Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you contribute €2 per week to solve homelessness?

1234689

Comments

  • #152
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djPSB wrote: »
    Hypothetical situation.

    Supposing the solution to the homelessness crisis was that every citizen in the country would contribute €2 per week. So hypothetically everyone would have to contribute, those on social welfare, students, low earners, high earners etc. Everyone.

    And say, again hypothetically, the money was guaranteed to solve homelessness in Ireland, would you be happy to pay €2 per week?

    Don't want to get into the 'Government would just waste the money debate'. Let's just assume for once the money was used resourcefully and solved the problem.

    So essentially, your €2 will be used to give homeless people free shelter and food and ultimately a path to recovery.

    There should be a "The questions is absurd" option. Because although most people would say yes, myself included, there are two facts that make this hypothetical about as realistic as "what would you do if the sky were pink with lime green polka dots".

    1) Some people are homeless for reasons other than economics. There are limits to what can be done for them.
    2) If you gave that money to the government, they would waste it, or make the problem worse long term. Good chance the same would happen with some private charities.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #153
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Eh? Firstly that is all relative. Secondly plenty of those houses and older sell for very high prices.


  • #154
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Hopefully this right to a home comes in and I can stop paying my mortgage and other people's too.


  • #155
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Hopefully this right to a home comes in and I can stop paying my mortgage and other people's too.

    The sense of victimhood here. Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?


  • #156
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    server down wrote: »
    The sense of victimhood here. Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?

    Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

    Sorry I almost choked on my vomit. I’ll reply later.


  • #158
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

    If ever there was a classic example of a total misunderstanding of what evolution means, this is it.


  • #159
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,320 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Forrest Fast Tire wrote: »
    If ever there was a classic example of a total misunderstanding of what evolution means, this is it.

    i do realise this is some what off topic, but i think you were explaining this before in another thread, can you explain it again? thank you


  • #160
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    weldoninhio

    The reason we pay for others less fortunate is because we’ve seen the results when we don’t. Mass slums. Starving peasants. Broken workers. For most of history the top 1% partied while the rest suffered dire poverty.

    By getting the rich and upper middle classes to pay taxes and getting employers to pay better wages we created the largely prosperous middle income groups we have now, we built infrastructure and educational systems that allowed more people to live good lives. Probably including you.

    And if you want to go back to Dickensian London then fine, but it was a dire place. If you want no social housing at all then hundreds of thousands will be one the streets and crowded into slums, real 19C slums. Crime will skyrocket. And you may lose your job and end up in some poor house, like a lot of people did back then, wishing there was some system that could tide you over until the recession ends.


  • #161
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,538 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    server down wrote: »
    The sense of victimhood here.

    agreed. he forgets that he will own a property at the end of it as long as he pays it back in full. seems that's not enough for him though, he wants to be told how great he is for making the decisian to buy a property. i don't know about anyone else but he isn't going to be told that by me.
    server down wrote: »
    Paying a mortgage are we? And because of that people who can’t pay should live on the streets?


    that's his view, yes . plenty of posts of his indirectly expressing the same nonsense
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.

    it's your job to help those in need. what other species do isn't relevant. an evolution/survival of the fittest mentality in human terms leads to large scale crime problems which will cost you way more then helping the weaker in the first place.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Cilar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭Cilar


    Already paying 52% tax for low public service. Issue is not money, issue is the way it's currently wasted.


  • #163
    oceanman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭oceanman


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Why should one section of society pay for another? Is there any other example of the more successful of a species looking after the weaker, more useless ones?? Generally in the animal world the weak/useless are left to their fate, because they slow down the rest. Is that not the very basis of evolution? Survival of the fittest.
    But we are not animals, we have moved on and can now even walk without dragging our knuckles along the ground. We are human beings.


  • #164
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    i do realise this is some what off topic, but i think you were explaining this before in another thread, can you explain it again? thank you

    To keep it short : for a start Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. Survival of the fittest is a term that refers to the process of natural selection which is one mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest in popular usage implies that the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals are the survivors, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. The incorrect interpretation of "survival of the fittest" ignores the vital importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them. There is much more to it and for another day on another forum.


  • #165
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,320 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Forrest Fast Tire wrote: »
    To keep it short...

    thank you again, it ll probably take me a while to process all that. ive recently discovered bio-mimicry, some believe that current human behavior, particularly in an economic sense, resembles some biological behavior which is at an immature phase due to our lack of cooperation. they believe when we become more cooperative, we have matured just like some biological forms, upon which these biological forms grow and prosper as a whole.


