Are things that bad?

7sr2z3fely84g5

Sorry for the bleak subject,but vincent de paul are back saying they can barely cope with parents applying who cant afford to put their kids through school,im sure the same will happen over Christmas when their little darlings cant afford that big toy they wanted.

My understanding the utility and mortgage bills are the big stranglehold,some people through no fault are living in poverty thanks to the wealth of taxes from gov and suppliers.

so are things gone bad or is it just an appeal to donate to svp?.

chin_grin

Conspiracy Theories

---

>

Samich

Things could be worse.

alwaysadub

Don't have kids but from what my sisters and friends tell me putting a kid through school costs a fortune! So im not surprised familys that are struggling are looking for help.

7sr2z3fely84g5

alwaysadub wrote: »

Don't have kids but from what my sisters and friends tell me putting a kid through school costs a fortune! So im not surprised familys that are struggling are looking for help.

heard the same,recent report -
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/extra-euro46m-set-aside-for-parents-struggling-to-afford-uniforms-2837808.html

THE Department of Social Protection has set aside an extra €4.6m this year to help families buy clothes and shoes for the new school term.
That is because they expect a surge in the number of applications for social welfare benefits to fund back-to-school costs.
About 160,000 families are expected to apply for the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance this summer ahead of the start of the new school year in September.
In 2009, there were 140,000 applications for the allowance.
The Department of Social Protection has confirmed to the Irish Independent that one reason for the allocation of extra funding to the clothing and footwear allowance is to cover a projected increase in the number of children needing help.
The rising number of children starting second-level education is another reason, as secondary school pupils qualify for the higher rate payment of €305 for those aged 12-22 instead of the €200 payment for children aged 2-11.
A spokesperson for the Department of Social Protection said yesterday that while a greater number of children were expected to be covered by the scheme, an actual figure would not be available until all applications were processed in November.
The majority of the 160,000 families eligible for social welfare benefits to help with back-to-school costs have already received their payments under a new automated system.
Uniforms
Last year, delays in issuing the allowance meant some parents had to take out credit union loans and even resort to money-lenders to meet the cost of uniforms and school shoes.
However, the department has taken over administration of the scheme from the Health Services Executive and, for the first time, payments are being sent out automatically to all eligible families. Already 127,000 of an expected 160,000 families have received the payment.
Meanwhile, the children's charity Barnardos has warned that even with the allowance, many parents are struggling to cope with uniform and school book costs.
Chief executive Fergus Finlay called on the Government to ensure grants for schoolbook rental schemes were being allocated. He also demanded that school budgets be protected from further cuts.

mickydoomsux

You get free money for having kids and it's a choice to have them in the first place.

Zero sympathy.

stovelid

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Zero sympathy.

I can think of other more pressing personality shortages.

wilson10

Evangeline Rancid Trespasser wrote: »

Sorry for the bleak subject,but vincent de paul are back saying they can barely cope with parents applying who cant afford to put their kids through school,im sure the same will happen over Christmas when their little darlings cant afford that big toy they wanted.

My understanding the utility and mortgage bills are the big stranglehold,some people through no fault are living in poverty thanks to the wealth of taxes from gov and suppliers.

so are things gone bad or is it just an appeal to donate to svp?.

I take it you haven't been around for a while then

red menace

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You get free money for having kids and it's a choice to have them in the first place.

Zero sympathy.

Really? Is it not a biological imperative?
Our species depends on breeding our replacements?
So not really a choice

Maybe we could just sterilise the poor?

pragmatic1

red menace wrote: »

Really? Is it not a biological imperative?
Our species depends on breeding our replacements?
So not really a choice

Maybe we could just sterilise the poor?

Theres 6+ billion of us. Maybe a few people not reproducing wouldnt hurt.

mickydoomsux

red menace wrote: »

Really? Is it not a biological imperative?
Our species depends on breeding our replacements?
So not really a choice

Maybe we could just sterilise the poor?

Sure it's a choice.

Do gay people and people who don't want kids not exist?

I'm not sure why you're bringing sterilising anyone into the equation.

red menace

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Sure it's a choice.

Do gay people and people who don't want kids not exist?

I'm not sure why you're bringing sterilising anyone into the equation.

Ok maybe the sterilising thing was over the top, that was just off the top of my head.
My argument is that at a species level the impulse is to increase our numbers. It's not that easy to turn off thousands of years of genetic programming.

Jam

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Sure it's a choice.

Do gay people and people who don't want kids not exist?

I'm not sure why you're bringing sterilising anyone into the equation.

Accidents don't happen?

