have to like them? I hate them, i hate everything about them, they're smelly, loud, entitled, just being around one stresses me. So I avoid them and anything to do with them. Am I not allowed this opinion?

And I'm not left or right wing, I don't get involved in politics. I have my views, they are mine. I shared them on a forum and people are saying that it's wrong. If you knew me in real life, you would know that I help others to the detriment of my own happiness, something I'm working on. Just because I don't like kids doesn't immediately make me a stain on society!

Were you not told?

Edgware

Arghus wrote: »

Jesus.

You do have a heart don't you? Not just some black lump of coal that slowly emits smoke...

Whatever sympathy or not a person may or may not have for parents in such circumstances. How can you not at some level have sympathy for the children in such situations? They've no control over whatever life situation they find themselves in, they are, as best as anyone can be, blameless and innocent. What you had to say was disgusting.

Will someone please please think of the children!

Captain Obvious

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Oh, and no, I don't feel sorry for the kids. History has shown what they will grow up to be, because it's their culture. Not everyone has to have that maternal feeling, and I certainly don't. I couldn't care less about kids in general and I'll never have one. So I don't feel sorry for anyone that does and are struggling and on welfare as a life choice.

So you have no sympathy for a young child being brought up in that lifestyle?

Wheeliebin30

Arghus wrote: »

Jesus.

You do have a heart don't you? Not just some black lump of coal that slowly emits smoke...

Whatever sympathy or not a person may or may not have for parents in such circumstances. How can you not at some level have sympathy for the children in such situations? They've no control over whatever life situation they find themselves in, they are, as best as anyone can be, blameless and innocent. What you had to say was disgusting.

Adolf hitler was a child once.

What analogy I’m trying to make, I have no idea!!!

hatrickpatrick

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ok, I take your points, but why is it so hard to believe someone doesn't care for kids? Why does everyone have to like them? I hate them, i hate everything about them, they're smelly, loud, entitled, just being around one stresses me. So I avoid them and anything to do with them. Am I not allowed this opinion?

Of course you are, that wasn't the point I was making. I know plenty of people who'd share your opinion on this

And I'm not left or right wing, I don't get involved in politics. I have my views, they are mine. I shared them on a forum and people are saying that it's wrong. If you knew me in real life, you would know that I help others to the detriment of my own happiness, something I'm working on. Just because I don't like kids doesn't immediately make me a stain on society!

I'm not in any way suggesting that you are! But the tone of your post implied that you believed the housing situation to be a zero sum game - in other words, that her getting subsidised housing would somehow impact negatively on your own ability to afford housing in the city. This suggests a belief on your part that housing in Dublin is a scarce resource, and I'm merely demonstrating that this scarcity is entirely manufactured and artificial. I could come up with any number of analogies in history, but some good ones would be the oil shocks of the 1980s and late 2000s, and the potato famine in Ireland. In both cases, commodities became "scarce", but not because they didn't exist or humanity didn't have access to them - because a relatively small number of individuals chose to take deliberate action to make them artificially scarce, even though there was no actual, physical scarcity involved.

Captain Obvious

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ok, I take your points, but why is it so hard to believe someone doesn't care for kids? Why does everyone have to like them? I hate them, i hate everything about them, they're smelly, loud, entitled, just being around one stresses me. So I avoid them and anything to do with them. Am I not allowed this opinion?

You are allowed them. People just find it odd because it's a pretty basic tenant of most species, particularly humans, to have a nurturing or, at the very least, sympathetic feeling towards the young of the species. It's not like people are asking you to adopt a child or anything. But to come out with "I hate everything about them" and to express no sympathy towards them because of the family they are born into seems pretty sociopathic.

Brendan Bendar

Hmm bit of a drift on this thread.

Any word on the investigation into the targeting Gardaì and their families?

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Middle Ireland needs to be vigilant otherwise they will end up sledding up and down the commuter routes

Middle Ireland needs to be asking why are there potential building sites for houses/apartments nearer to their probable places of work as illustrated in that Irish Times piece today. These land/derelict property hoarding c**ts need to be absolutely battered by our taxation system in order to encourage them to put these sites to good use.

