# The "Poverty Trap" budget



## DerKaiser

There have many debates recently on how the state should cuts costs including:

1) Private patients effectively pay the full cost of their treatments
2) Parents of kids attending private schools pay the full cost of their education
3) 3rd level students must pay their full costs
4) Employers must pay full sick leave benefits for their employees
5) PRSI no longer entitles people to dental benefits
6) Child benefit has suffered disproportionately large cuts compared to most forms of social welfare.

What's the common thread?

People in jobs are not only paying much increased tax rate, but any benefits they enjoyed previously appear to be getting disproportionately cut.

The mantra I've heard ahead of the budget is effectively that those fully dependent on social welfare will be protected. 

This leaves me with two questions:

1) Are we well on our way to a "Poverty Trap" budget that discourages any form of ambition to improve one circumstances?

2) Is the protection of those entirely dependent on social welfare misguided in light of the fact that such people may not be even the least well off social/economic group in this country anymore?


----------



## Pique318

Uh oh
[broken link removed]

As it happens, I agree with you, but don't you know that the most vulnibble in society cannot be asked to contribute.
Sure they didn't cause this mess, us paye workers did and we're all minted with money in the bank to pay for any and all taxes/charges tat are imposed.


----------



## cork

DerKaiser said:


> 5) PRSI no longer entitles people to dental benefits



There needs to be a change here.



Parents of kids attending private schools pay the full cost of their education.

I agree. Why should the taxpayer be subsidising these?


----------



## Firefly

cork said:


> Parents of kids attending private schools pay the full cost of their education.
> 
> I agree. Why should the taxpayer be subsidising these?



On the surface I would agree with this. However, from what I hear, the state just pays the teachers' salaries - which it would have to do if those children were schooled publicly. The other costs (such as school upkeep) etc is paid for via the fees thus saving the state. Again, this is from what I hear..can anyone confirm/refute this?


----------



## blueband

DerKaiser said:


> 2) Is the protection of those entirely dependent on social welfare misguided in light of the fact that such people may not be even the least well off social/economic group in this country anymore?


surely those entirely dependent on social welfare are the least well off.


----------



## mathepac

blueband said:


> surely those entirely dependent on social welfare are the least well off.


Correct and since the new government came into power they are even less well off.


€0.50 per prescription item dispensed charged to medical card holders
Electricity allowance cut from 400 to 300 units per two-monthly bill
or
electricity cash payment cut from €43.80 / month to €35.80 / month
Gas allowance cut from €489 to €393 per annum (€42 every two months in summer, €89 every two months in winter)
or from €40.70 to €32.70 / month cash payment
Regular (or irregular) blood tests are no longer covered by the medical card. These cost at least €25 a time at most GP surgeries
Eye tests & Medicals for driving licence renewals are no longer covered on the medical card. These now cost approx. €35 and €25 each.
Telephone allowance cut from €25.91 to €22.22 / month
or
cash payment cut from €26 to €22.30
For new applicants, there will be a delay of 24 weeks from application to [approval] payment of any Social Welfare benefit (CWO SWA payments if approved are made within two weeks usually)
Payment of arrears (if approved) for any Social Welfare benefit will take at least 10 weeks from payment of the benefit (24 weeks + 10 weeks = 34 weeks)
Household Benefits Package applications take 7 weeks from receipt of application to reaching the start of the approval process.


----------



## orka

Firefly said:


> On the surface I would agree with this. However, from what I hear, the state just pays the teachers' salaries - which it would have to do if those children were schooled publicly. The other costs (such as school upkeep) etc is paid for via the fees thus saving the state. Again, this is from what I hear..can anyone confirm/refute this?


Yes that's true. If all children were educated publicly, the state would have to pay all costs (building upkeep etc.) rather than just the teachers's salaries. Having a private school system saves the state money. So no taxpayer is 'subsidising' those in private education - they pay less because the parents pay fees on top of their taxes which should entitle their children to a full eductaion.





blueband said:


> surely those entirely dependent on social welfare are the least well off.


I think that's what DerKaiser is questioning - are we in danger of reaching a point (maybe we passed it some time back) where some of those in work would be better off out of work and/or those on benefits are better off staying there? 

There are undoubtedly situations, maybe just above cutoff points for certain benefits (eg getting a medical card, qualifying for Family Income Supplement) where someone might be better off on benefits. And there is the oft-quoted example (possibly theoretical but from our current benefits/taxation system) of a family with three children, on max rent allowance getting the equivalent of a working salary of about 42K.

And there are also undoubtedly many families with loans, mortgages and reduced circumstances where their disposable income after repayments leaves them with less disposable income than those on benefits - different reasons and maybe temporary until things either turnaround or they become bankrupt/start again - but nonetheless, on a day-to-day, hand-to-mouth assessment of who is 'least well off', overly-debt-burdened workers could definitely come out worse than even those entirely dependent on social welfare.


----------



## shnaek

Very good post, orka. Spot on.


----------



## blueband

i thought the govenment had a survey carried out some time ago which clearly showed that those even in very low paid jobs are still far batter off then those on social welfare


----------



## DerKaiser

shnaek said:


> Very good post, orka. Spot on.



was about to say the very same thing


----------



## DerKaiser

blueband said:


> i thought the govenment had a survey carried out some time ago which clearly showed that those even in very low paid jobs are still far batter off then those on social welfare



All other things being equal!  Some of the "other things" are detailed in Orka's final paragraph


----------



## Husker

blueband said:


> i thought the govenment had a survey carried out some time ago which clearly showed that those even in very low paid jobs are still far batter off then those on social welfare



Esri study reported that about 3 per cent were better off on the dole.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Shawady

The problem is when you have a family dependent on social welfare, they are better off claiming benefits than a low paid job.

Only two weeks ago a close friend of mine had to refuse a job because he would have less money. His circumstances are he has 3 children and receives €420 a week and other benefits. He was offered a job for 25K a year and this amounted to €400 a week. He reckoned he would be entitled to family income supplement but because there is a backlog of 3-4 months he would not be able to survive until then.


----------



## shnaek

Husker said:


> Esri study reported that about 3 per cent were better off on the dole.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Who believes the ESRI? Just look at some of their reports over the last 5 years. Monkeys would have done a better job.


----------



## Thirsty

Fee paying schools are actually cheaper from a tax payers point of view.



> ...friend of mine had to refuse a job...


 A foolish decision in my opinion; you'll never get a pay rise or promotion on social welfare.  Working is a long term choice, SW should be a short term choice.  Now we have people viewing it the the other way round.


----------



## Shawady

Thirsty said:


> A foolish decision in my opinion; you'll never get a pay rise or promotion on social welfare.


 
I agree but you can see how in this situation a single person living at home getting €190 in social welfare would take the job but a father of three wouldn't.
There is talk that child benefit should be means tested but the government must be careful that this does not create a further disincentive to work.