As far as I can tell, most children are accidents. Or maybe just the company I keep.

Secondly, look at countries with aging populations. There's a huge problem if a disproportionate amount of the population are retired, not paying taxes.

fedor.2.

Some bitter people around here, i hope real life never catches up with them and bursts their bubble

phill106

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Sure it's a choice.

Do gay people and people who don't want kids not exist?

I'm not sure why you're bringing sterilising anyone into the equation.

Both the gay people and people who don't want kids wouldn't exist but for people having kids.

Magic Beans

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You get free money for having kids and it's a choice to have them in the first place.

Zero sympathy.

Their kids will pay for your old age pension because right now that kitty is well and truly cleared out.

krudler

red menace wrote: »

Really? Is it not a biological imperative?
Our species depends on breeding our replacements?
So not really a choice

Maybe we could just sterilise the poor?

since the earth is about to hit 7 billion population, the highest in...well ever, serial breeders can take a break for a while

mackg

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Sure it's a choice.

Do gay people and people who don't want kids not exist?

I'm not sure why you're bringing sterilising anyone into the equation.

gotta sterilise something!

k4kate

I have a job and I find it hard to pay bills so I can imagine that to be on a low income must be very difficult.

Dr_H.Lecter_

Give incentives for neutering.
1 ball snip = 100 free cans of cider, both = 250 cans.

k4kate

Magic Beans wrote: »

Their kids will pay for your old age pension because right now that kitty is well and truly cleared out.

Dead right. Italy, Japan and the Us all have problems because an aging population is not replacing itself.

The kids of today are the tax payers of tomorrow

theg81der

Jam wrote: »

Accidents don't happen?

As far as I can tell, most children are accidents. Or maybe just the company I keep.

Secondly, look at countries with aging populations. There's a huge problem if a disproportionate amount of the population are retired, not paying taxes.

Must be the company you keep - responsible adults wait and have children when they can afford to provide for them. Accidents are very very rare occurances where as just not bothering to be careful is very very common.

mickydoomsux

Magic Beans wrote: »

Their kids will pay for your old age pension because right now that kitty is well and truly cleared out.

I'm not expecting any pension other than the one i'm voluntarily paying into now.

The state pension could be long gone when i'm auld for all we know and i'm not one of those people who thinks you're entitled to anything other than what you earn.

If the state pension is there, grand. If not, i'll get by.

Stinicker

My uncle has five children ranging from 14 to 3, he has a mortgage on his neck and both he and his wife were working full time until the crash in 2008, his wife now gets the odd part time work in a hotel whilst he is still unemployed. His mortgage admittedly is not huge due to frugality on his own part and using the boom to pay it whilst living well within his means.

I don't hear him complaining and neither he nor his wife drinks nor smokes and his kids are never found wanting for all the important things, they are very well mannered and recently I bought his son a coke and some crisps one day I ran into them whilst they were out, he's about 11 and really appreciated it. I think this is a great benefit on his kids and they are not spoilt brats like you'd find during the boom.

The only people you hear grumbling are the lame ass parents who put themselves and their addictions (drink and fags) above their kids and shame on them.

Chuck Stone

we need more wee'uns replacing us or the ponzi scheme collapses.

SheFiend

theg81der wrote: »

Must be the company you keep - responsible adults wait and have children when they can afford to provide for them. Accidents are very very rare occurances where as just not bothering to be careful is very very common.

So true. Getting pregnant after having unprotected sex is no accident. If contraception is really 99.9 percent effective then accidents are not exactly common.

Messi2

Stinicker wrote: »

My uncle has five children ranging from 14 to 3, he has a mortgage on his neck and both he and his wife were working full time until the crash in 2008, his wife now gets the odd part time work in a hotel whilst he is still unemployed. His mortgage admittedly is not huge due to frugality on his own part and using the boom to pay it whilst living well within his means.

I don't hear him complaining and neither he nor his wife drinks nor smokes and his kids are never found wanting for all the important things, they are very well mannered and recently I bought his son a coke and some crisps one day I ran into them whilst they were out, he's about 11 and really appreciated it. I think this is a great benefit on his kids and they are not spoilt brats like you'd find during the boom.

The only people you hear grumbling are the lame ass parents who put themselves and their addictions (drink and fags) above their kids and shame on them.

Never a truer word spoken on Boards.

Tayla

Evangeline Rancid Trespasser wrote: »

Sorry for the bleak subject,but vincent de paul are back saying they can barely cope with parents applying who cant afford to put their kids through school,im sure the same will happen over Christmas when their little darlings cant afford that big toy they wanted.

