A very interesting paper on lifetime income inequality

[Purple]

I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.

Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.

What bugs me most about this debate is when poverty industry spokespeople start talking about kids going to school hungry.

No child goes to school hungry because of lack of money. If they do go to school hungry either their parents have spent the money on something else (their choice) or alternatively the parents couldn't be ar$ed giving them breakfast. Again, their choice. Nothing to do with "society".

I agree with all of that.

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.

Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.

What bugs me most about this debate is when poverty industry spokespeople start talking about kids going to school hungry.

No child goes to school hungry because of lack of money. If they do go to school hungry either their parents have spent the money on something else (their choice) or alternatively the parents couldn't be ar$ed giving them breakfast. Again, their choice. Nothing to do with "society".

I agree, there is no obvious reason why any child should go to school hungry. But if a child is going to school hungry, then an intervention of some sort is required.
If the child's parents are neglecting the child, it's not the child's fault. The 'poverty lobby', as you call them, are simply interested in the welfare of the child. This may be relayed in the form of calling for additional supports to child welfare officers, schools etc in an effort to intervene in child poverty.

 

[Purple]

The 'poverty lobby', as you call them, are simply interested in the welfare of the child.

How do you know? They use a social issue, bad parenting, and misrepresent it as an economic issue; the child is going to school hungry because they are poor. That's a lie so therefore I have to take from that the poverty industry is more interested in getting more funding than actually helping the child who doesn't get breakfast.
Incidentally my teenage daughter often goes to school without breakfast because she won't get out of bed in the morning and because my ex-wife doesn't "do" cooking. Would an increase in child benefit fix that?

This may be relayed in the form of calling for additional supports to child welfare officers, schools etc in an effort to intervene in child poverty.

Exactly; the issue isn't child poverty, the issue is bad parenting. There is no causal link between income and not getting breakfast. There may be commonality but there is no causality.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

So let me see if I can understand your view.
If you work say, 30yrs+, paying taxes, contributing PRSI etc - it's "your money". But if you are unfortunate to then lose your job and avail of welfare, it then becomes not your money? Is that correct?

Yes, correct. If I become beholden to society, unless ringfenced social insurance funds are introduced, it is not my money.

 

[Purple]

Yes, correct. If I become beholden to society, unless ringfenced social insurance funds are introduced, it is not my money.

It is when it is given to you. You can argue that it shouldn't be given or that it should be given differently but once it is given ownership is transfers with it.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

It is when it is given to you. You can argue that it shouldn't be given or that it should be given differently but once it is given ownership is transfers with it.

From a legal perspective, yes.

 

[TheBigShort]

From a legal perspective, yes.

Yes, quite important to point that out actually. The law is quite important, unless you have plans to usurp it?

It's not their money; it's ours.

So when you say 'ours', who are you speaking of?
From a legal perspective, all taxes due are the monies of the State, not the individual.

 

[TheBigShort]

How do you know? They use a social issue, bad parenting, and misrepresent it as an economic issue; the child is going to school hungry because they are poor. That's a lie so therefore I have to take from that the poverty industry is more interested in getting more funding than actually helping the child who doesn't get breakfast.

I think the point would be that despite all the resources available, it is insufficient to deal with the issue of child poverty. That is reflected in instances where some children are still going to school hungry.

Incidentally my teenage daughter often goes to school without breakfast because she won't get out of bed in the morning and because my ex-wife doesn't "do" cooking. Would an increase in child benefit fix that?

I often don't eat breakfast too. Not because of poverty, but because I'm not hungry.
We are not talking about skipping breakfast, we are talking about a hunger derived from an overall bad diet, adversely affecting the child's potential at school.

Exactly; the issue isn't child poverty, the issue is bad parenting. There is no causal link between income and not getting breakfast. There may be commonality but there is no causality.

It is child poverty, stemming from bad parenting. Whether that bad parenting is due to excessive drink or drugs problems or other neglect I don't know.
If as a nation we are drinking more, taking more drugs, then I don't think it is unreasonable to expect more child neglect.
If a child is being neglected, intervention is required. If there aren't enough resources then expect calls for increased expenditure.

 

[Purple]

I think the point would be that despite all the resources available, it is insufficient to deal with the issue of child poverty. That is reflected in instances where some children are still going to school hungry.

In my opinion the problem is not poverty so the solution is not the targeting of poverty.

