Would you contribute €2 per week to solve homelessness?

PeterParker957 · 18-11-2017 11:29AM

end of the road wrote: »

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've noticed a theme in EOTRs posts that almost guarantee that of welfare is cut every recipient will turn to crime.

If true - which of course it's not - then a) why should we allow a threat to society to reproduce and b) why not use the welfare budget saved to fund Gardai numbers on the streets/intelligence?

And to clarify it is not "MY job" to fund the workshy and feckless. Its my job to be productive, pay my bills, obey the laws of the land and be a good citizen.

Atoms for Peace · 18-11-2017 12:36PM

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Show me a country - anywhere in the world, or any time in history - which has "solved homlessness".

I already contribute a lot more than €2 per week providing social safety nets, keeping people fed, sheltered and off the street.

East Germany?:pac:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 18-11-2017 12:52PM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

East Germany?:pac:

Not quite, although the East German authorities described homelessness as being 'minimal'. And, of course, the East German authorities only ever spoke the truth.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-11-2017 12:55PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I've noticed a theme in EOTRs posts that almost guarantee that of welfare is cut every recipient will turn to crime.

If true - which of course it's not - then a) why should we allow a threat to society to reproduce and b) why not use the welfare budget saved to fund Gardai numbers on the streets/intelligence?

And to clarify it is not "MY job" to fund the workshy and feckless. Its my job to be productive, pay my bills, obey the laws of the land and be a good citizen.

I think it's more a case of if welfare was scrapped altogether (and I'm not implying that this was suggested), there'd be an increase in crime and no amount of police are army is going to stop it. It's called "social" security for a reason.

Would I pay? Technically I aready do. But if the question is would I pay it to address and attemtp to resolve the problem completely, then yes - but only so long as the money was actually used to help the homeless - which is something I'm not sure I'd trust a government to do.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 01:10PM

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.

Because that is what a society does. Do you advocate that elderly people should be left to die? After all, they are not contributing to society or directly benefiting you. What about children born with certain debilitating conditions? Sure, they may never contribute; best to do what the Spartans did and leave them on a exposed rock to die. The weak and useless don't deserve support though so death by exposure it is!

People who support mad selfish notions like that tend to rapidly change their tune when they leave their prime earning years, get sick, suffer a misfortune or have children that need help. Funny that.

Also, yes, there are examples in the animal world, especially primates, but also animals with a herd structure. Herds will often come to the assistance of a member, particularly young, even if individual animals involved did not physically birth that young. Saw a vid recently there of a baby elephant that got stuck in a watering hole and the entire herd working to free it (they eventually succeeded). Dolphins have been known to assist humans in the water (also sometimes attack them, so, like humans, responses vary).

As a final point, that is not what "survival of the fittest" as a phrase means, nor are your views of intrasocietal relations particularly connected to the mechanics of gene and trait heritability, bar the specifics of inherited diseases. True enough that killing children that express negative traits will eventually eliminate said traits, but not worth the social damage to societal structure for that limited benefit.

jonnny68 · 18-11-2017 01:11PM

yes and shame on anyone who voted no, remember no matter what troubles you have there's always someone much worse off than you and at least you have a roof over your head.

However a better idea still is for TD's to take a massive pay cut as in 40% and that money put towards the homeless crisis, but the chances of that ever happening are practically zero,a corrupt shambles of a government.

weldoninhio · 18-11-2017 01:15PM

Samaris wrote: »

Because that is what a society does. Do you advocate that elderly people should be left to die? After all, they are not contributing to society or directly benefiting you. What about children born with certain debilitating conditions? Sure, they may never contribute; best to do what the Spartans did and leave them on a exposed rock to die. The weak and useless don't deserve support though so death by exposure it is!

People who support mad selfish notions like that tend to rapidly change their tune when they leave their prime earning years, get sick, suffer a misfortune or have children that need help. Funny that.

Also, yes, there are examples in the animal world, especially primates, but also animals with a herd structure. Herds will often come to the assistance of a member, particularly young, even if individual animals involved did not physically birth that young. Saw a vid recently there of a baby elephant that got stuck in a watering hole and the entire herd working to free it (they eventually succeeded). Dolphins have been known to assist humans in the water (also sometimes attack them, so, like humans, responses vary).