My understanding the utility and mortgage bills are the big stranglehold,some people through no fault are living in poverty thanks to the wealth of taxes from gov and suppliers.

so are things gone bad or is it just an appeal to donate to svp?.

The thing with SVP is that although they do do a lot of good work, they also give a lot of money out which they shouldn't. I think they are a great organisation however but I think they could probably be a bit stricter with the money they give out.

I know people who get the back to school payment (can't remember the name) and it still barely covers the costs and they have really struggled to pay for everything and I really feel for these people. I also know people who get that payment but have plenty of money to drink/smoke etc but still complain about how expensive it is and personally I know of one such woman in receipt of that payment who wastes her money on cigarettes etc and has since went to the SVP for help for the school items.

I think they're seen as a soft touch and I worry that some genuine people who are really really in need have to go without because of the greedy people. I also would dread to think about what the state of the country would be like if we didn't have the SVP in this country.

My son's going into senior infants, his books cost €70 and his uniform was around €70 altogether and I could have got it for around €30 if i'd gotten the plain jumpers and stitched the crest on but I found the other ones to be better quality. I paid for it myself and I realise some people especially with multiple childen have absolutely huge bills for the books etc. but there's also a lot who could afford to pay all the costs but still they'd rather complain about how expensive it is.

MagicSean

Clearly the answer is to cancel Christmas. An unnecessary cost.

I can't understand how you'd need a credit union loan to buy a uniform. Unless it's made by gucci or something.

pragmatic1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

we need more wee'uns replacing us or the ponzi scheme collapses.

Bionic old people is the answer.

fearbainne

SheFiend wrote: »

So true. Getting pregnant after having unprotected sex is no accident. If contraception is really 99.9 percent effective then accidents are not exactly common.

dvpower

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You get free money for having kids and it's a choice to have them in the first place.

Zero sympathy.

You'll be making out a cheque to the state for all of the money the state paid towards your education and child benefit etc?

SheFiend

fearbainne wrote: »

I don't hate women Fearbainne, I don't know where you got that idea.

theg81der

On the flip side - the children didn`t ask to be brought into this world and looking after them is for the common good. IF thats actually where the money ends out thou.

freckles1234

Its not the childrens fault that they are born, parents can afford to go out drinking and go out foreign on their holidays but then they get money of the vincent the paul to put their children through school. What a Joke

hinault

Evangeline Rancid Trespasser wrote: »

Sorry for the bleak subject,but vincent de paul are back saying they can barely cope with parents applying who cant afford to put their kids through school,im sure the same will happen over Christmas when their little darlings cant afford that big toy they wanted.

My understanding the utility and mortgage bills are the big stranglehold,some people through no fault are living in poverty thanks to the wealth of taxes from gov and suppliers.

so are things gone bad or is it just an appeal to donate to svp?.

in my experience sdp are a very pragmatic and hardworking organisation and they call it as they see it.
I wouldn't discount what they say.

mikemac

Any remember the Christmas bonus the long term unemployed got? You needed to be unemployed for over fifteen months to get it.

So the last government ended it and this was done in April.
Now if it was done in late November I'd understand anger but it was April so lots and lots of notice.
rage and anger whipped up the St Vincent de Paul and Fr. McVerry and the usual lobby groups.

A bit overdone in my opinion.
Pensioners or people on disability didn't get double payments as I remember.

Plus if you were unemployed in April, how did they know you would still be unemployed next December?

7sr2z3fely84g5

hinault wrote: »

in my experience sdp are a very pragmatic and hardworking organisation and they call it as they see it.
I wouldn't discount what they say.

im not,i would rather donate to them or simon community instead of the usual charities,but i wonder do some people abuse the generosity of the charity because they refuse to give up their celtic tiger processions?.

SheFiend

Evangeline Rancid Trespasser wrote: »

i wonder do some people abuse the generosity of the charity because they refuse to give up their celtic tiger processions?.

I'd hate to think that some do. Sadly I suspect it though. It's sad to think that a charity could be abused when there are families that are genuinely in need.

oppenheimer1

k4kate wrote: »

Dead right. Italy, Japan and the Us all have problems because an aging population is not replacing itself.

The kids of today are the tax payers of tomorrow

So whats the answer then? Eternal population growth in a world of diminishing resources??

dvpower

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So whats the answer then? Eternal population growth in a world of diminishing resources??

Replacement levels in countries with an ageing population.
That or large scale immigration.

Padraig Mor

hinault wrote: »

in my experience sdp are a very pragmatic and hardworking organisation and they call it as they see it.
I wouldn't discount what they say.

The Vincent de Paul are full of crap.