  • #166
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    server down wrote: »
    weldoninhio

    The reason we pay for others less fortunate is because we’ve seen the results when we don’t. Mass slums. Starving peasants. Broken workers. For most of history the top 1% partied while the rest suffered dire poverty.

    By getting the rich and upper middle classes to pay taxes and getting employers to pay better wages we created the largely prosperous middle income groups we have now, we built infrastructure and educational systems that allowed more people to live good lives. Probably including you.

    And if you want to go back to Dickensian London then fine, but it was a dire place. If you want no social housing at all then hundreds of thousands will be one the streets and crowded into slums, real 19C slums. Crime will skyrocket. And you may lose your job and end up in some poor house, like a lot of people did back then, wishing there was some system that could tide you over until the recession ends.

    But we still have a subsection of society that don’t want to work. That will never work and never have. They take and take and give nothing. Contributing zero, but consuming resources that could be going to people who do contribute.


  • #167
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    oceanman wrote: »
    But we are not animals, we have moved on and can now even walk without dragging our knuckles along the ground. We are human beings.

    We are still animals. Just more high functioning than others.


  • #168
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    agreed. he forgets that he will own a property at the end of it as long as he pays it back in full. seems that's not enough for him though, he wants to be told how great he is for making the decisian to buy a property. i don't know about anyone else but he isn't going to be told that by me.

    Not too sure how you came to that conclusion from reading the post . I doubt the poster wishes to be 'told' anything by you tbh.
    end of the road wrote: »
    that's his view, yes . plenty of posts of his indirectly expressing the same nonsense

    Yes believe it or not everyone is permitted their own opinion. Even you! If you disagree with a point of view then it is up to you to argue against that position. Declaring that it is 'nonsense' does not make it so ...
    end of the road wrote: »
    it's your job to help those in need. what other species do isn't relevant. an evolution/survival of the fittest mentality in human terms leads to large scale crime problems which will cost you way more then helping the weaker in the first place.

    No it's not - unless the poster works directly in social services. I'm sure habitual criminals will be delighted to discover that their behaviour is in fact caused through the transmogrification of opinions posted on Boards.ie. ;)


  • #169
    kurtainsider
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 324 ✭✭kurtainsider


    2€ to end homelessness? Me and every worker in the country is reamed for €100's in taxes and it seems to make no difference.

    Imagine if all the people who go out to work and pay their taxes decided that they "deserved" a free house. We'd have some craic then.


  • #170
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,538 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kurtainsider wrote: »
    2€ to end homelessness? Me and every worker in the country is reamed for €100's in taxes and it seems to make no difference.

    Imagine if all the people who go out to work and pay their taxes decided that they "deserved" a free house. We'd have some craic then.


    the amount who believe they "deserve" a "free" which isn't actually free to them house, are a very very very very small proportion of people, who's number is exaggerated and blown out of all proportion

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #171
    kurtainsider
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 324 ✭✭kurtainsider


    end of the road wrote: »
    the amount who believe they "deserve" a "free" which isn't actually free to them house, are a very very very very small proportion of people, who's number is exaggerated and blown out of all proportion

    I disagree with you. Listening to RTE Dublin is full of exactly these people and the politicians who champion the idea that the rich (f***ing eejits who work) should pay for everything. And RTE agrees with them!!


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,538 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kurtainsider wrote: »
    I disagree with you. Listening to RTE Dublin is full of exactly these people and the politicians who champion the idea that the rich (f***ing eejits who work) should pay for everything. And RTE agrees with them!!


    no the whole thing is over exaggerated because it sells. the stories from the very small few who think they "deserve" followed by the rabel rabel brigade shouting at them. it makes radio airtime and sells papers.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #173
    kurtainsider
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 324 ✭✭kurtainsider


    end of the road wrote: »
    no the whole thing is over exaggerated because it sells. the stories from the very small few who think they "deserve" followed by the rabel rabel brigade shouting at them. it makes radio airtime and sells papers.

    Sorry end of the road, we'll just have to agree to differ. You can't turn on the radio now but you hear someone, be it a homeless person, politician or commentator saying how disgraceful it is that the government (the taxpayer) isn't providing a free house for every non-worker that wants one.

    Like most "homeowners" I paid my 50% tax on what I earned, bought my house with what was left and was then further taxed to the hilt on the purchase of my house between VAT, "development fees" to the County Council and now property taxes. I'll own my house in 15 years if I'm able to keep working and paying my mortgage. Maybe I should have saved myself all that trouble and just gone on the radio to lament how disgusted I am at the taxpayer's failure to hand me over the keys that I'm entitled to.


