nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How much would you give up for a better society?

Dr Crayfish

The story of the homeless couple in the Phoenix Park and the horrible attitudes of people got me thinking...
If we could pump money into efficient health services and the facilities to deal with homelessness, and the huge heroin problem in Ireland (well Dublin anyway), and better facilities for rehabilitating criminals perhaps to a Scandinavian model standard, and Public Transport links, what percentage of your net wages would you be willing to give up?
I'm going to say 10% myself, and I'd probably be willing to do more if that was the general consensus. Most of us spend a lot of money on crap we don't need like take aways and meals in restaurants and gadgets etc and stuff people didn't need or want 30 years ago.

I'm well aware if we paid more tax our inept powers that be would just have it magically disappear while nothing would improve, but say we outsourced our Government to PWC or Accenture, proper professionals who get things done and account for their spending, not muppets like Jackie Healy Rae and senior Civil Servants who stumbled their way up the ranks, would you be willing to sacrifice some of your salary?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Right2Write

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

If they do this they're doing it because they don't know any better. Their parents did it and so forth. I would have thought helping these people, the less educated and poorer people, would results in more of them choosing a different life, as they'd be aware of other options.

The young women get pregnant, have children so that they can make a life for themselves. It's a valid intelligent choice to look at the social welfare system and see how you can make it work for yourself. The fellas have it harder, they 'get their hole' when it suits and sometimes father a child, but a calculation has to be made as to whether it's worth getting married etc.

Looked at in the round, this is good for society. Having and rearing children is important for the overall health of society. It's possibly the most important job of all.

But it does create a 'moral hazard' of sorts. If you follow your OP premise and divvy out everyone's wealth, well a lot of people will look at what's on offer and make similar intelligent choices, both men and women.

tritium

It would be nice if we effectively managed the tax we do collect first and see what we could do with it.

As it stands allocation of public spending has more to do with a political popularity contest than actual efficient use of resources.

Once we've done that lets see what, if anything, the deficit is

Jimbob1977

In an ideal world (kinda like Star Trek), wages and salaries would cease to exist.

Humans would work for the common good. Farmers would tend the land, doctors would treat the sick, engineers would design and build infrastructure.

Everyone with adequate food, housing and transportation. No need for cash.

Humanity's biggest problem is greed. If we worked for a shared goal, there's no limit to what we could achieve.

But nobody is willing to make the first move.

JustTheOne

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

In an ideal world (kinda like Star Trek), wages and salaries would cease to exist.

Humans would work for the common good. Farmers would tend the land, doctors would treat the sick, engineers would design and build infrastructure.

Everyone with adequate food, housing and transportation. No need for cash.

Humanity's biggest problem is greed. If we worked for a shared goal, there's no limit to what we could achieve.

But nobody is willing to make the first move.

Communism?

Jimbob1977

JustTheOne wrote: »

Communism?

Communism still had wealth and some property. I'm talking about zero money. A cashless society. Jobs assigned on the basis of talents. Everyone working hard to make mankind better.

Wishful thinking

DEFTLEFTHAND

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Homelessness and heroin addiction are down to bad decisions? I feel like I'm at a Donald Trump rally here ffs.

I don't understand what you mean here. Surely making poor life choices has a lot to do with these issues.

The majority of people who come from poor backgrounds don't end up as drug abusers. Instead they finish their education, find employment etc. In other words they make good choices in life.

On the other side of the tracks it's not entirely uncommon to see 'privileged' kids rebelling against their upbringing and to start experimenting with drugs and going the wrong way in life. I could point you to somebody in my own family who has made and continues to make bad choices in life.

Jimbob1977

SPX Option wrote: »

Such a deluded post, bang of 1st year humanities off it.

Never said it was going to happen.

Aspirational

Clarebelly

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

In an ideal world (kinda like Star Trek), wages and salaries would cease to exist.

Humans would work for the common good. Farmers would tend the land, doctors would treat the sick, engineers would design and build infrastructure.

Everyone with adequate food, housing and transportation. No need for cash.

Humanity's biggest problem is greed. If we worked for a shared goal, there's no limit to what we could achieve.

But nobody is willing to make the first move.

Jimbob's log, Stardate 41153.7.

Deub

I would reduce first the money given to people who don't want to work and give more to people that really want to get a job.
Like everything you will have people that would deserve more but you will always have people abusing the system. So if you increase the money given you will get even more abusers.
If only we could choose the people we want to give money to ...

Tsipras

Bigby wrote: »

I get up at 7 every morning to go to work. I got €3.10 per week extra from this year's budget. A lad down the road hasn't worked in 8 years and he gets €5 per week extra for doing absolutely nothing, he'll also get a Christmas "bonus".

They can go fcuk off, they get too much as it is. Sick of paying for other idiots' bad decisions in life.

If you think it's great on the dole you're free to go on it and live the high life

prinzeugen

SPX Option wrote: »

Such a deluded post, bang of 1st year humanities off it.

Take it you never watched Star Trek then.. If you are smart you will do well regardless of background.

Sure we have most of the basic tech from it now anyway!

The big problem with giving stuff is that people want more then.

Just look at the NHS in the UK. Give an inch and people take a mile.

Capt'n Midnight

FURET wrote: »

That is very naive. A lot of poverty is behavior driven, culture-driven even. The only people who can fix it are the societies and individuals themselves, not robbing 62 people out of 7 billion.

Yes education would help as would access to healthcare. But they aren't easy options if you are in a poverty trap and getting poorer.

There is a saying that a rising tide lifts all boats. When things like Gini coefficient show a society is becoming polarised and the richest section of society is accumulating wealth at the expense of the poorest then that society is less stable. And if there is unrest then you know who's going to be on the sharp end of any crackdown.

prinzeugen

Clarebelly wrote: »

Jimbob's log, Stardate 41153.7.