----------



## werner

How about something radical? instead of attacking the weakest and poorest in society by savage stealth taxes and heavy welfare cuts (o.k. there has to be reform of some welfare payments etc.) 

Use something that is equitable a.k.a. progressive taxation...where the wealthier pay more in tax than the low paid

Apologies I forgot, in Ireland thiose who can afford to pay, don't!..tax is only for the little people and middle income earners


----------



## Firefly

werner said:


> How about something radical? instead of attacking the weakest and poorest in society by savage stealth taxes and heavy welfare cuts (o.k. there has to be reform of some welfare payments etc.)
> 
> Use something that is equitable a.k.a. progressive taxation...where the wealthier pay more in tax than the low paid
> 
> Apologies I forgot, in Ireland thiose who can afford to pay, don't!..tax is only for the little people and middle income earners



Not sure if that's a serious post or not but in any case, it has been pointed out that those on high incomes do in fact pay the most in tax whilst there is a whole segment of workers who are exempt from income tax. 

How about something even more radical....let's slash public spending *and *taxes?


----------



## mandelbrot

Husker said:


> Esri study reported that about 3 per cent were better off on the dole.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Heard the guy from the ESRI on with Matt Cooper a few weeks ago, and he confirmed that the report didn't take into account the incremental household costs incurred when people go back to work - costs of commuting / motor, childcare, clothing etc.. which would not be incurred otherwise.

So, he had to admit that the figure could rise substantially if those factors were taken into account...


----------



## shnaek

mandelbrot said:


> Heard the guy from the ESRI on with Matt Cooper a few weeks ago, and he confirmed that the report didn't take into account the incremental household costs incurred when people go back to work - costs of commuting / motor, childcare, clothing etc.. which would not be incurred otherwise.
> 
> So, he had to admit that the figure could rise substantially if those factors were taken into account...



That would be the ESRI alright. Can't believe a word they say.

People often point at the Scandanavian model as one worth following, but I don't know how much people know about that model. For example, there is no infinite entitlement to social welfare in those countries. That is one thing we could certainly do with bringing in over here. 

We can't afford to continuously increase the burden the 1.5million people who are left working in this country without touching our 'benefits' system. It is inevitable that at some point it becomes untenable to continue to work, particularly if you are working in an area which you don't enjoy.


----------



## Complainer

orka said:


> Yes that's true. If all children were educated publicly, the state would have to pay all costs (building upkeep etc.) rather than just the teachers's salaries.


The State has paid the capital costs for new buildings in many private schools in recent years, particularly those in the last Minister of Education's constituency of Dun Laoghaire. So we all pay out, but only a privileged few get to use.


----------



## Husker

shnaek said:


> Who believes the ESRI? Just look at some of their reports over the last 5 years. Monkeys would have done a better job.


 
Which reports were they?  Were they by the same researcher as this one?  Which aspects of the analysis in this report do you disagree with?


----------



## thedaras

The state paid for the capital costs for all Public schools, therefore we all pay for them,however we don't all use them..so complainer what's your point?


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> The state paid for the capital costs for all Public schools, therefore we all pay for them,however we don't all use them..so complainer what's your point?



My point is that no-one is excluded from using these state-funded facilities in public schools due to lack of money. 

Many people are excluded from using the state-funded facilities in private schools due to lack of money.

The State should not be funding private schools.


----------



## Chris

Firefly said:


> How about something even more radical....let's slash public spending *and *taxes?



Yes radical indeed, but wouldn't that mean politicians admitting that they are the ones responsible for holding back the economy and society? It is certainly a case of where doing less will do more good.


----------



## thedaras

Complainer said:


> My point is that no-one is excluded from using these state-funded facilities in public schools due to lack of money.")
> 
> 
> 
> Many people are excluded from using the state-funded facilities in private schools due to lack of money.
> 
> The State should not be funding private schools.



*11,000 euro for a child in a private school and  17,000 for a child in a non fee paying school. 
* (open to correction on that)

Complainer,In life there are many things which we cannot avail of ,due to the fact that we cant pay for it.

Examples would/could be Golf clubs/Tennis clubs/private gym membership/After school activity's..of which there are private and public ones.

The state funds a lot of the above,there are community gyms/tennis clubs etc.however they may not have the facilities you want.If you want those facilities, they are available to you ,but you have to pay a fee.. that's life.

Those who earn the money and choose to pay for extra facilities are entitled to do so,as they may argue that they also pay for many things which they dont avail of, like Free GP service, free medical card /rent allowance / back to school allowance..I don't hear them moaning about the fact that they cant use a service or facility which they cant avail of..

The mentality is one of ,if I cant afford to pay for a facility then no one should have it..oh waitaminute.. that's communism..

Both the public and the private schools are state funded,the parents pay fees for the extra facilities .I dont see the logic in your argument..as those who send their kids to private schools not only pay towards both the public and the private schools but also pay fees..

Oh and by the way there are many private schools which I couldn't afford,they have amazing facilities,however I wont be moaning because I cant afford the fees..Im excluded from using those facilities because of money,oh Im also" excluded" from the private golf club and the private tennis club due to lack of money,but I can go to the public court or the public parks..


----------



## Marion

> Both the public and the private schools are state funded,the parents pay fees for the extra facilities .I dont see the logic in your argument..as those who send their kids to private schools not only pay towards both the public and the private schools but also pay fees..



Sure they do. But they also guarantee smaller class sizes for their children. 

Glenstal Abbey as an example:



> Each year group is normally divided into two for academic purposes, giving us classes of approximately 16 per set. The academic progress of each class group is monitored by a Tutor. Many classes in the Senior Cycle are considerably smaller than the average size.




The 30 students in the class scenario will more than likely be found in your _average _public-funded school.

I am aware of some public funded schools who have had 35 students in some of their senior-cycle classes (specifically science) - madness - not to mention health and safety issues!


Marion


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> Examples would/could be Golf clubs/Tennis clubs/private gym membership/After school activity's..of which there are private and public ones.
> 
> The state funds a lot of the above,there are community gyms/tennis clubs etc.however they may not have the facilities you want.If you want those facilities, they are available to you ,but you have to pay a fee.. that's life.



Where has the state funded golf clubs? And please don't compare the very modest charges applied in public tennis clubs or gyms to private school fees. It is a different world all together.

This isn't about banning private schools, or stopping people who want to pay for private schools from paying for them. This is about moving the situation that applies in the UK or Germany, where those who want private schooling pay the full economic cost (which is about 4-5 times the cost currently paid in Ireland).


----------



## thedaras

Ok,have I got this right;
You want those who can afford to pay for a private school,lets say its 4k, to pay  4 or 5 times more.Lets say that amounts to 20k a year,instead of 4k.

You believe if this happened, the state would no longer have to pay the teachers salaries and the costs of the building fund for private schools.

But now the private school no longer needs this amount of teachers nor do they need the size of building..

If I had to pay 20k  a year I and many others couldn't afford it,but perhaps there are those who could .

