Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Jada Putrid Starboard wrote: »

What are you on about? It’s a choice to put in 20 hours a week of a commute before doing a minutes work? Sounds more like having self respect and a nessessity to me. I can assure you I didn’t commute for years full of joy that I had at least two hours of a commute to look forward to before starting work. I did it because my life isn’t free, and it’s not funded by the taxpayers. I unfortunately didn’t have time to stand outside the dail and demand a house within a few minutes walk to my job.

It’s a persons choice to not continue with education, to not enhance their chances of having a career, and to have child after child after child that they’re incapable of supporting. As a woman in her 20s Margaret cash is not under the care or responsibility of anyone else, and she should have to deal with the repercussions of her choices, just like the working people have to deal with the repercussions of theirs. They choose to go to work, they get rode for it.

I’m definitely in the wrong line of work

That’s all we’ll and good what you’ve said there, but fundamentally the only difference is you made different choices for yourself than Ms. Cash made for herself.

In the same way as you’ll say you had to do this, that and the other, so could she say the same thing about her current circumstances. It doesn’t mean her circumstances are permanent or that she couldn’t improve her circumstances for herself and her children if she were to receive the support she needs to make something of herself, and for her children to have opportunities that she would like them to have.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is going to go nowhere quick because you’re measuring someone’s values as a parent with someone’s values as an employee. I measure people by a third standard - whether they’re a miserable person or not, is the determinant of how much they contribute to society. If they’re constantly miserable and complaining about other people and what other people have that they don’t and it’s not fair, it’s not right, all the rest of it, they’re not contributing anything to society. If they’re actually doing something to help themselves, then they are contributing to society. My standard too kinda skips the whole argument about whether children benefit more from their parents staying at home rather than being outside the home in employment, unable to commit to one or the other.

I was comparing people in different circumstances.
I generally like to see people try their best in life within reason. Some people need extra help and support but all this has to be done within reason.
Going by what you said don't believe Margaret contributes anything to society and is miserable because all she does is moans about what she doesn't have and what other people has.
Margaret or people in similar situations has being in this situation for years and kept on having children even tough it wasn't helping herself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, I’d absolutely agree with you there, if it wasn’t something they weren’t entitled to already. However criticising anyone for receiving something to which anyone is entitled provided they qualify, is just silly. It would be different if Ms. Cash were campaigning for something she and her family weren’t entitled to, but they are, and the council have no choice but to seek to provide it for her. Well, of course they have a choice, but I’m just pointing out that the council don’t have a choice in the same way the claim is made that people don’t have any choice but to commute to their place of employment. Having held many positions in various industries over the last 20 years, not once have I ever been in a position where I had no choice but to stay where I was in the position I was in rather than seek to do better for myself, and if that’s the standard is expected of Ms. Cash, then I think it’s only right that we should all be expected to adhere to that standard. Otherwise we have no right to complain about Ms. Cash’s double standards.

I do understand people are entitled to x,y and z but a lot of this needs to reviewed in my opinion. Society has changed a lot and we need to look after the vulnerable people and sometimes it may mean being stricter in giving out these allowances to help more people in society in general.

Kivaro wrote: »

Tired of all these excuses ....... from the same people.

How about bettering yourself beyond retail then or strive to become managers in that trade?
How about training up? How about getting a degree or certifications?
Guess what; that's what most of us did. We did not use excuses; we just did it.

Always with the excuses to justify the entitlement culture.

Not sure why you're directing such a rant at me, I bought my house many years ago??

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Can you really not see the link between scummers being given free houses in prime city centre / employment areas, and the people actually working in those areas being unable to afford to buy a house there?

I know this isn’t a trick question, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from because you’re literally begging the question. It’s obvious I don’t see something from your point of view if you have a different perspective. You just haven’t explained your perspective so you’re leaving me guessing.

Gentrification? Ghettoisation? I don’t see either of those things as positive, but I’m not sure that’s what you’re driving at either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh look, this is getting beyond silly now. I’m in for no rude awakening because not only am I renting myself, I’ve also refurbished plenty of rental properties, and what you’re describing is fairly standard stuff for modern accommodation in 2018.

I don’t trust you know any better than I do what goes through any landlords mind, I’ve known some people that hadn’t a clue how to be a landlord, and some people whom are excellent landlords and know exactly how to maximise the potential of their investment.

Sticking 8 people into a bedsit has never been a good investment for any amateur landlord who thinks it’s the best way to get the most profit out of their investment.

No it isn't, as I mentioned, if it was standard my brother would not have mentioned it.

You seem a bit away with the fairies to be honest.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I got that from her I’d say so, but her beef seems to be with Government rather than ordinary people. I don’t know as I haven’t been glued to every source like some posters here looking to be outraged at her every utterance. I figured we all have better things to be doing.

Realistically speaking tough the only way for the government to raise the money to give her what she wants is to take it off the tax payer in some way.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Realistically speaking tough the only way for the government to raise the money to give her what she wants is to take it off the tax payer in some way.

72Billion though fp? Ms. Cash isn’t getting anything within an asses roar of that kind of money. 200million alone was given to the DHRE in the last few years to address housing and homelessness, and where’s that money gone? Because as far as I can see it hasn’t done a whole lot. Imagine the time and effort it would take for each of us to vet every single applicant on the housing list right now to determine whether or not we could agree whether they were contributing to society, and what to do with them if they aren’t, at that particular moment in time. It just isn’t even worth entertaining.

You’re always going to have people who determine that someone isn’t deserving of anything by their standards, and I just don’t see a point in allowing those people to determine that for someone else at an individual level.

I agree with your earlier point that certainly a whole broad range of policies could do with being shaken up, tightened up and being improved upon, but I don’t agree with the idea of policies based upon individuals moral standards and whether or not other people should be deprived of anything based upon their say so as individuals. That’s not how a society actually progresses. It’s an entirely regressive philosophy.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Not to say it's widespread but my brother went out with a woman who lived in a council house that did have an American fridge, a flat screen TV and Sky TV. It was in a small estate with 4 or 5 houses. All tenants in the estate were single mothers.

Right yeah. And what about the Nigerian pram?

BBFAN wrote: »

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/where-does-your-tax-go/#middle-link

Just had a look at this to see if I could get outraged as seems to be required. Nope, didn't work. We're actually spending more on rural development and farm supports than housing. Now that would bug me but still, won't let it get me in a sweat.

I think people have to start looking at how to improve their own lot and stop looking towards others to find a reason for their misery.

I completely agree.

I also think people should look at how to improve their own lot and stop looking towards others for handouts

Jada Putrid Starboard wrote: »

Where do the government get the funding?

From various sources, you can see the way it’s broken down in the Department of Finances Fiscal Report for June 2018

Income tax accounts for about a third of Government revenue.

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

I completely agree.

I also think people should look at how to improve their own lot and stop looking towards others for handouts

You couldn’t possibly be referring to Ms. Cash then because she isn’t getting any handouts. She’s getting only what it has been determined she is entitled to, and before you raise the point again, arguing that she is an example of “entitlement culture” has no merit when she isn’t receiving anything that any of us wouldn’t be entitled to if we were in her circumstances. Would you be happy with your lot then? Would you be happy with someone telling you that you should be happy with your lot. You don’t appear to be happy with your lot as you are now, so I don’t see how you would be any different if you had a lot less.