You think its funny but I did it. "The acquisition of wealth is not important. Work to better yourself" - J L Picard

Now a supervisor in both part time jobs.

And from experience in one job, cocaine is more of a problem than heroin.

Wanderer78

prinzeugen wrote: »

And from experience in one job, cocaine is more of a problem than heroin.

both are a problem

bnt

If you were to increase income and/or corporate tax today, that would only apply to the future, and do nothing to reverse the accumulation of wealth. So I think we meed a wealth tax on assets over a certain high amount - say 2% on everything over €2 million. Start with Bono.

Geuze

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

If we could pump money into efficient health services and the facilities to deal with homelessness,

Note that we currently overspend on health, given the age profile of our population.

We spend 32,000 each year on each homeless person.

Geuze

Bigby wrote: »

I get up at 7 every morning to go to work. I got €3.10 per week extra from this year's budget. A lad down the road hasn't worked in 8 years and he gets €5 per week extra for doing absolutely nothing, he'll also get a Christmas "bonus".

They can go fcuk off, they get too much as it is. Sick of paying for other idiots' bad decisions in life.

You won't like what I'm about to tell you.

In return for 40 years work, tax and PRSI, you will get a State Pension just 11 euro per week more than the non-contributory pension available to the lad down the road.

paddydriver

Would happily pay 2-3% extra tax for a prison system that didn't have revolving doors and if some scum bag is done for same offence 3 times then he/she doesn't get back on the streets for a very long time.. maybe then they will think harder about being a repeat offender cause at the moment its is clear they don't give a sh1te or fear the justice system in anyway.

Supergurrier

I believe people as a whole are inherently good and do their bit. But it's the delivery of the goodwill and charity that people provide that lets those dependant on it down.

Look at the heads of various charities and in more corrupt states governments skimming off the majority of whats left for themselves and interest groups/shareholders(buddies).

Just my view anyway.

BunkMoreland

I would give up nothing.

In fact i'd gladly pay no tax even if it meant several homeless junkie deaths due to lack of services.

Special Circumstances

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I'm well aware if we paid more tax our inept powers that be would just have it magically disappear while nothing would improve, but say we outsourced our Government to PWC or Accenture, proper professionals who get things done and account for their spending, not muppets like Jackie Healy Rae and senior Civil Servants who stumbled their way up the ranks, would you be willing to sacrifice some of your salary?

Skim read the thread... but are people assuming that consultancy firms have not been involved in gigantic wastes of our money all along, or just that the particular ones mentioned here are better than the ones that have been colluding in complete and utter farces?

quadrifoglio verde

I'd give up all of your money op, so that I can have better services....but you can feck off if you expect me to pay anymore

[Deleted User]

Bigby wrote: »

I get up at 7 every morning to go to work. I got €3.10 per week extra from this year's budget. A lad down the road hasn't worked in 8 years and he gets €5 per week extra for doing absolutely nothing, he'll also get a Christmas "bonus".

You could, of course, always choose not to work and to join them if their lives are so much better.

Stheno

Nothing from me, am in the middle of my tax return

[Deleted User]

Geuze wrote: »

Note that we currently overspend on health, given the age profile of our population.

We spend 32,000 each year on each homeless person.

Most of which is given to enterprising business people running frequently dodgy accommodation. Far smarter for Fine Gael to keep handing their own crowd over money - including €600 million in rent allowance - than to create permanent housing solutions that bypass gangster landlord running slums in Cabra Park or the like.

There's a reason why nearly six years after coming to power Fine Gael refuses to implement policies that will increase housing supply in Dublin. Those landlords who got rent increases of 20% last year alone are very happy. But how dare Anto and Deco look for a 5% wage increase!

andekwarhola

I'd be in general agreement about the environmental effect of deprivation but it shouldn't always be the final yardstick.

I know from experience that most people from deprived backgrounds don't become junkies and I myself personally know more than one example of people from such a economic background that went down that path by pure choice regardless of family support. The thought of some of them constantly guilt tripping the authorities and counsellors always makes me chuckle.

And it's not as if anybody from a middle-class background never turned out to be criminal, violent or an addict.

It's not always helpful to fall over ourselves to offer platitudes about deprivation when dealing with recalcitrant types although it should always be borne in mind as a factor of varying degrees.

Arghus

Judging by some of the responses on this thread I might have a better life if I give up boards.

ChikiChiki

There's a lad about 8 houses up the road from me who lives with his sister. The sister goes out with their first cousin and they have a child together. They all live together in a council house. None of them have ever worked a day in their lives, it's an absolutely pathetic situation. They have food deliveries to the house every night of the week that we the taxpayer pay for. Also they've all got a pay rise in the last budget. Madness.

I'm sure there a plenty on here who'd feel sorry for them. 'A product of their environment' or some nonsense.

Special Circumstances

ChikiChiki wrote: »

There's a lad about 8 houses up the road from me who lives with his sister. The sister goes out with their first cousin and they have a child together. They all live together in a council house. None of them have ever worked a day in their lives, it's an absolutely pathetic situation. They have food deliveries to the house every night of the week that we the taxpayer pay for. Also they've all got a pay rise in the last budget. Madness.

I'm sure there a plenty on here who'd feel sorry for them. 'A product of their environment' or some nonsense.

I actually believe that at some enlightened point in the future it will be considered some kind of abuse the way people were incentivised to raise generation after generation in this cycle.

There has to be a safety net but we are doing it wrong if it is an aspiration for some for themselves, their children and their grandchildren to live out their lives within it.

Shenshen

Another 20% or so - it would bring my tax levels back up to what I was paying when I was living in Germany, and if the services available increased to the same level I'd be very happy.