This in effect would mean I would have to take my child out of private school and send him to a public school,therby increasing the numbers of pupils  and the drain on the facilities even more.

But perhaps you also mean that the teachers that the private school would have to let go,should then move to the public schools,(Can they let them go?) but yet the maths doesn't work.. I would have 4k in my pocket each year for 6 years,a gain to me of 24k or 48k before tax..looking good..

Someone would have to make up the shortfall of 6k difference between the public and private school pupils..

Those who remain in the private school paying 20k a year,would have less pupils in their class and the public schools would have more..the tax payer would need to build bigger schools or perhaps more new schools ..Am I missing something?


----------



## Complainer

Yes, you're missing quite a lot.

You're missing the fundamental inequity of a state-subsidised two-tier system, whereby some students get the benefit of smaller classes and better equipment, and others don't - simply due to an accident of birth.

You're missing the economies of scale and significant capacity that exists in many public schools.

You're missing the capital costs invested by the State in private schools for the benefit of the few.

You're missing the substantial numbers who will miraculously find the money to pay for the full economic cost of private education once the State subsidy is removed.


----------



## Marion

> But perhaps you also mean that the teachers that the private school would have to let go,should then move to the public schools,(Can they let them go?)



Of course they can. 

I have friends and family who have worked as teachers in public funded schools for a number of years. One friend had worked for 3 years  in her latest school.  She Had worked during lunch hours, spare classes, took on courses that necessitated hours and hours of study - gave far more than was required of her. She was, I would believe, an excellent teacher If over zealous in her giving of time to her students. Her results were excellent.

Her reward this year: - your contact has expired! Bye Bye!

My niece has a first in her degree. She also works  in a public school and gives willingly of her time on extra-curricular school stuff. Her results are also excellent.

Her reward: After 4 years her hours were reduced. She now has a CID on less hours and is paid accordingly. 

Such is life in the public sector school. Most new teachers are not permanent staff. They are contract workers.

Marion


----------



## micmclo

I think the travel pass scheme needs reforming

People with the pass should pay something, even a small fee of fifty cent for a city bus

There are days on my bus where there are more passengers with passes then paying fares. I wonder if this is the new business model....

And suprise suprise, these are mainly the ones who go to the backseats smoking, drinking and hassling people.
I think people with issues with drugs qualify through disability.

People don't respect what they get for free. 
Should pay something
And some of those passes look extremly dodgy, little more then battered pieces of cardboard.
Prime Time did a show a few years ago and showed they are fake passes all over the place

This could be introduced overnight
More revenue and hopefully less messers on my bus
And when we sort out the passes issue we can link up with Translink up North, they refuse to deal with us now due to all the fake passes and nobody knows what's out there
Can't fail


----------



## Firefly

Marion said:


> Of course they can.
> 
> I have friends and family who have worked as teachers in public funded schools for a number of years. One friend had worked for 3 years  in her latest school.  She Had worked during lunch hours, spare classes, took on courses that necessitated hours and hours of study - gave far more than was required of her. She was, I would believe, an excellent teacher If over zealous in her giving of time to her students. Her results were excellent.
> 
> Her reward this year: - your contact has expired! Bye Bye!
> 
> My niece has a first in her degree. She also works  in a public school and gives willingly of her time on extra-curricular school stuff. Her results are also excellent.
> 
> Her reward: After 4 years her hours were reduced. She now has a CID on less hours and is paid accordingly.
> 
> Such is life in the public sector school. Most new teachers are not permanent staff. They are contract workers.
> 
> Marion



I think that's the crux of the problem....contract workers in the public schools getting let go / their hours reduced as the permanent staff get their increments for turning up. As there is no proper performance management in the public system, the permanent staff have no incentive to be the best, nor the fear of being the worst. 

The simple fact is that if the public schools were better, then, excluding those who send their kids to private schools for vanity reasons, there would be very little demand for private schools in the first place.


----------



## T McGibney

Complainer said:


> Yes, you're missing quite a lot.
> 
> You're missing the fundamental inequity of a state-subsidised two-tier system, whereby some students get the benefit of smaller classes and better equipment, and others don't - simply due to an accident of birth.
> 
> You're missing the economies of scale and significant capacity that exists in many public schools.
> 
> You're missing the capital costs invested by the State in private schools for the benefit of the few.
> 
> You're missing the substantial numbers who will miraculously find the money to pay for the full economic cost of private education once the State subsidy is removed.



You're missing the contrary point that Church of Ireland schools in rural areas must charge fees in order to be viable as they do not have sufficient population numbers. Withdrawing all state support from such schools would be an absolute scandal, in my view.


----------



## Complainer

T McGibney said:


> You're missing the contrary point that Church of Ireland schools in rural areas must charge fees in order to be viable as they do not have sufficient population numbers. Withdrawing all state support from such schools would be an absolute scandal, in my view.



The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.



I think for that to be fair, then all involvement in public schools by the Catholic Church should end immediately. If you then wanted your child to be educated in a Catholic Church you should then have to pay as per other religions.


----------



## shnaek

Complainer said:


> The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.


Isn't state treatment of minorities one of the yardsticks of how civilised that state is?


----------



## shnaek

Husker said:


> Which reports were they?  Were they by the same researcher as this one?  Which aspects of the analysis in this report do you disagree with?



Have a look at this article by McWilliams:

[broken link removed]

Here's a sample:

"Even by 2008, when fellas in pubs could feel the heat, you would expect the dozens of well-paid economists in the ESRI to be twigging that something was going pear-shaped, but no, the ESRI released a forecast for the Irish economy, predicting that for the next seven years Ireland would “grow by 3.75pc on average per annum

The point here is not to have a go at the ESRI — we all make mistakes — but to show that trusting an institution like that, which hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, might not be the cleverest thing to do.”

It went on to say that, after a blip in 2009, “the economy would continue to outperform its EU neighbours”. Consistently since 2005, it said that a “soft landing” in the property market was the most likely outcome, with a collapse a “possibility” . . . but just that.

The point here is not to have a go at the ESRI — we all make mistakes — but to show that trusting an institution like that, which hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, might not be the cleverest thing to do."


----------



## DerKaiser

Complainer said:


> You're missing the substantial numbers who will miraculously find the money to pay for the full economic cost of private education once the State subsidy is removed.


 
This is unrealistic. There are plenty of people who could afford €5k p.a. per child but not so many who could afford €20k p.a. per child. To suggest otherwise is lunacy. 

I think it's no stretch to admit making people pay the full economic cost would be the equivalent of banning private education for all those except the very wealthiest. 

In any case the issue is that the average citizen already pays for education, old age pensions and healthcare (amongst other things) that they might universally hope to benefit from.

"Two tier system" has been used as a toxic term by successive socialist commentators, but how far do we go with a one-tier system?

Education - Should no parent be able to direct their means to provide their child with a better education without kissing goodbye to the already substantial amount they contribute towards general education costs through taxation?

