The "Poverty Trap" budget

[Yachtie]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I think for that to be fair, then all involvement in public schools by the Catholic Church should end immediately. If you then wanted your child to be educated in a Catholic Church you should then have to pay as per other religions.

In my opinion, all involvement by the Catholic Church in public education should have ended ages ago.

[T McGibney]

Originally Posted by Complainer

The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.

Fair enough, although I disagree strongly. The various Protestant denominations have been treated shamefully in this State since independence, and hence their numbers have dwindled alarmingly. The existence of Protestant faith schools has helped arrest this decline to some extent. The least the State can do is to look after its minorities. In my opinion, to do otherwise would be a shameful abandonment of any pretence to pluralism in Ireland, all for a minor cost saving.

[micmclo]

offtopic post,edited out

[orka]

Mods, any chance of splitting the private/public school debate from the poverty trap one – I don’t think there’s much overlap in any of the posts and they are quite separate discussions.

But on the public/private education:

Big +1 to all of DerKaiser’s post #39

Originally Posted by Complainer

You're missing the fundamental inequity of a state-subsidised two-tier system, whereby some students get the benefit of smaller classes and better equipment, and others don't - simply due to an accident of birth.

It’s not purely an accident of birth as if some lucky people have pixie dust sprinkled over them at birth and they get born into a ‘rich’ family. Very few people in Ireland come from generations of wealth – most can trace back to rural backgrounds and/or relative poverty. But someone somewhere back in the family tree, maybe a parent, maybe a grandparent, decided to better themselves – by education or enterprise but nearly always through very hard work. They did this so that they, their children and their grandchildren could benefit from their hard work, and usually the next generations did better and better again, often through education. In my family, it was my grandfather and his siblings (poor rural) who took it in turns to work and put each other through college, encouraged by my great-grandparents who saw the value of education but couldn’t afford to pay for it. That sort of self-sacrifice just isn’t seen anymore – it’s all about entitlement and begrudgery.

There are plenty of parents with children in the public system paying for grinds, foreign language trips, sports, music lessons etc. all the while benefiting from the public system (and there is a true accident of birth with this if you happen to live near one of the few really excellent public schools) – why is that okay when private schools basically do away with the need for many of these things for one all-in fee? Between the grinds that many parents have to pay for to compensate for at least a couple of poor teachers per school year and the ‘voluntary contributions’ (one local school near me has a €500 VC which is aggressively pursued), there is often little difference between costs at a private school and costs at a public school for a committed parent willing to make financial sacrifices to help their child.

And as DerKaiser pointed out above, this is the exact same tax/subsidy/’paying for extras’ situation that you see in private health care but there isn’t anywhere near as much begrudgery about that because many of the vocal opponents of public money going into private education are quite happy to live with a comfy two-tier health system because they are benefiting from it.

[DerKaiser]

Originally Posted by orka

but there isn’t anywhere near as much begrudgery about that because many of the vocal opponents of public money going into private education are quite happy to live with a comfy two-tier health system because they are benefiting from it.

Nail on the head.

Somewhat under 10% of kids attend fee paying schools. It's two tier education.

About 50% of people have private medical insurance. It's a two tier health system.

About 85% of people have jobs. It's a two tier employment system.

I wonder is there some correlation here with the the above proportions and those who oppose the various two tier systems ?

We live in a world where people can gain advantage through the means they have in a number of ways. It incentivises a bit of get up and go and leads to inequality of circumstances (rather than opportunity).

Practically everyone buys into some level of inequality or some form of two tier system (otherwise you'd give away all your possessions), so it does seem funny sometimes for the 'a la carte' socialists to tell us where two tier systems are unacceptable whilst tolerating them all around in many other situations.

[Purple]

Complainer is trying to make an economic argument to justify begrudgery.
The reality is that before 1967 all schools were privately owned and funded. The 1967 Education Act ensured access to secondary education for all. That involved the schools that opted into the state system having all of their costs met by the state. This was particularly important at the time as the act required significant improvements in the standards of school buildings. Those schools that didn’t opt in still had to improve their buildings but had to pay for it in full from their own resources. The key point is that the move from private to public was optional.

Complainer is going through contortions to try to show that the state not paying the full cost of education for some schools is actually more expensive than the state paying the full cost for all children.

Bizarre logic but if that’s what passes for logic within the Labour Party it explains a lot!

[thedaras]

Orka, Derkieser and Purple your points are very well made,and I have posted some similar ones myself.

