Eradicating child poverty a priority

This thread. What's being left out of IQEQ debate in this chat is ambition. Ambition can be a driving force in anyone. If either opportunity, wealth or IQEQ are not available, ambition can head in other directions.
If ambition, IQEQ are available, and the conditions are right, then opportunity can be opened up in a good direction.

Clearly it's pre-budget submission time - but articles like this make me think "child-poverty" is here to stay, as long as its measured in terms of comparisons with two-parent families.

It would make absolute sense for Government policy to encourage and support marriage, or at least the co-habitation of both parents of children. But there's zero chance of that. In fact there'd be outrage, with accusations of "victim blaming," and imposition of traditional family norms, patriarchal society etc. I can already hear the shrill voices from the social justice warriors in the media.



Most of Ireland’s poorest children live in one-parent families. We all share a moral responsibility to prevent poverty reaching unprecedented levels and ensure everybody in Ireland has a decent standard of living.

Howth Head said:

least the co-habitation of both parents of children. But there's zero chance of that. In fact there'd be outrage, with accusations of "victim blaming," and imposition of traditional family norms, patriarchal society etc. I can already hear the shrill voices from the social justice warriors in the media.

Click to expand...

There is usually an excellent reason why people are not living together. State encouragement to be in a couple will not solve other problems that separate couples or stop them becoming one in the first place.

misemoi said:

There is usually an excellent reason why people are not living together.

Click to expand...

Yea, the social welfare system.

Many of the one parent families aren't in fact one parent families. The are one parent for the purposes of access to welfare and social housing but both parents cohabit and both contribute to the raising of their children. For that reason I think that levels of relative income poverty are grossly overstated in this country.

Of the 14 men I work with who live in social housing 12 are theoretically not living with or contributing financially to the household in which their children live. In reality only 3 are not living with their children and all of them contribute financially.
A colleague is getting married later this year having lived with his partner for almost 20 years. They have 3 children. She got a 4 bedroom council house earlier this year, one they have been trying to get for years. That means that they can now get married.
He's a great Dad, volunteers with a local charity, is involved in the local football club and is an all-round good guy. He and his partner are incentivised to the tune of nearly three quarters of aa million Euro in housing and around $30,000 a year in Welfare payments to lie to the State. It's very hard to blame them.

The proposal from the ESRI to increase the means-tested second-tier child payment from €50 per week per child to €220 per week per child will, in my opinion, act as a very strong incentive for parents to not work, and stay on welfare.

The current QCI rates per child are:

under 12 = €50 per week
Aged 12 and over = €62 per week.

Bear in mind that the universal Child Benefit has been fixed for years at €140 per month / €32.20 per week. It's value has fallen in real terms.

Whereas the targeted QCI has been increased over the past decade.


The proposal is to replace the QCI with a suggested payment of €222.60 per week per child.

This would reduce child poverty, yes.

But it makes non-working much more attractive.

Let's take the example of a lone parent with two children


Now: 244 + 50 + 50 = 344 per week
Proposal; 244 + 222.60 + 222.60 = 690 per week

This would double the welfare income.

I see see this acting as a strong pull factor for EU migrants.

Ambition can indeed help lift a family out of poverty. But the saying « she can’t be it if she can’t see it » applies to all really.

If you don’t see role models, from wherever you find them, it’s hard to see that work and education lead anywhere. It applies a lot to girls but equally to many kids and adults who aren’t coached to see and grasp opportunities and invest in themselves for a few years,
Many families don’t see the benefit from extended education. Their doctors teachers etc are all from a different area and a different economic class.

I don’t know if the change in law in the Uk regarding education until 18 has had any impact. A few families I know were furious about it as their 16 year olds were now expected to be apprentices, with time off to study and attend courses, rather than just getting jobs. And these were not all families where they needed 16 year olds to be contributing to the household. The era when you started as a shop assistant and progressed to manager are gone, and it was never guaranteed, the graduates are joining further up the chain and progressing faster.

Enabling families to keep kids in school etc is key IMO.

Here we go again.

It's the same report over and over - with the only solution offered being more welfare increases.


The ESRI has suggested the implementation of targeted policy measures to support lone parents, large families, and households with a person with disabilities is essential to address their high risk of poverty.

It added that "timely adjustments" to social welfare payments, including pensions, "are critical" to protect vulnerable groups from inflation and economic disruptions.