Healthcare - Should no individual be able to direct their means towards providing better healthcare for their families.

Retirement provision - Should no individual be able to prudently provide for a better standard of living for themselves in retirement without losing entitlement to what are currently universal retirement benefits?

If your answer to any/all of the above is yes, you are telling individuals that they have no right to direct their means as they see appropriate. Rather they must rely on the state to decide on an appropriate distribution of resources towards education, health, social protection, etc and accept that whatever the state cannot provide them with (based on the government's or even the EU/IMFs views on what the priorities are), they cannot have.


----------



## Yachtie

shnaek said:


> People often point at the Scandanavian model as one worth following, but I don't know how much people know about that model. For example, there is no infinite entitlement to social welfare in those countries. That is one thing we could certainly do with bringing in over here.
> 
> We can't afford to continuously increase the burden the 1.5million people who are left working in this country without touching our 'benefits' system. It is inevitable that at some point it becomes untenable to continue to work, particularly if you are working in an area which you don't enjoy.


 
Very much agree here. Key word in about post being *infinite*. I was criticised before for giving out about the 'career' long term unemployed. I think that there should be a level of personal responsibility included when making decisions about somebody's entitlements. For example: I don't think that a boy racer who stole a car and wrapped it around the lamp post and killed somebody in the process should receive the same level of disability and benefits as a roofer who fell off the roof in his line of work. 

Unfortunately, the social welfare policies of Ireland have created a whole culture which have already spread from one generation on to the other thus creating a poverty trap for a portion of the society. There are 16 year olds who genuinely believe that the way forward is to get pregnant, get a council house, benefits, etc. because that's what their mothers did.

I would be inclined to belive that those rapidly heading towards the poverty trap are families where jobs were lost in recent years yer every effort is made to keep on top of bills, mortgages, etc. out of social welfare. Most of those would also be desperately trying to get back into workforce and I don['t think they should be affected by the upcoming budget.  

I am not saying that unemployed, disabled and elderly should be given nothing but I think that there should be caps introduced and that the policing of the benefits recepients should be very strong and continuous in order to minimise abuse. I also think that the state should somehow incentivise reports of genuine abuse. We can all play dumb and pretend that people over-claiming benefits or claiming while working for cast are purely fictional and only an excuse or the rest to complain but I can supply at least five names of abusers at a drop of a hat. However, there is not protection offered (as far as I am aware) for doing so, so I keep my mouth shut and rage internally.  

It really saddens me that there is no grasp that all this benefits money needs to be borrowed and the longer we keep borrowing, the longer it is going to take us to collectively get back on our feet.


----------



## Yachtie

Firefly said:


> I think for that to be fair, then all involvement in public schools by the Catholic Church should end immediately. If you then wanted your child to be educated in a Catholic Church you should then have to pay as per other religions.


 
In my opinion, all involvement by the Catholic Church in public education should have ended ages ago.


----------



## T McGibney

Complainer said:


> The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.



Fair enough, although I disagree strongly. The various Protestant denominations have been treated shamefully in this State since independence, and hence their numbers have dwindled alarmingly.  The existence of Protestant faith schools has helped arrest this decline to some extent. The least the State can do is to look after its minorities. In my opinion, to do otherwise would be a shameful abandonment of any pretence to pluralism in Ireland, all for a minor cost saving.


----------



## micmclo

offtopic post,edited out


----------



## orka

Mods, any chance of splitting the private/public school debate from the poverty trap one – I don’t think there’s much overlap in any of the posts and they are quite separate discussions.

But on the public/private education:

Big +1 to all of DerKaiser’s post #39




Complainer said:


> You're missing the fundamental inequity of a state-subsidised two-tier system, whereby some students get the benefit of smaller classes and better equipment, and others don't - simply due to an accident of birth.


It’s not purely an accident of birth as if some lucky people have pixie dust sprinkled over them at birth and they get born into a ‘rich’ family. Very few people in Ireland come from generations of wealth – most can trace back to rural backgrounds and/or relative poverty. But someone somewhere back in the family tree, maybe a parent, maybe a grandparent, decided to better themselves – by education or enterprise but nearly always through very hard work. They did this so that they, their children and their grandchildren could benefit from their hard work, and usually the next generations did better and better again, often through education. In my family, it was my grandfather and his siblings (poor rural) who took it in turns to work and put each other through college, encouraged by my great-grandparents who saw the value of education but couldn’t afford to pay for it. That sort of self-sacrifice just isn’t seen anymore – it’s all about entitlement and begrudgery.

There are plenty of parents with children in the public system paying for grinds, foreign language trips, sports, music lessons etc. all the while benefiting from the public system (and there is a true accident of birth with this if you happen to live near one of the few really excellent public schools) – why is that okay when private schools basically do away with the need for many of these things for one all-in fee? Between the grinds that many parents have to pay for to compensate for at least a couple of poor teachers per school year and the ‘voluntary contributions’ (one local school near me has a €500 VC which is aggressively pursued), there is often little difference between costs at a private school and costs at a public school for a committed parent willing to make financial sacrifices to help their child.

And as DerKaiser pointed out above, this is the exact same tax/subsidy/’paying for extras’ situation that you see in private health care but there isn’t anywhere near as much begrudgery about that because many of the vocal opponents of public money going into private education are quite happy to live with a comfy two-tier health system because they are benefiting from it.


----------



## DerKaiser

orka said:


> but there isn’t anywhere near as much begrudgery about that because many of the vocal opponents of public money going into private education are quite happy to live with a comfy two-tier health system because they are benefiting from it.


 
Nail on the head. 

Somewhat under 10% of kids attend fee paying schools. It's two tier education.

About 50% of people have private medical insurance. It's a two tier health system.

About 85% of people have jobs. It's a two tier employment system.

I wonder is there some correlation here with the the above proportions and those who oppose the various two tier systems ?

We live in a world where people can gain advantage through the means they have in a number of ways. It incentivises a bit of get up and go and leads to inequality of circumstances (rather than opportunity).

Practically everyone buys into some level of inequality or some form of two tier system (otherwise you'd give away all your possessions), so it does seem funny sometimes for the 'a la carte' socialists to tell us where two tier systems are unacceptable whilst tolerating them all around in many other situations.


----------



## Purple

Complainer is trying to make an economic argument to justify begrudgery.
The reality is that before 1967 all schools were privately owned and funded. The 1967 Education Act ensured access to secondary education for all. That involved the schools that opted into the state system having all of their costs met by the state. This was particularly important at the time as the act required significant improvements in the standards of school buildings. Those schools that didn’t opt in still had to improve their buildings but had to pay for it in full from their own resources. The key point is that the move from private to public was optional. 

Complainer is going through contortions to try to show that the state not paying the full cost of education for some schools is actually more expensive than the state paying the full cost for all children.