But those of us who agree with your points need to be aware that begrudery is alive and kicking in Ireland,if you cant afford to pay for something,its usually someone else's fault and sure "God love you".

However, if you have worked hard to pay for something you suddenly become the enemy!
I wonder if those who are so opposed to a two tier system,ensure that they have no more than anyone else they know of..doubt it ..

[shnaek]

Originally Posted by orka

It’s not purely an accident of birth as if some lucky people have pixie dust sprinkled over them at birth and they get born into a ‘rich’ family. Very few people in Ireland come from generations of wealth – most can trace back to rural backgrounds and/or relative poverty. But someone somewhere back in the family tree, maybe a parent, maybe a grandparent, decided to better themselves – by education or enterprise but nearly always through very hard work.

Spot on. In my case it was my grandfather. There are many in Ireland who just don't seem to value hard work, and the people who work hard, at all. In fact, the dossers and wasters seem to be more highly valued. How can we ever be self sufficient as long as this attitude persists?

[Yachtie]

Originally Posted by shnaek

Spot on. In my case it was my grandfather. There are many in Ireland who just don't seem to value hard work, and the people who work hard, at all. In fact, the dossers and wasters seem to be more highly valued. How can we ever be self sufficient as long as this attitude persists?

+1

Yeah, and you are an absolute fool if you chose to work even for low pay if you could sit around all day and complain about others subsidising you.

If I may add to your point, what about setting an example for our young? How can you expect your child to become a valuable asset to themselves a well as society if you teach them that you can get away with doing not very much and still have a plasma TV?

[Chris]

Some very interesting and well argued points here. I don't want to add too much here, as I would also call for this thread to be split in two.

Originally Posted by thedaras

But those of us who agree with your points need to be aware that begrudery is alive and kicking in Ireland,if you cant afford to pay for something,its usually someone else's fault and sure "God love you".

As a foreigner living in Ireland, and having travelled a very large part of the world I have to say that I think Irish people are among the most begrudging I have met. This is ofcourse a big generalisation, but it is based on many encounters over the years.

[Complainer]

Originally Posted by DerKaiser

I think it's no stretch to admit making people pay the full economic cost would be the equivalent of banning private education for all those except the very wealthiest.

And the problem with making people pay the full economic cost is?

Originally Posted by DerKaiser

In any case the issue is that the average citizen already pays for education, old age pensions and healthcare (amongst other things) that they might universally hope to benefit from.

"Two tier system" has been used as a toxic term by successive socialist commentators, but how far do we go with a one-tier system?

Education - Should no parent be able to direct their means to provide their child with a better education without kissing goodbye to the already substantial amount they contribute towards general education costs through taxation?

Healthcare - Should no individual be able to direct their means towards providing better healthcare for their families.

Retirement provision - Should no individual be able to prudently provide for a better standard of living for themselves in retirement without losing entitlement to what are currently universal retirement benefits?

If your answer to any/all of the above is yes, you are telling individuals that they have no right to direct their means as they see appropriate. Rather they must rely on the state to decide on an appropriate distribution of resources towards education, health, social protection, etc and accept that whatever the state cannot provide them with (based on the government's or even the EU/IMFs views on what the priorities are), they cannot have.

Here's how far we go. The State should provide a decent quality education, health service, etc. If that State service isn't good enough for you, then you are very welcome to provide your own service at the full economic cost. It doesn't stop anyone from buying the better service. It just means they have to pay for that service.

Originally Posted by Yachtie

For example: I don't think that a boy racer who stole a car and wrapped it around the lamp post and killed somebody in the process should receive the same level of disability and benefits as a roofer who fell off the roof in his line of work.

This is a very dangerous road to go down. Surely the roofer should have had proper safety provisions in place, so he shouldn't get anything. And any smoker who gets ill, they shouldn't get anything. And anyone who is a bit overweight or whose BMI is over 26, they shouldn't get anything. If you want to start playing the blame game, where does it stop?

Originally Posted by Yachtie

We can all play dumb and pretend that people over-claiming benefits or claiming while working for cast are purely fictional and only an excuse or the rest to complain but I can supply at least five names of abusers at a drop of a hat. However, there is not protection offered (as far as I am aware) for doing so, so I keep my mouth shut and rage internally.

What kind of protection are you expecting?

Originally Posted by T McGibney

Fair enough, although I disagree strongly. The various Protestant denominations have been treated shamefully in this State since independence, and hence their numbers have dwindled alarmingly. The existence of Protestant faith schools has helped arrest this decline to some extent. The least the State can do is to look after its minorities. In my opinion, to do otherwise would be a shameful abandonment of any pretence to pluralism in Ireland, all for a minor cost saving.