As a final point, that is not what "survival of the fittest" as a phrase means, nor are your views of intrasocietal relations particularly connected to the mechanics of gene and trait heritability, bar the specifics of inherited diseases. True enough that killing children that express negative traits will eventually eliminate said traits, but not worth the social damage to societal structure for that limited benefit.

If the elderly have worked to help society then they should be looked after, their taxes will have helped and some should have been put aside to help them be comfortable in old age.

Re: debilitating illnesses, with the advances in science and tests to tell if a foetus has DS at the moment, I can only see these improving, so children with debilitating illness won’t be a thing in the future hopefully.

Why should I pay for someone who has no interest or intention of contributing anything to society?? Who’ll spawn 4/5/6 more leeches to sponge in the future? What happens when the tipping point is reached when we’ve less contributors (workers) than receivers (leeches)??

oceanman · 18-11-2017 01:19PM

Samaris wrote: »

Because that is what a society does. Do you advocate that elderly people should be left to die? After all, they are not contributing to society or directly benefiting you. What about children born with certain debilitating conditions? Sure, they may never contribute; best to do what the Spartans did and leave them on a exposed rock to die. The weak and useless don't deserve support though so death by exposure it is!

People who support mad selfish notions like that tend to rapidly change their tune when they leave their prime earning years, get sick, suffer a misfortune or have children that need help. Funny that.

Also, yes, there are examples in the animal world, especially primates, but also animals with a herd structure. Herds will often come to the assistance of a member, particularly young, even if individual animals involved did not physically birth that young. Saw a vid recently there of a baby elephant that got stuck in a watering hole and the entire herd working to free it (they eventually succeeded). Dolphins have been known to assist humans in the water (also sometimes attack them, so, like humans, responses vary).

As a final point, that is not what "survival of the fittest" as a phrase means, nor are your views of intrasocietal relations particularly connected to the mechanics of gene and trait heritability, bar the specifics of inherited diseases. True enough that killing children that express negative traits will eventually eliminate said traits, but not worth the social damage to societal structure for that limited benefit.

totally agree with all of that

Tenigate · 18-11-2017 01:27PM

djPSB wrote: »

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.

Sure, i would. In fact, i already do make such contributions in the form of payroll taxes, vat, etc... The government just doesn't use it resourcefully.

Second point but while you can ask an individual to contribute there is no way you should force people. By taking eur104 a year from a struggling family, it may cause them to miss a rent payment.

By taking €104 from someone planning on doing a course, it might be enough to make them defer a year, stay on benefits, remain in a poverty trap.

So despite any nice spin you're putting on something, you cannot tax your way to prosperity, and you can't spend your way to it either.

So while I'd happily pay €2 a week to solve homelessness, I might as well give it to cure cancer, end drug addiction or create world peace... For all the good it would do.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 02:13PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

If the elderly have worked to help society then they should be looked after, their taxes will have helped and some should have been put aside to help them be comfortable in old age.

Re: debilitating illnesses, with the advances in science and tests to tell if a foetus has DS at the moment, I can only see these improving, so children with debilitating illness won’t be a thing in the future hopefully.

Why should I pay for someone who has no interest or intention of contributing anything to society?? Who’ll spawn 4/5/6 more leeches to sponge in the future? What happens when the tipping point is reached when we’ve less contributors (workers) than receivers (leeches)??

Immigration.

The situation you describe is already happening, not down to emotional hysteria about leeches and spawns, but down to simple population dynamics. We are getting to a stage of having too many who cannot contribute due to age. Longer lifespans, better medical treatment and a general unwillingness to go Spartan on people who cannot contribute. Those that will not are a relatively small proportion and exiling/killing/rendering into poverty those oeople won't actually solve the issue (good for spurring crime though). The historically common way to solve it is temporary (or permanent) importing of people who want to work in our economy and contribute to the taxes that support those who can no longer contribute.

If you're one of those who think 'immigration' is a dirty word though, we're back to murdering the elderly, sick and potentially non-contributing members of society again.