Bizarre logic but if that’s what passes for logic within the Labour Party it explains a lot!


----------



## thedaras

Orka, Derkieser and Purple your points are very well made,and I have posted some similar ones myself. 

But those of us who agree with your points need to be aware that begrudery is alive and kicking in Ireland,if you cant afford to pay for something,its usually someone else's fault and sure  "God love you".

However, if you have worked hard to pay for something you suddenly become the enemy!
I wonder if those who are so opposed to a two tier system,ensure that they have no more than anyone else they know of..doubt it ..


----------



## shnaek

orka said:


> It’s not purely an accident of birth as if some lucky people have pixie dust sprinkled over them at birth and they get born into a ‘rich’ family. Very few people in Ireland come from generations of wealth – most can trace back to rural backgrounds and/or relative poverty. But someone somewhere back in the family tree, maybe a parent, maybe a grandparent, decided to better themselves – by education or enterprise but nearly always through very hard work.


Spot on. In my case it was my grandfather. There are many in Ireland who just don't seem to value hard work, and the people who work hard, at all. In fact, the dossers and wasters seem to be more highly valued. How can we ever be self sufficient as long as this attitude persists?


----------



## Yachtie

shnaek said:


> Spot on. In my case it was my grandfather. There are many in Ireland who just don't seem to value hard work, and the people who work hard, at all. In fact, the dossers and wasters seem to be more highly valued. How can we ever be self sufficient as long as this attitude persists?


 
+1

Yeah, and you are an absolute fool if you chose to work even for low pay if you could sit around all day and complain about others subsidising you. 

If I may add to your point, what about setting an example for our young? How can you expect your child to become a valuable asset to themselves a well as society if you teach them that you can get away with doing not very much and still have a plasma TV?


----------



## Chris

Some very interesting and well argued points here. I don't want to add too much here, as I would also call for this thread to be split in two. 



thedaras said:


> But those of us who agree with your points need to be aware that begrudery is alive and kicking in Ireland,if you cant afford to pay for something,its usually someone else's fault and sure  "God love you".



As a foreigner living in Ireland, and having travelled a very large part of the world I have to say that I think Irish people are among the most begrudging I have met. This is ofcourse a big generalisation, but it is based on many encounters over the years.


----------



## Complainer

DerKaiser said:


> I think it's no stretch to admit making people pay the full economic cost would be the equivalent of banning private education for all those except the very wealthiest.


And the problem with making people pay the full economic cost is?



DerKaiser said:


> In any case the issue is that the average citizen already pays for education, old age pensions and healthcare (amongst other things) that they might universally hope to benefit from.
> 
> "Two tier system" has been used as a toxic term by successive socialist commentators, but how far do we go with a one-tier system?
> 
> Education - Should no parent be able to direct their means to provide their child with a better education without kissing goodbye to the already substantial amount they contribute towards general education costs through taxation?
> 
> Healthcare - Should no individual be able to direct their means towards providing better healthcare for their families.
> 
> Retirement provision - Should no individual be able to prudently provide for a better standard of living for themselves in retirement without losing entitlement to what are currently universal retirement benefits?
> 
> If your answer to any/all of the above is yes, you are telling individuals that they have no right to direct their means as they see appropriate. Rather they must rely on the state to decide on an appropriate distribution of resources towards education, health, social protection, etc and accept that whatever the state cannot provide them with (based on the government's or even the EU/IMFs views on what the priorities are), they cannot have.


Here's how far we go. The State should provide a decent quality education, health service, etc. If that State service isn't good enough for you, then you are very welcome to provide your own service at the full economic cost. It doesn't stop anyone from buying the better service. It just means they have to pay for that service.



Yachtie said:


> For example: I don't think that a boy racer who stole a car and wrapped it around the lamp post and killed somebody in the process should receive the same level of disability and benefits as a roofer who fell off the roof in his line of work.


This is a very dangerous road to go down. Surely the roofer should have had proper safety provisions in place, so he shouldn't get anything. And any smoker who gets ill, they shouldn't get anything. And anyone who is a bit overweight or whose BMI is over 26, they shouldn't get anything. If you want to start playing the blame game, where does it stop?



Yachtie said:


> We can all play dumb and pretend that people over-claiming benefits or claiming while working for cast are purely fictional and only an excuse or the rest to complain but I can supply at least five names of abusers at a drop of a hat. However, there is not protection offered (as far as I am aware) for doing so, so I keep my mouth shut and rage internally.


What kind of protection are you expecting?



T McGibney said:


> Fair enough, although I disagree strongly. The various Protestant denominations have been treated shamefully in this State since independence, and hence their numbers have dwindled alarmingly.  The existence of Protestant faith schools has helped arrest this decline to some extent. The least the State can do is to look after its minorities. In my opinion, to do otherwise would be a shameful abandonment of any pretence to pluralism in Ireland, all for a minor cost saving.


I don't know a lot about how Protestant denominations have been treated, so I can't really comment on the broad issue. But I'm curious as to how far this could be pushed - should the same deal that applies to Protestant schools also apply to Jewish schools, or Muslim schools, or Pastafarian schools?



orka said:


> But on the public/private education:
> 
> Big +1 to all of DerKaiser’s post #39
> 
> 
> It’s not purely an accident of birth as if some lucky people have pixie dust sprinkled over them at birth and they get born into a ‘rich’ family. Very few people in Ireland come from generations of wealth – most can trace back to rural backgrounds and/or relative poverty. But someone somewhere back in the family tree, maybe a parent, maybe a grandparent, decided to better themselves – by education or enterprise but nearly always through very hard work. They did this so that they, their children and their grandchildren could benefit from their hard work, and usually the next generations did better and better again, often through education. In my family, it was my grandfather and his siblings (poor rural) who took it in turns to work and put each other through college, encouraged by my great-grandparents who saw the value of education but couldn’t afford to pay for it. That sort of self-sacrifice just isn’t seen anymore – it’s all about entitlement and begrudgery.


 It's not about begrudgery. It really is an accident of birth. I know that many people work hard to build up their financial status, and fair play to them. But for two children, born on the same day in the same hospital, it is very much down to an accident of birth as to what level of healthcare they will get, and what level of education they will get, and whether they will walk into a nice cushy job in the family firm etc etc. There is no good reason why any child in Ireland should not get a basic decent education - and this is certainly not happening across the board today.


orka said:


> There are plenty of parents with children in the public system paying for grinds, foreign language trips, sports, music lessons etc. all the while benefiting from the public system (and there is a true accident of birth with this if you happen to live near one of the few really excellent public schools) – why is that okay when private schools basically do away with the need for many of these things for one all-in fee? Between the grinds that many parents have to pay for to compensate for at least a couple of poor teachers per school year and the ‘voluntary contributions’ (one local school near me has a €500 VC which is aggressively pursued), there is often little difference between costs at a private school and costs at a public school for a committed parent willing to make financial sacrifices to help their child.