Irish Independent wrote:

As the country tries to come to terms with the combined fire storm of the recession and the Budget, it is at least somewhat refreshing to see that we haven't lost our charitable instincts.

On the radio, on television, in print and via email, we have all received innumerable exhortations to momentarily forget about our own problems and instead start to think of those less fortunate than ourselves.

It's a noble sentiment and there is no doubt that the need for charitable organisations has never been greater.

As a spokesman for the St Vincent de Paul correctly pointed out yesterday, the cuts in social welfare will force people who were already hanging on by their fingertips into the arms of groups like his.

And while the Vincent de Paul do sterling work, I am sure of one thing -- they won't be getting any cash from me this Christmas.

This is not, you understand, because I am feeling even more Scrooge-like than normal; nor is it a desire to see more people have a miserable Christmas.

Rather, it is because of an experience I had two Christmases ago which was a real eye-opener in terms of how charity is administered.

A good mate of mine was a volunteer for the group and, realising that it was about time I tried to bank any karmic points that might be out there, I agreed to help him out with a charity drive one night.

And so, in the company of some genuinely selfless volunteers, we went into the north inner city to deliver the traditional Christmas hamper.

Except the recipients weren't getting a hamper -- they were being handed envelopes full of cash.

The amount differed according to the perceived needs of each recipient -- or 'clients' as they were politely referred to -- and the whole experience was, frankly, nauseating.

For understandable, if misguided reasons, volunteers are warned not to make any judgments against the people receiving the free money, but the bile rose in the back of my throat with each house we visited.

Because what became clear was that these people were not poor -- the vast majority of them were simply lazy, indolent good-for-nothings.

Now, that's going to sound unduly harsh and mean spirited and cruel and judgmental and all those things that are frowned upon.

But when you go into a house to give someone an envelope of cash and you see that they have a bigger wide-screen telly than you yourself own, then you realise that there is no way you can equate these people with genuine, actual poverty.

When I pointed out that being so poor and destitute that you required the humiliation of charitable assistance was not exactly consistent with owning a big bloody telly, I was quickly informed that wide-screen televisions were seen as a status symbol among that group of people and therefore they all had one and, again, I should stop being such a judgmental jerk.

The other thing that struck me was the utter lack of shame the recipients -- young, fit and healthy men in my age group -- showed when they got their envelopes. The first person we encountered was a bloke in his 30s who had seen the volunteers entering his street and he rushed out, demanding in that appalling flat nasal tone so popular these days: "where's meee Christmas hamper?"

And, having been given his envelope, he sloped off, issuing neither thanks for the gift nor apology for being a healthy man in his 30s reduced to the status of a bum.

This pattern was replicated in every house we went to -- big-screen telly, eagerly outstretched hand and rarely a word of thanks.

And then, when one of the people we visited apologised for his dog -- a lovely little fellow -- for barking at us (what dog doesn't bark at someone knocking on their door, for God's sake?) and then issued the statement: "Sorry about that. I'm going to drown him in the canal tomorrow," I finally lost it.

Here you have a scumbag who talks about drowning dogs and he's being given free money? Where's the justice or common sense in that? I then discovered, via the volunteer I was with, that it is actually against St Vincent de Paul policy to tell their 'clients' that you are going to kick their f***ing head in. Who wudda thunk it?

But there was one house, the last one we visited, that restored at least some faith in human dignity and, most importantly of all, pride.

A middle-aged woman who looked several decades older than her true years was single-handedly rearing all of her grandchildren because, I later learned, all her daughters were going through various degrees of drug addiction. She was an incredible woman, a noble throw back to the days of the true working class, not the welfare class that the younger generation had descended into.

And, tellingly, she was the only 'client' who seemed in any way embarrassed to be relying on the kindness of strangers. "Things will be better next year, please God," she smiled weakly as she took the envelope.

As we left, I was filled with a burning sense of rage and injustice -- in fact, I wanted to go back to all the previous houses we had visited and take all the envelopes back and give them, instead, to this woman -- someone who genuinely needed and deserved it.

I've been thinking about that woman since the Budget was announced.

Why do we, as a society, make life more difficult for people like her? These are the people who hold communities together, who put their own lives on hold while they look after and care for those around them, while we continue to give lazy, work-shy scum free money?

It's not the fault of the selfless, heroic and, in some areas, physically brave volunteers from the Vinny de Paul and other volunteer groups -- they see what they see every day and have decided it's best to simply try and do the right thing without making the kind of disapproving, libertarian judgments I had formed. They do an incredible job under increasingly hazardous conditions and they all deserve the thanks of a nation.