PeterParker957 · 18-11-2017 02:18PM

Samaris wrote: »

If you're one of those who think 'immigration' is a dirty word though, we're back to murdering the elderly, sick and potentially non-contributing members of society again.

So because I'm against mass unchecked immigration without the infrastructure bring there and our own people in need - I must want to kill the elderly and sick????

Seriously??? The left get more out of touch with reality with every passing day.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 02:27PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

So because I'm against mass unchecked immigration without the infrastructure bring there and our own people in need - I must want to kill the elderly and sick????

Seriously??? The left get more out of touch with reality with every passing day.

Uhm, did you read anything up to that, get any context whatsoever or even mull for a New York Second what I might be talking about, or did you read one sentence out of context, decide it was a partisan issue and blow your lid?

It has nothing to do with either "unchecked immigration" or the current migrant crisis, it was a comment on population dynamics and the previoys poster's impractical views about how a society relates to those within it unable (and as a small subset of that unwilling) to fully support themselves, so, y'know, chill a bit please. Not everything is a wild conspiracy of "the left".

Doltanian · 18-11-2017 03:59PM

I would gladly contribute not only €2 per week but €5 to ensure that this country got its act together, end welfare as a lifestyle choice, stop payments to single mothers with more than 2 children, end social housing and instead invest massively in important infrastructure like Motorways, Railways and Fibre Optic Broadband. At the same time helping the squeezed middle, all judges should be jailed and made to live with the scum they unleash upon the public everyday. Bring in a proper justice system with real punishment (Including the death penalty), also bring back Mental institutions and lock in liberals and politically correct do-gooders because clearly they are mentally unstable with what damage they have caused to this country already.

Tenigate · 18-11-2017 04:02PM

Samaris wrote: »

If you're one of those who think 'immigration' is a dirty word though, we're back to murdering the elderly, sick and potentially non-contributing members of society again.

Leftist propaganda.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 04:05PM

Tenigate wrote: »

Leftist propaganda.

Context is a valuable thing.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 04:35PM

Doltanian wrote: »

I would gladly contribute not only €2 per week but €5 to ensure that this country got its act together, end welfare as a lifestyle choice, stop payments to single mothers with more than 2 children, end social housing and instead invest massively in important infrastructure like Motorways, Railways and Fibre Optic Broadband. At the same time helping the squeezed middle, all judges should be jailed and made to live with the scum they unleash upon the public everyday. Bring in a proper justice system with real punishment (Including the death penalty), also bring back Mental institutions and lock in liberals and politically correct do-gooders because clearly they are mentally unstable with what damage they have caused to this country already.

ireland has almost enough motor ways for it's needs. social housing is necessary as it's not just the small few who don't work in them but mostly working people who don't have enough income for mortgages or market rent. ending the payments to single mothers who have more then 2 children sounds good in practice but isn't viable in reality. the death penalty is not financially viable, or anything else viable. it is to expensive for no returns and is murder.

PeterParker957 · 18-11-2017 04:39PM

end of the road wrote: »

Doltanian wrote: »

I would gladly contribute not only €2 per week but €5 to ensure that this country got its act together, end welfare as a lifestyle choice, stop payments to single mothers with more than 2 children, end social housing and instead invest massively in important infrastructure like Motorways, Railways and Fibre Optic Broadband. At the same time helping the squeezed middle, all judges should be jailed and made to live with the scum they unleash upon the public everyday. Bring in a proper justice system with real punishment (Including the death penalty), also bring back Mental institutions and lock in liberals and politically correct do-gooders because clearly they are mentally unstable with what damage they have caused to this country already.

ireland has almost enough motor ways for it's needs. social housing is necessary as it's not just the small few who don't work in them but mostly working people who don't have enough income for mortgages or market rent. ending the payments to single mothers who have more then 2 children sounds good in practice but isn't viable in reality. the death penalty is not financially viable, or anything else viable. it is to expensive for no returns and is murder.

We announce now that is will be the policy in a year.

You have a kid after then we're not coughing up for it.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 04:55PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

We announce now that is will be the policy in a year.

You have a kid after then we're not coughing up for it.

still not viable, as we can see from countries which have no benefits what soever, yet still have high birth rates.