I don't know of any school that includes foreign trips in the basic fee. There is a big difference between a €500 VC and a €5k fee, or a €25k as it should really be.


orka said:


> And as DerKaiser pointed out above, this is the exact same tax/subsidy/’paying for extras’ situation that you see in private health care but there isn’t anywhere near as much begrudgery about that because many of the vocal opponents of public money going into private education are quite happy to live with a comfy two-tier health system because they are benefiting from it.


 Personally, I'd have exactly the same view on healthcare - full economic cost for private patients. 

For the record, I pay private health insurance at the moment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of paying private school fees in the future (mainly because I live just round the corner from a private school) - but I would still support any proposal to ensure that those who use those services pay the full economic cost. We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.


----------



## shnaek

Complainer said:


> There is no good reason why any child in Ireland should not get a basic decent education - and this is certainly not happening across the board today.


Because of the quality of teachers? Or poor parenting? Or what is the reason for this? We have free education from primary to third level here, there is no reason why everyone wouldn't have the same education.


Complainer said:


> We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.


I agree. I've always thought of health insurance as a con, just an extra tax based on fear. We spend over 20bn a year on a health service for 3.5million people - health insurance shouldn't be required for a first class service with the money we currently spend.


----------



## DB74

Complainer said:


> For the record, I pay private health insurance at the moment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of paying private school fees in the future (mainly because I live just round the corner from a private school) - but I would still support any proposal to ensure that those who use those services pay the full economic cost. We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.



And you might find distinct dis-improvements in the services if all the people who currently go to private hospitals etc start descending on the local hospital

Do you have a breakdown as to how much a private patient costs the State as opposed to a public patient?

I recently needed urgent hospital attention for a sports injury.

I went to the VHI Clinic in Dundrum, primarily because I wasn't prepared to sit in A&E for hours with a non-life-threatening injury when I could be seen there within 15 mins.

It cost €100 for the VHI visit, crutches were extra, as was the walking boot necessary for the next 2 months. The follow-up visits were again private in the Sports Injury Clinic in Santry and again they cost extra.

All-in-all, about €500

And you think that it better serves the taxpayer if I go to my A&E and let Joe Public bear all those costs.


----------



## T McGibney

Complainer said:


> I don't know a lot about how Protestant denominations have been treated, so I can't really comment on the broad issue.



Well maybe you should educate yourself accordingly, if you are proposing policy changes that will impact very badly on Irish Protestant culture.

a few suggestions:
John Charles  McQuaid - Ruler of Catholic Ireland by John Cooney
The _Fethard-on-Sea_ Boycott by Tim Fanning
Against the Tide by Noel Browne
*
*


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> For the record, I pay private health insurance at the moment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of paying private school fees in the future (mainly because I live just round the corner from a private school) - but *I would still support any proposal to ensure that those who use those services pay the full economic cost*. We might find distinct improvements in the quality of health and education services if less people have access to private facilities.


Well here’s the good news; they already do. They pay most of it indirectly through taxation and then they pay the balance directly through fees. Then on top of that consider that the school they send their children to is not being fully funded by the state so in effect those parents are subsidising the public system.
The same applies to those paying private health insurance; they are subsidising the public system by paying for services that would otherwise have to be paid for by the state.

I do find it strange that Complainer is so blasé about the impact his proposals to force parents sending their children to private schools should be forced to pay for it twice (once through taxation and once directly) would have on the Protestant minority. I wonder if he’d have the same attitude if members of the travelling community were forced to pay the full economic cost of the special facilities that the state provides for them? (I’m not having a go at travellers; I agree  with the supports the state provide for them).


----------



## Firefly

I'm with Complainer on parents paying the full cost of private education with no state subsidy of any kind. The main reason is that private schools, like any other private members club, decide on and limit their members, so I don't think they should receive state funding of any kind. The public system is open to all.

Having said that, the effects of the government withdrawing support for private schools, will reduce those entering private schools. I see some adverse outcomes:

Some private schools will close resulting in unemployment (which I don't have a problem with as no private enterprise should depend on state support to remain open)

Super elite private schools will remain and future golden circles will emerge. 

Class sizes in the neaby public schools will swell or additional teacher will be hired (unlikely at the moment)

Just to add, I think the same should apply to private health insurance. Make those who want it pay the full costs. The result IMO would be that the vast majority of people (including a lot of people from the voting constituencies) would have to go public and I'm sure standards would improve quickly then!

Finally, I don't think that religion has any place in a school. By all means allow the school the offer religious classes after school but ensure no state aid is given for that. This way each religion is treated the same.


----------



## Chris

I think Sweden, yes that "socialist"  heaven, introduced an extremely successful scheme of school vouchers. The very basic functioning is that every child receives a voucher annually. This voucher can then be used to go to a publicly run school or a private school. Teachers can become entrepreneurs by buying or renting adequate class room space and then advertising as a new school. These private schools can then be chosen by people of any background, as at present schools cannot accept the vouchers and charge more, but you can make a profit.
The result so far has been that the number of publicly run schools has gone down and the choice available to parents has drastically improved. There are now private schools that teach mainly in foreign languages or that focus more science, or art, or anything that may be in demand. This also weeds out the worst run schools and introduces competition into a state monopoly.
I have talked to several teachers I know, especially those that are not on permanent contracts, about what they would think of the idea of setting up their own school if they could attract the same pupils as a state run school with the same per child funding. So far not one of them thought it wasn't a good idea.
I think it is absolutely unfair and scandalous to force people to pay tax to fund a public school even if you opt to not send your child to a public school, thereby reducing the running cost to the public system. Why should someone fund 20% of government budget spending for something they do not use?


----------



## DB74

Firefly said:


> Just to add, I think the same should apply to private health insurance. Make those who want it pay the full costs. The result would be that 95% of people (including a lot of people from the voting constituencies) would have to go public and I'm sure standards would improve quickly then!



How sure are you? Have you got any figures or examples to back it up?

The article below states that almost 70% of VHI patients are treated in private hospitals. Are you trying to claim that the HSE and Health system would "improve quickly" if all those people started turning up at their A&E?

[broken link removed]


----------



## DB74

Firefly said:


> I'm with Complainer on parents paying the full cost of private education with no state subsidy of any kind. The main reason is that private schools, like any other private members club, decide on and limit their members, so I don't think they should receive state funding of any kind. The public system is open to all.



The public system is not fully open to all. You can't choose which school you send your children to if you decide to go via the public system. You can only choose a school if you are within its catchment area. And if that school has poor facilities or poor teachers or other issues beyond your control, well hard luck because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.


----------



## T McGibney

DB74 said:


> because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.



In most cases (ie unless the school is already full) you do actually have that choice.


----------



## Firefly

DB74 said:


> The public system is not fully open to all. You can't choose which school you send your children to if you decide to go via the public system. You can only choose a school if you are within its catchment area. And if that school has poor facilities or poor teachers or other issues beyond your control, well hard luck because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.