Nope -- it's the fault of a society which has told several generations of young men that it's not their fault if they can't get a job, even though, at the time, there was almost full employment and jobs were abundant.

Let's put it this way -- unless you have a genuine medical condition which precludes you from working, nobody should be entitled to any social-welfare benefits as long as McDonalds are looking for staff. It's as simple as that.

So, this year, I will as usual be making a donation to charity.

But it will come in the form of teddy bears and toys and things that will help to make a kid's Christmas a bit more bearable -- and you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be no cash involved.

Link to article.

dvpower

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The Vincent de Paul are full of crap.



Link to article.

Well. If Ian O'Doherty says so.:rolleyes:

sock puppet

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So whats the answer then? Eternal population growth in a world of diminishing resources??

The answer surely is to aim for the birth rate remaining as is.

Dyr

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You get free money for having kids and it's a choice to have them in the first place.

Zero sympathy.

And so many people make poor choices in that regard.


Like yorema

oppenheimer1

sock puppet wrote: »

The answer surely is to aim for the birth rate remaining as is.

if the birth rate remains as it is the world population will grow exponentially. If we just have a replacement rate then the population pyramid changes shape to a column and we still have a problem. Ireland currently has a birth rate that matches the replacement rate.

Actually the only solution in the long term is to either reduce pensioner benefits, make people work longer or reduce the global population significantly.

phasers

Pressure needs to be put on the schools to get rid of these bullshit crested uniforms. My uniform used to cost 200 quid, that was just for a kilt (aka a long piece of material), a black jumper with a tiny crest on it and a school coat, which we had to wear. Any other coat was banned and would be confiscated. We were meant to get a school tracksuit too but I just wore regular stuff and no teacher ever questioned me, mostly because they thought the rule was retarded too.

It's insane! In Dunnes you can get 2 skirts,a few shirts and a jumper for 20 quid, sorted. The schools can offer an iron on crest for a few quid if the crest is so bloody important to them.

Books are another racket, in secondary school they cost upwards of €150 a year, and the books change (extremely slightly) every year so it's really hard to pass books on to siblings anymore.

sock puppet

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

if the birth rate remains as it is the world population will grow exponentially. If we just have a replacement rate then the population pyramid changes shape to a column and we still have a problem. Ireland currently has a birth rate that matches the replacement rate.

Actually the only solution in the long term is to either reduce pensioner benefits, make people work longer or reduce the global population significantly.

I thought you just meant Ireland, nevermind.

We can always just start eating our old anyway.

phasers wrote: »

Pressure needs to be put on the schools to get rid of these bullshit crested uniforms. My uniform used to cost 200 quid, that was just for a kilt (aka a long piece of material), a black jumper with a tiny crest on it and a school coat, which we had to wear. Any other coat was banned and would be confiscated. We were meant to get a school tracksuit too but I just wore regular stuff and no teacher ever questioned me, mostly because they thought the rule was retarded too.

It's insane! In Dunnes you can get 2 skirts,a few shirts and a jumper for 20 quid, sorted. The schools can offer an iron on crest for a few quid if the crest is so bloody important to them.

Books are another racket, in secondary school they cost upwards of €150 a year, and the books change (extremely slightly) every year so it's really hard to pass books on to siblings anymore.

+1. My brother can't use any of my old books for his leaving. In college I always just use whatever edition they have in the library but it's a lot more difficult to do that in school when the teacher uses the book to teach from.

carlybabe1

fedor.2. wrote: »

Some bitter people around here, i hope real life never catches up with them and bursts their bubble

dontcha love it, karma is a bitch
school books for first year is 300 e, thats just the effing books, jumper is 50, the jumper :eek:, then have to get rest of uniform, plus coat,(no penneys shlte here, and its a public school), tracksuit shoes, and runners :mad: (they have to be the kind (expensive) that wont leave marks on the gym floor) :mad:

MagicSean

carlybabe1 wrote: »

dontcha love it, karma is a bitch
school books for first year is 300 e, thats just the effing books, jumper is 50, the jumper :eek:, then have to get rest of uniform, plus coat,(no penneys shlte here, and its a public school), tracksuit shoes, and runners :mad: (they have to be the kind (expensive) that wont leave marks on the gym floor) :mad:

€300? Not bad for a years worth of education. And what exactly is wrong with Penneys? So lets say you spend another €300 on clothing anyway because you don't want to buy something that might be considered cheap. The clothes can last at least 2 years. Leaving a grand total of €450 for a years worth of education. Pretty cheap by any account.

dvpower

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The clothes can last at least 2 years.

When they come up with a way to stop children from growing, sure.