Ultimate Seduction · 18-11-2017 04:56PM

Means test the children's allowance.
Scrap the bonus for long term unemployed
Scrap the free travel for 'disabled'

Let people keep there 2euro

2Mad2BeMad · 18-11-2017 05:04PM

Nope

I'd gather a good guess and say half the homeless people are not actually homeless, its just young women who have kids and the father is apparently not around, I actually know a few of these parasites.

Have a kid and get a free house and never work a day in your life seems to be the way them girls were raised.
Not to mention the drug users.

I'd happily give 50euro a week to a person/family who are genuinely homeless because or unfortunate events that led them their (loss of job then losing the house etc....)

but for the other parasites who think its normal to have a child just so you can get a free house the rest of your life, You belong on the street for thinking that way and the kid should be taken off you

end of the road · 18-11-2017 05:11PM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Means test the children's allowance.

certainly that may be a reasonable proposal.

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Scrap the free travel for 'disabled'

not viable, as it would cause huge damage to local economies and transport services.

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

for the other parasites who think its normal to have a child just so you can get a free house the rest of your life, You belong on the street for thinking that way and the kid should be taken off you

not cost effective. it would cost billions to be able to take all those children off people in terms of resources. + having people left on the streets causes huge social problems and the potential for large scale crime issues. this tax payer is not willing to pay for that, but will for social housing as it's cheaper over all then your suggestion.

AudreyHepburn · 18-11-2017 05:17PM

Yes but I would like to see an acknowledgment from all levels of society that simply opening more doors and building more housing is not going to solve the problem.

Homelessness happens a result of some other serious problem in a persons life and those underlying issues need to be dealt with or giving that person a home is pointless.

An addict living in their own home is still an addict and still vulnerable to the same problems that put them on the streets in the first place.

There’s also no point in pretending the problem is any worse than any other major city or that government alone have the power to fix it by throwing huge amounts of money at it.

I think our attitudes to the problem are our biggest stumbling block at the moment - a more rounded view and deeper understanding of the myriad of issues involved by all levels of society and just those in power would do a lot to start us on the road to fixing the problem.

PeterParker957 · 18-11-2017 05:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

We announce now that is will be the policy in a year.

You have a kid after then we're not coughing up for it.

still not viable, as we can see from countries which have no benefits what soever, yet still have high birth rates.

I hate to puddle in your cornflakes but your opinion is just that- not a statement of fact.

AudreyHepburn · 18-11-2017 05:23PM

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.

Hitler would be proud of you.

Me - I think your attitude is disgusting

PeterParker957 · 18-11-2017 05:34PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

Hitler would be proud of you.

Me - I think your attitude is disgusting

Society should help those who can't help themselves.

Those who take the p*** should be cast adrift.

weldoninhio · 18-11-2017 05:36PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Society should help those who can't help themselves.

Those who take the p*** should be cast adrift.

Exactly, people unwilling to help themselves or contribute to society are no loss to society.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 05:40PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I hate to puddle in your cornflakes but your opinion is just that- not a statement of fact.

it's a statement of fact. if people in countries with no benefits at all have large families, then that suggests that removing child benefit either for all children, or over a certain number of children, is unlikely to work in reaching your desired outcome.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Society should help those who can't help themselves.

Those who take the p*** should be cast adrift.

not financially viable.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Exactly, people unwilling to help themselves or contribute to society are no loss to society.

no but the extra tax money i will have to pay for your nonsense will be a huge loss to me.

RayM · 18-11-2017 05:43PM

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.

Is our ability to empathise with, and help, those less fortunate than ourselves not one of those things that separates us (well, most of us) from the animals?

weldoninhio · 18-11-2017 05:47PM

RayM wrote: »

Is our ability to empathise with, and help, those less fortunate than ourselves not one of those things that separates us (well, most of us) from the animals?

Is it “less fortunate” to decide not to work and expect to be fed, watered, clothed and housed by others?

RayM · 18-11-2017 05:52PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Is it “less fortunate” to decide not to work and expect to be fed, watered, clothed and housed by others?

Yes. Otherwise everybody would want to do it.

Would you contribute €2 per week to solve homelessness?

Comments