I take your point and agree that some public schools are good whilst others are aweful...but the point I am making is that you can still go to *a* school.


----------



## Firefly

DB74 said:


> How sure are you? Have you got any figures or examples to back it up?
> 
> The article below states that almost 70% of VHI patients are treated in private hospitals. Are you trying to claim that the HSE and Health system would "improve quickly" if all those people started turning up at their A&E?
> 
> [broken link removed]



I don't have a figure, so I will update the post to reflect that. However, if the state did not contribute anything to private health care (meaning that private hospitals would only be used) then the costs IMO would be astronomical and the vast majority of people would not be able to afford this.


When I say improve quickly what I mean is that internally, the HSE would  be under fierce pressure from local councillors etc to get thir shop in  order. It may take a while for this to take effect but I do believe  things would get better (however, probably more so in the "better"  areas)


----------



## Firefly

Chris said:


> I think Sweden, yes that "socialist"  heaven, introduced an extremely successful scheme of school vouchers. The very basic functioning is that every child receives a voucher annually. This voucher can then be used to go to a publicly run school or a private school. Teachers can become entrepreneurs by buying or renting adequate class room space and then advertising as a new school. These private schools can then be chosen by people of any background, as at present schools cannot accept the vouchers and charge more, but you can make a profit.
> The result so far has been that the number of publicly run schools has gone down and the choice available to parents has drastically improved. There are now private schools that teach mainly in foreign languages or that focus more science, or art, or anything that may be in demand. This also weeds out the worst run schools and introduces competition into a state monopoly.
> I have talked to several teachers I know, especially those that are not on permanent contracts, about what they would think of the idea of setting up their own school if they could attract the same pupils as a state run school with the same per child funding. So far not one of them thought it wasn't a good idea.


Chris, (as always) I think this is a superb idea that should be explored.



Chris said:


> I think it is absolutely unfair and scandalous to force people to pay tax to fund a public school even if you opt to not send your child to a public school, thereby reducing the running cost to the public system. Why should someone fund 20% of government budget spending for something they do not use?



I agree with this also. Perhaps the state should work out the average cost of sending a child to a public school and if you go private (where you have to pay the full fees) then you should be able to claim this back? Unfortunately in this case I would expect that the private schools would simply add this amount to their fees. 

Finally, how do you see your voucher plan operate in the rural areas where there is simply not the demand for multiple private schools? In this case would the parents simply use their vouchers to attend the local public schools anyway? Relations of our come to mind - they live in the North West and their child is attending a primary school with 14 kids! 

Firefly.


----------



## T McGibney

Firefly said:


> When I say improve quickly what I mean is that internally, the HSE would  be under fierce pressure from local councillors etc to get thir shop in  order.



The HSE is already riddled with local politics. That, in large measure, is why it has been a massive failure. There is no basis to suggest that that local councillors are sufficiently competent to monitor healthcare outcomes on any rational basis.


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> The HSE is already riddled with local politics. That, in large measure, is why it has been a massive failure. There is no basis to suggest that that local councillors are sufficiently competent to monitor healthcare outcomes on any rational basis.



I take that point too. I suppose the point I am making is that if more of the "great and the good" had to go through the public system then it IMO would start to improve fairly quickly. We saw what happened when the pensioners went on strike...now imagine if all pensioners had to go via the public system and lost their cherished VHI. There would be uproar and change.


----------



## T McGibney

Firefly said:


> I take that point too. I suppose the point I am making is that if more of the "great and the good" had to go through the public system then it IMO would start to improve fairly quickly. We saw what happened when the pensioners went on strike...now imagine if all pensioners had to go via the public system and lost their cherished VHI. There would be uproar and change.



There is already widespread uproar, across all strands of society, about the poor standards of our hospitals.  There has been damn all change. Forcing everyone to use the public system will increase the uproar but it will also increase the death toll.

The 'striking' pensioners were lucky in the timing of the campaign, in that it preceded most of the serious economic hardship in this country. If they try a repeat after this or the next Budget they won't get as far...


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> There is already widespread uproar, across all strands of society, about the poor standards of our hospitals.  There has been damn all change.



I don't think there is uproar. I think a lot of people are moaning about it and giving out. If you suddenly put the other half of the population through the public system at one time, then you'd have uproar and then you would IMO have change. All the "right" people would be affected.


----------



## DB74

You'll only have uproar if there is a significant increase in the number of deaths as result of waiting list increases etc and that is too big a price to pay IMO

And after the debacle of unseen x-rays etc in Tallaght Hospital, I'd rather go up North of over to the UK and be seen than take my chances in the public system down here.


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> Forcing everyone to use the public system will increase the uproar but it will also increase the death toll.



Would it though? The majority of people seen privately are seen in public hospitals where they in effect pay to jump the queue (and get a nicer room). 
If that results in public patients dying as a result, then the net effect of everyone going public would be the same...only the make up would change (those that were private may now also die, but some of those originally public may live). 

Purely private hospitals would receive nothing from the state and away they go. You can still then go private if you want to but you should IMO have to pay the full cost.


----------



## Complainer

DB74 said:


> The public system is not fully open to all. You can't choose which school you send your children to if you decide to go via the public system. You can only choose a school if you are within its catchment area. And if that school has poor facilities or poor teachers or other issues beyond your control, well hard luck because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.



Not true. Schools may prioritise those in their own cachement area, but they would only turn somebody away if they were already full.



T McGibney said:


> Well maybe you should educate yourself accordingly, if you are proposing policy changes that will impact very badly on Irish Protestant culture.
> 
> a few suggestions:
> John Charles  McQuaid - Ruler of Catholic Ireland by John Cooney
> The _Fethard-on-Sea_ Boycott by Tim Fanning
> Against the Tide by Noel Browne
> *
> *


I read Against the Tide years back. I certainly remember the whole Mother and Child Scheme situation, but if I recall correctly, this was really an attack by the Catholic Church on the whole community, not targeted at the Protestant community. Are you referring to something else?

I saw the movie about the Fethard on Sea thing - a dreadful situation, but more of a community attack rather than a State attack, afaik.

I've the McQuaid book to my reading list, thanks.


Firefly said:


> Chris, (as always) I think this is a superb idea that should be explored.


If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid fully unionised teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8601207.stm?ls


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> [broken link removed]


We couldn't afford Finlands education system. When we have Irish companies like Nokia, Kone, Stora Enso (biggest paper manufacturer in the world, they also have the third biggest paper manufacturer in the world) and Aker Finnyards (cruise ship builder) etc as well as massive mineral and forestry reserves then we can talk about copying their spending habits.


----------



## DB74

Complainer said:


> Not true. Schools may prioritise those in their own cachement area, but they would only turn somebody away if they were already full.



But whether they are full or not, they are not obliged to take any one student (outside catchment), in the same way that a private school is not obliged to take someone.