I don't know a lot about how Protestant denominations have been treated, so I can't really comment on the broad issue. But I'm curious as to how far this could be pushed - should the same deal that applies to Protestant schools also apply to Jewish schools, or Muslim schools, or Pastafarian schools?

Originally Posted by orka

But on the public/private education:

Big +1 to all of DerKaiser’s post #39


It’s not purely an accident of birth as if some lucky people have pixie dust sprinkled over them at birth and they get born into a ‘rich’ family. Very few people in Ireland come from generations of wealth – most can trace back to rural backgrounds and/or relative poverty. But someone somewhere back in the family tree, maybe a parent, maybe a grandparent, decided to better themselves – by education or enterprise but nearly always through very hard work. They did this so that they, their children and their grandchildren could benefit from their hard work, and usually the next generations did better and better again, often through education. In my family, it was my grandfather and his siblings (poor rural) who took it in turns to work and put each other through college, encouraged by my great-grandparents who saw the value of education but couldn’t afford to pay for it. That sort of self-sacrifice just isn’t seen anymore – it’s all about entitlement and begrudgery.

It's not about begrudgery. It really is an accident of birth. I know that many people work hard to build up their financial status, and fair play to them. But for two children, born on the same day in the same hospital, it is very much down to an accident of birth as to what level of healthcare they will get, and what level of education they will get, and whether they will walk into a nice cushy job in the family firm etc etc. There is no good reason why any child in Ireland should not get a basic decent education - and this is certainly not happening across the board today.

Originally Posted by orka

There are plenty of parents with children in the public system paying for grinds, foreign language trips, sports, music lessons etc. all the while benefiting from the public system (and there is a true accident of birth with this if you happen to live near one of the few really excellent public schools) – why is that okay when private schools basically do away with the need for many of these things for one all-in fee? Between the grinds that many parents have to pay for to compensate for at least a couple of poor teachers per school year and the ‘voluntary contributions’ (one local school near me has a €500 VC which is aggressively pursued), there is often little difference between costs at a private school and costs at a public school for a committed parent willing to make financial sacrifices to help their child.

I don't know of any school that includes foreign trips in the basic fee. There is a big difference between a €500 VC and a €5k fee, or a €25k as it should really be.

Originally Posted by orka

And as DerKaiser pointed out above, this is the exact same tax/subsidy/’paying for extras’ situation that you see in private health care but there isn’t anywhere near as much begrudgery about that because many of the vocal opponents of public money going into private education are quite happy to live with a comfy two-tier health system because they are benefiting from it.

Personally, I'd have exactly the same view on healthcare - full economic cost for private patients.

For the record, I pay private health insurance at the moment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of paying private school fees in the future (mainly because I live just round the corner from a private school) - but I would still support any proposal to ensure that those who use those services pay the full economic cost. We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.

[shnaek]

Originally Posted by Complainer

There is no good reason why any child in Ireland should not get a basic decent education - and this is certainly not happening across the board today.

Because of the quality of teachers? Or poor parenting? Or what is the reason for this? We have free education from primary to third level here, there is no reason why everyone wouldn't have the same education.

Originally Posted by Complainer

We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.

I agree. I've always thought of health insurance as a con, just an extra tax based on fear. We spend over 20bn a year on a health service for 3.5million people - health insurance shouldn't be required for a first class service with the money we currently spend.

[DB74]

Originally Posted by Complainer

For the record, I pay private health insurance at the moment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of paying private school fees in the future (mainly because I live just round the corner from a private school) - but I would still support any proposal to ensure that those who use those services pay the full economic cost. We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.

And you might find distinct dis-improvements in the services if all the people who currently go to private hospitals etc start descending on the local hospital

Do you have a breakdown as to how much a private patient costs the State as opposed to a public patient?

I recently needed urgent hospital attention for a sports injury.

I went to the VHI Clinic in Dundrum, primarily because I wasn't prepared to sit in A&E for hours with a non-life-threatening injury when I could be seen there within 15 mins.

It cost €100 for the VHI visit, crutches were extra, as was the walking boot necessary for the next 2 months. The follow-up visits were again private in the Sports Injury Clinic in Santry and again they cost extra.

All-in-all, about €500

And you think that it better serves the taxpayer if I go to my A&E and let Joe Public bear all those costs.