We are not talking about skipping breakfast, we are talking about a hunger derived from an overall bad diet, adversely affecting the child's potential at school.

I agree. The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school. Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly. Thereofre the problem is not financial.

If a child is being neglected, intervention is required. If there aren't enough resources then expect calls for increased expenditure.

I've no problem with more resources as long as we first ensure that the resources currently allocated are being spent in the right way.

 

[PGF2016]

The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school.

Take the money off the parent and give it to the school to fund the breakfast.

 

[Delboy]

There are some couples in this country who'd make great parents and unfortunately are unable to have kids of their own. It's nigh on impossible to adopt here anymore from what I understand and so I know people who have gone to Russia, China, Philippines to adopt. And yet there are kids being pushed around Dublin city centre by the 'walking dead' on a daily basis, kids regularly missing school or being abused at home.
I'd rather see those kids removed either temporarily or permanently from their parents and fostered/adopted to caring/loving couples. But the solution seems to be more Social Workers, more welfare interventions etc.

 

[TheBigShort]

The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school. Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they

I don't know of any charity or state agency that is involved with the protection of children that is advocating for more money for parents that neglect their children.

I've no problem with more resources as long as we first ensure that the resources currently allocated are being spent in the right way.

I agree, and this is where we get into the complexities of the issues. Just as €5 increases in unemployment benefit resolve very little, so too would a €5 cut or more.

 

[Purple]

I don't know of any charity or state agency that is involved with the protection of children that is advocating for more money for parents that neglect their children.

Either do I. What point are you making?

 

[TheBigShort]

Either do I. What point are you making?

That there is no 'poverty lobby' advocating increased monies to be given to parents who neglect their children, as implied here;

Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly

if you spend your money on fags, and have no money left over to give your kids breakfast before they leave for school, that's YOUR responsibility. Not the governments, not "society's" - YOURS.

But social justice Ireland and their fellow travellers in the poverty industry will never accept that.

 

[Purple]

That there is no 'poverty lobby' advocating increased monies to be given to parents who neglect their children, as implied here;

I didn't suggest there was. I simply said that doing so achieved nothing.

I think you are arguing against points that nobody is making.

The poverty industry wants more funding for their organisations. Maybe they act with the best of intentions but they are treating symptoms, not root causes. The best example of their ideologically driven thinking was apparent when Brendan was on the Pat Kenny show with the woman from Simon. Her response to his suggestions was to repeat over and over again "but we live in a social democracy", as if that actually meant something which was so clearly defined that a clear housing policy should flow from it.

What it did mean was that I added Simon to the VDP and Threshold as organisations I could not support due to their political ideology as that ideology overrides reason and logic.

 

[TheBigShort]

I didn't suggest there was. I simply said that doing so achieved nothing.

I think you are arguing against points that nobody is making.

It was mentioned;

Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly.

I'm not sure who is advocating for giving the parent more money?

At this point, perhaps you should define who are the 'poverty lobby' as I am not familiar with them.

 

[Purple]

It was mentioned;

It was indeed, but it wasn't advocated.

I'm not sure who is advocating for giving the parent more money?

Either am I. Why do you keep bringing it up?

At this point, perhaps you should define who are the 'poverty lobby' as I am not familiar with them.

Really? Use your imagination.

 

[TheBigShort]

Either am I. Why do you keep bringing it up?

You stated

Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly.

Using my imagination, upon your request, I am trying to figure out who, where or when anyone advocated to give parents who neglect their children more money.
I am only doing this because you seem to be suggesting that someone or something did advocate this in the comment above (otherwise why mention it)?.

On the other hand, you seem pretty clear that no-one has actually advocated giving parents who neglect their children more money, so I'm confused now about this 'poverty lobby'.
If no-one is advocating giving extra money to parents who neglect their children, then how can they be labeled the 'poverty lobby'?

 

[Purple]

You stated



Using my imagination, upon your request, I am trying to figure out who, where or when anyone advocated to give parents who neglect their children more money.
I am only doing this because you seem to be suggesting that someone or something did advocate this in the comment above (otherwise why mention it)?.

On the other hand, you seem pretty clear that no-one has actually advocated giving parents who neglect their children more money, so I'm confused now about this 'poverty lobby'.
If no-one is advocating giving extra money to parents who neglect their children, then how can they be labeled the 'poverty lobby'?

I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I'm stupid.

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I'm stupid.

I don't think you are stupid. I just think that you don't know what you are talking about.