P_1

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ah, I work 39 hours a week on a salary of €27000. She's already getting more than me. Then I pay tax of €5400 (single male, no dependants). That leaves me with €21600. Then let's get rid of the rest of that:

Rent: €2400 (€50 pw - living at home thus the cheapness)
Bills: Approx €2400 (€50 pw)
Car Insurance: €890 (TPFT)
Car Tax: €710 (can't afford a car with cheaper tax)
Loans: €2400 (€50 pw - paying back a loan to clear an unaffordable mortgage on a house I've sold already)
Petrol: €3840 (€80 pw thanks to raising prices - 50 mile round trip every day)
Phone credit: €240
Food: €2400 (€50 pw on a good week)

Total: €12880

Take that from my income, leaves me with €8720. I have to pay for doctors myself and with a bad chest, it's usually 10+ trips a year. Medication on top. I'm left with very little to 'enjoy' my life, while this 'person' (I have to be careful, I got barred from another thread for saying what she actually is) and others of her ilk get more than I make in a year for free, plus a roof over their head? I'm the favourite of a Government, single male with no dependants so paying tax and entitled to SFA.

I don't care that she has 7 kids, she opened her legs for them, her own responsibility and fault. But the Government has made a claim culture that appeals to the lazy and inbred. Why would someone break their balls working 39+ hours a week for a wage that's less than what they get for free?

A massive change is needed, and the start is taking the 3rd and subsequent child from anyone on welfare going forward, and cap the welfare. You can pop out as many as you like, but on welfare you can't supply them properly so they are removed. People need to realise that opening your legs should not get you further in life than working. I don't have all the answers, but this is a start imo.

Oh, and no, I don't feel sorry for the kids. History has shown what they will grow up to be, because it's their culture. Not everyone has to have that maternal feeling, and I certainly don't. I couldn't care less about kids in general and I'll never have one. So I don't feel sorry for anyone that does and are struggling and on welfare as a life choice.

Ok I'm noticing everyone focusing on the last paragraph and not the first few that raise a very pertinent point.

Let's drop the outrage and virtue signalling for just a second shall we and discuss something that needs to be discussed.

People who game the system are no better than the bankers.

They're also class enemies of the working class.

How are we going to deal with that?

McMurphy

The thread has veered off course slightly to focus on yer wan Cash, (this year's bogeyman figure) just as previous shambles and crises before them (Paul Murphy water protests).

Just so people are reminded, the thread was about the illegal occupants of a city premises, and their forced removal from same by masked man, while the guards attended the scene to be impartial observers.

The commissioner has said that not everything was done correctly in this instance, the head of the policing authority has said things weren't done right during this incident either
.

Both The Taoiseach and Justice Minister have said that what happened wasn't a welcoming site, and shouldn't have happened, echoed by other TDs and councillors from all across the political spectrum, including members of both FG/FF.

So the general consensus appears to be (from public figures with a semblance of some actual power or influence) who have broadly voiced their concerns on how this was executed (using paramilitary style men), was thay it shouldn't have happened, and shouldn't be repeated in the future.

Such a forced removal with masked men hasn't been repeated since, which would signal to me that it was a PR disaster for the impartial Gardai, and perhaps the gov't, ( who may or may not have had prior knowledge of it. )

Hurry up with the land bank tax, and empty property tax which would target both speculators and investor's, hoarding property in a housing crisis is as bad as hoarding grain or cereal during a famine.

And for balance, they should also crack down on those shacked up in social housing who are liable to pay what can be considered a tiny contribution towards their renting.

Those who should be paying their contributions towards any LA that's refusing to do so should be facing mandatory deductions to salary/wages/dole whatever.

If they can dream up ways of targeting property owner's via earnings/TCC etc, then those inhabiting state housing shouldn't be too hard to identify and go after either.

But let's all focus on fuppin Paul Murphy, the Ra/UVF or Clown car vagina Cash over there >>>>>>>>

Sheep the fcukin lot of ye, you're all being played like fiddles.

realdanbreen

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The thread has veered off course slightly to focus on yer wan Cash, (this year's bogeyman figure) just as previous shambles and crises before them (Paul Murphy water protests).

Just so people are reminded, the thread was about the illegal occupants of a city premises, and their forced removal from same by masked man, while the guards attended the scene to be impartial observers.

The commissioner has said that not everything was done correctly in this instance, the head of the policing authority has said things weren't done right during this incident either
.