  • #174
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,538 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kurtainsider wrote: »
    Sorry end of the road, we'll just have to agree to differ. You can't turn on the radio now but you hear someone, be it a homeless person, politician or commentator saying how disgraceful it is that the government (the taxpayer) isn't providing a free house for every non-worker that wants one.

    trust me, those people are speciffically picked. the whole lot like that adds up to a very small few. it's designed to get people angry and equal radio airtime. same with the papers, they pick the most extreme cases to get you angry. don't fall for it.
    kurtainsider wrote: »
    Like most "homeowners" I paid my 50% tax on what I earned, bought my house with what was left and was then further taxed to the hilt on the purchase of my house between VAT, "development fees" to the County Council and now property taxes. I'll own my house in 15 years if I'm able to keep working and paying my mortgage.

    to be fair, you actually haven't "bought" the house yet. the bank, via a loan, has effectively bought it for you, and you are paying back the loan the bank gave you. once you pay back the mortgage in full, which you will i hope, you will own the house. until then, the bank owns your house. it's in your interest to knuckle down and insure you pay it off, never mind a small few who are scamming, they will be dealt with eventually.
    kurtainsider wrote: »
    Maybe I should have saved myself all that trouble and just gone on the radio to lament how disgusted I am at the taxpayer's failure to hand me over the keys that I'm entitled to.

    why. that way you will never own a property.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #175
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    kurtainsider wrote: »
    Sorry end of the road, we'll just have to agree to differ. You can't turn on the radio now but you hear someone, be it a homeless person, politician or commentator saying how disgraceful it is that the government (the taxpayer) isn't providing a free house for every non-worker that wants one.

    Like most "homeowners" I paid my 50% tax on what I earned, bought my house with what was left and was then further taxed to the hilt on the purchase of my house between VAT, "development fees" to the County Council and now property taxes. I'll own my house in 15 years if I'm able to keep working and paying my mortgage. Maybe I should have saved myself all that trouble and just gone on the radio to lament how disgusted I am at the taxpayer's failure to hand me over the keys that I'm entitled to.

    100% and the bull**** arguments for not dropping the dole or not providing social housing to those that pay nothing is normally that “crime will rise” etc, yet out of the other side of their mouth they’ll tell us that it’s a tiny percentage in social housing that are unemployed.

    It’s either one or the other.


  • #176
    Ultimate Seduction
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭Ultimate Seduction


    Gas how people say the council houses aren't free, they have to pay rent ect. Paying rent with free money, they pay taxes with their free money. Everything is free if you don't work, everything. How people end up homeless in a country where everything is free, it really is their own fault.


  • #177
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    end of the road wrote: »
    trust me, those people are speciffically picked. the whole lot like that adds up to a very small few. it's designed to get people angry and equal radio airtime. same with the papers, they pick the most extreme cases to get you angry. don't fall for it.



    to be fair, you actually haven't "bought" the house yet. the bank, via a loan, has effectively bought it for you, and you are paying back the loan the bank gave you. once you pay back the mortgage in full, which you will i hope, you will own the house. until then, the bank owns your house. it's in your interest to knuckle down and insure you pay it off, never mind a small few who are scamming, they will be dealt with eventually.



    why. that way you will never own a property.

    So people who were in social housing never ended up owning them?

    LIAR!!!


  • #178
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    Instead of giving 2 more euro a week to the wasters what I'd prefer is all those people living in hotel rooms for free should be ****ed out on thier ear. That way we could all make a bit extra very week than throw the 2 euro away.


  • #179
    oceanman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭oceanman


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    So people who were in social housing never ended up owning them?

    LIAR!!!
    some people in social housing do end up owning them, but only after they have agreed to buy them from the local authority...they don't get them for free.


  • #180
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,691 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ultimate Seduction wrote: »
    Gas how people say the council houses aren't free, they have to pay rent ect. Paying rent with free money, they pay taxes with their free money. Everything is free if you don't work, everything. How people end up homeless in a country where everything is free, it really is their own fault.

    There are many people that work and pay taxes with council houses. Yes, some council tenants are on social welfare and essentially get their house for free but not everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    oceanman wrote: »
    some people in social housing do end up owning them, but only after they have agreed to buy them from the local authority...they don't get them for free.

    At a discount of up to 60%.

    Anyway not the point I was replying too.


Advertisement