[T McGibney]

Originally Posted by Complainer

I don't know a lot about how Protestant denominations have been treated, so I can't really comment on the broad issue.

Well maybe you should educate yourself accordingly, if you are proposing policy changes that will impact very badly on Irish Protestant culture.

a few suggestions:
John Charles McQuaid - Ruler of Catholic Ireland by John Cooney
The Fethard-on-Sea Boycott by Tim Fanning
Against the Tide by Noel Browne

[Purple]

Originally Posted by Complainer

For the record, I pay private health insurance at the moment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of paying private school fees in the future (mainly because I live just round the corner from a private school) - but I would still support any proposal to ensure that those who use those services pay the full economic cost. We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.

Well here’s the good news; they already do. They pay most of it indirectly through taxation and then they pay the balance directly through fees. Then on top of that consider that the school they send their children to is not being fully funded by the state so in effect those parents are subsidising the public system.
The same applies to those paying private health insurance; they are subsidising the public system by paying for services that would otherwise have to be paid for by the state.

I do find it strange that Complainer is so blasé about the impact his proposals to force parents sending their children to private schools should be forced to pay for it twice (once through taxation and once directly) would have on the Protestant minority. I wonder if he’d have the same attitude if members of the travelling community were forced to pay the full economic cost of the special facilities that the state provides for them? (I’m not having a go at travellers; I agree with the supports the state provide for them).

[Firefly]

I'm with Complainer on parents paying the full cost of private education with no state subsidy of any kind. The main reason is that private schools, like any other private members club, decide on and limit their members, so I don't think they should receive state funding of any kind. The public system is open to all.

Having said that, the effects of the government withdrawing support for private schools, will reduce those entering private schools. I see some adverse outcomes:

Some private schools will close resulting in unemployment (which I don't have a problem with as no private enterprise should depend on state support to remain open)

Super elite private schools will remain and future golden circles will emerge.

Class sizes in the neaby public schools will swell or additional teacher will be hired (unlikely at the moment)

Just to add, I think the same should apply to private health insurance. Make those who want it pay the full costs. The result IMO would be that the vast majority of people (including a lot of people from the voting constituencies) would have to go public and I'm sure standards would improve quickly then!

Finally, I don't think that religion has any place in a school. By all means allow the school the offer religious classes after school but ensure no state aid is given for that. This way each religion is treated the same.

[Chris]

I think Sweden, yes that "socialist" heaven, introduced an extremely successful scheme of school vouchers. The very basic functioning is that every child receives a voucher annually. This voucher can then be used to go to a publicly run school or a private school. Teachers can become entrepreneurs by buying or renting adequate class room space and then advertising as a new school. These private schools can then be chosen by people of any background, as at present schools cannot accept the vouchers and charge more, but you can make a profit.
The result so far has been that the number of publicly run schools has gone down and the choice available to parents has drastically improved. There are now private schools that teach mainly in foreign languages or that focus more science, or art, or anything that may be in demand. This also weeds out the worst run schools and introduces competition into a state monopoly.
I have talked to several teachers I know, especially those that are not on permanent contracts, about what they would think of the idea of setting up their own school if they could attract the same pupils as a state run school with the same per child funding. So far not one of them thought it wasn't a good idea.
I think it is absolutely unfair and scandalous to force people to pay tax to fund a public school even if you opt to not send your child to a public school, thereby reducing the running cost to the public system. Why should someone fund 20% of government budget spending for something they do not use?

[DB74]

Originally Posted by Firefly

Just to add, I think the same should apply to private health insurance. Make those who want it pay the full costs. The result would be that 95% of people (including a lot of people from the voting constituencies) would have to go public and I'm sure standards would improve quickly then!

How sure are you? Have you got any figures or examples to back it up?

The article below states that almost 70% of VHI patients are treated in private hospitals. Are you trying to claim that the HSE and Health system would "improve quickly" if all those people started turning up at their A&E?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...288161882.html

[DB74]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I'm with Complainer on parents paying the full cost of private education with no state subsidy of any kind. The main reason is that private schools, like any other private members club, decide on and limit their members, so I don't think they should receive state funding of any kind. The public system is open to all.

The public system is not fully open to all. You can't choose which school you send your children to if you decide to go via the public system. You can only choose a school if you are within its catchment area. And if that school has poor facilities or poor teachers or other issues beyond your control, well hard luck because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.

[T McGibney]

Originally Posted by DB74

because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.

In most cases (ie unless the school is already full) you do actually have that choice.