Both The Taoiseach and Justice Minister have said that what happened wasn't a welcoming site, and shouldn't have happened, echoed by other TDs and councillors from all across the political spectrum, including members of both FG/FF.

So the general consensus appears to be (from public figures with a semblance of some actual power or influence) who have broadly voiced their concerns on how this was executed (using paramilitary style men), was thay it shouldn't have happened, and shouldn't be repeated in the future.

Such a forced removal with masked men hasn't been repeated since, which would signal to me that it was a PR disaster for the impartial Gardai, and perhaps the gov't, ( who may or may not have had prior knowledge of it. )

Hurry up with the land bank tax, and empty property tax which would target both speculators and investor's, hoarding property in a housing crisis is as bad as hoarding grain or cereal during a famine.

And for balance, they should also crack down on those shacked up in social housing who are liable to pay what can be considered a tiny contribution towards their renting.

Those who should be paying their contributions towards any LA that's refusing to do so should be facing mandatory deductions to salary/wages/dole whatever.

If they can dream up ways of targeting property owner's via earnings/TCC etc, then those inhabiting state housing shouldn't be too hard to identify and go after either.

But let's all focus on fuppin Paul Murphy, the Ra/UVF or Clown car vagina Cash over there >>>>>>>>

Sheep the fcukin lot of ye, you're all being played like fiddles.

Baaaaa!

weldoninhio

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The thread has veered off course slightly to focus on yer wan Cash, (this year's bogeyman figure) just as previous shambles and crises before them (Paul Murphy water protests).

Just so people are reminded, the thread was about the illegal occupants of a city premises, and their forced removal from same by masked man, while the guards attended the scene to be impartial observers.

The commissioner has said that not everything was done correctly in this instance, the head of the policing authority has said things weren't done right during this incident either
.

Both The Taoiseach and Justice Minister have said that what happened wasn't a welcoming site, and shouldn't have happened, echoed by other TDs and councillors from all across the political spectrum, including members of both FG/FF.

So the general consensus appears to be (from public figures with a semblance of some actual power or influence) who have broadly voiced their concerns on how this was executed (using paramilitary style men), was thay it shouldn't have happened, and shouldn't be repeated in the future.

Such a forced removal with masked men hasn't been repeated since, which would signal to me that it was a PR disaster for the impartial Gardai, and perhaps the gov't, ( who may or may not have had prior knowledge of it. )

Hurry up with the land bank tax, and empty property tax which would target both speculators and investor's, hoarding property in a housing crisis is as bad as hoarding grain or cereal during a famine.

And for balance, they should also crack down on those shacked up in social housing who are liable to pay what can be considered a tiny contribution towards their renting.

Those who should be paying their contributions towards any LA that's refusing to do so should be facing mandatory deductions to salary/wages/dole whatever.

If they can dream up ways of targeting property owner's via earnings/TCC etc, then those inhabiting state housing shouldn't be too hard to identify and go after either.

But let's all focus on fuppin Paul Murphy, the Ra/UVF or Clown car vagina Cash over there >>>>>>>>

Sheep the fcukin lot of ye, you're all being played like fiddles.

TL:DR

PlaneSpeeking

end of the road wrote: »

not going to happen. the days of effectively stealing children (taking children from their parent/parents because the parents have done something someone doesn't like) are gone thankfully. the state care system is for children who are in serious danger, not to be used because people don't agree with someone on wellfare having 3 children. a wellfare cap doesn't work either because of ireland's constantly rising costs.




it ultimately doesn't.

I beg you GIVE IT UP!!!!!!

PlaneSpeeking

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Adolf hitler was a child once.

What analogy I’m trying to make, I have no idea!!!

That sometimes children grow up to be criminal and antisocial adults (conscious I'm way downplaying Hitler here!!!) and that is exactly what Ms Cash's feral brood will do ?

PlaneSpeeking

weldoninhio wrote: »

TL:DR

Thank you for quoting - makes me realise the sheer joy of the ignore button and what ****e it's filtering for me !!!!

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Just so people are reminded, the thread was about the illegal occupants of a city premises, and their forced removal from same by masked man, while the guards attended the scene to be impartial observers.

What force was used on the occupants by the men in balaclavas?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The commissioner has said that not everything was done correctly in this instance, the head of the policing authority has said things weren't done right during this incident either

You mean when he said they should have worn the helmets too? Hardly an indictment.