----------



## Complainer

DB74 said:


> But whether they are full or not, they are not obliged to take any one student (outside catchment), in the same way that a private school is not obliged to take someone.



There is a fairly fixed procedure around refusals to take a child. They can only refuse a child if the child doesn't fit with their enrollment policy. Any enrollment policy that I've seen finishes with 'all other children' as the last on the priority list. So they cannot refuse a child, solely because they live outside the area.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid fully unionised teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.



Yes, I think we could learn a lot from the Finns. Having said that, by European standards our pay is pretty high. I think we have 2 big problems that need to be overcome:

1. Changing the culture or getting rid of lazy teachers. It is IMO a vocation. We've all had super teachers and others who are counting down the years to retirement. Our teachers should want to be the best.

2. Training. We have teachers teaching subjects they themselves didn't study at 3rd level. Crazy..they should be experts in their field


----------



## shnaek

Good education article here, from the Times last week:

[broken link removed]

On Finland:
"For example, Finland, ranked as having the best school system in Europe, does not rely on passing a national Leaving Certificate equivalent. Instead, the assessment of student attainment is primarily dependent on the professional judgment of the teachers who themselves are carefully selected, nurtured, monitored, assessed and trained to perform their work."


----------



## Firefly

shnaek said:


> Good education article here, from the Times last week:
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> On Finland:
> "For example, Finland, ranked as having the best school system in Europe, does not rely on passing a national Leaving Certificate equivalent. Instead, the assessment of student attainment is primarily dependent on the professional judgment of the *teachers who themselves are carefully selected, nurtured, monitored, assessed and trained to perform their work.*"



That's where we would IMO fall down. It's not in our culture..do we have *anything* provided by the state that is anywhere close to world class? I'm not saying we are lazy, but without something like a leaving cert in place it would be open season for the dossers here. How would parents be able to rate schools?


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> How would parents be able to rate schools?


How do they rate the schools today?


----------



## Imperator

Complainer said:


> I read Against the Tide years back. I certainly remember the whole Mother and Child Scheme situation, but if I recall correctly, this was really an attack by the Catholic Church on the whole community, not targeted at the Protestant community. Are you referring to something else?



On a point of interest, in some good books on modern Irish history (e.g. those by Joe Lee and Dermot Keogh) the medical profession were identified as being the principal opponents of the Mother and Child Scheme, to the extent that some bishops felt they had been manipulated into taking certain positions- although given their ideology not much effort would have been required to manipulate them.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> How do they rate the schools today?



A lot of parents don't rate schools at all, and will simply send their children to their nearest school. For others, religious requirements will determine where their children go. Parents with a special needs child will be looking for the school with the best care.

For us (and I expect a lot of parents), acedemic achievement is our highest priority. For better or worse, colleges here base their intake on Leaving Cert results. (It's another debate on how effecting the LC is or whether colleges should use something else, but for now, it is what it is.) The Sunday Times listing provides a listing of schools in order of placement to 3rd level. The top schools in Cork are of interest to us to begin with. We then contact those schools we have narrowed our search down to to get more information. For example, one of the schools we are interested in provided us with the average leaving cert points obtained for last year's class and also the % of students receiving over 500 points.

I completely accept that Leaving Cert points are not the be all and end all, but interestingly, I find (through looking at lots of schools and going to open days) that those that tend to have higher academic results are often great at other things also, such as sports, music & art. A commitment to academic excellence seems to permeate other areas. 

In my own case, I went to a well-below average school academically. Out of 160 of us doing the LC only 7 of us went to university. We were often singled out by our peers and could not even discuss going to UCC. As well as being a poor school academically, it seemed the school was poor at everything also...terrible at sports, if you showed an interest in art or music you were picked on. I'd prefer to send my children to a school where going to 3rd was seen as "normal" (_if that's what they themselves wanted_).


----------



## orka

DB74 said:


> The public system is not fully open to all. You can't choose which school you send your children to if you decide to go via the public system. You can only choose a school if you are within its catchment area. And if that school has poor facilities or poor teachers or other issues beyond your control, well hard luck because you don't have a choice to go to the nice well-run school in the next parish/village.





Complainer said:


> Not true. Schools may prioritise those in their own cachement area, but they would only turn somebody away if they were already full.





Complainer said:


> There is a fairly fixed procedure around refusals to take a child. They can only refuse a child if the child doesn't fit with their enrollment policy. Any enrollment policy that I've seen finishes with 'all other children' as the last on the priority list. So they cannot refuse a child, solely because they live outside the area.


Any 'good' public school will be full long before they get to the 'all other children' category.  There are already good public schools in Dublin where parents queue (sometimes for days!) to get their child in if they are from outside the catchment area.


----------



## Complainer

orka said:


> Any 'good' public school will be full long before they get to the 'all other children' category.  There are already good public schools in Dublin where parents queue (sometimes for days!) to get their child in if they are from outside the catchment area.



A bit heavy on the generalisations there, no? Some schools are full, some are undersubscribed. Demographic trends change, and the schools that were jammers 5 years ago may well be undersubscribed. I haven't seen those reports of parents queueing overnight for a while now - does that nonsense still go on?


----------



## Yachtie

Complainer said:


> And the problem with making people pay the full economic cost is?
> 
> Here's how far we go. The State should provide a decent quality education, health service, etc. If that State service isn't good enough for you, then you are very welcome to provide your own service at the full economic cost. It doesn't stop anyone from buying the better service. It just means they have to pay for that service.


 
As it was pointed out by somebody else, it is unfair for tax paying parents who educate their children privately to be paying for the service they don't avail of. To me, the same should apply to healthcare if proper two-tier system existed. I personally wouldn't want to be paying somebody else's education or medical expenses if an opt-out was possible. 



> This is a very dangerous road to go down. Surely the roofer should have had proper safety provisions in place, so he shouldn't get anything. And any smoker who gets ill, they shouldn't get anything. And anyone who is a bit overweight or whose BMI is over 26, they shouldn't get anything. If you want to start playing the blame game, where does it stop?


 
So because there is always a different case scenario, no personal responsibility or accountability should exist? My example was to differentiate between a treatment given to basically a common criminal and a hard working, tax paying citizen who just got unlucky.  




> What kind of protection are you expecting?


 
A link was provided to me to report somebody anonymously, which I did. I wasn't aware that you didn't have to provide any of your own deatails and that you wouldn't have to testify should the fraudster be brought to court. For a start, I wouldn't want my windows broken or my family terrorised. 




> It's not about begrudgery. It really is an accident of birth. I know that many people work hard to build up their financial status, and fair play to them. But for two children, born on the same day in the same hospital, it is very much down to an accident of birth as to what level of healthcare they will get, and what level of education they will get, and whether they will walk into a nice cushy job in the family firm etc etc. There is no good reason why any child in Ireland should not get a basic decent education - and this is certainly not happening across the board today.


 
You can call it an accident but to me it's a rather basic calculation. At least that's how it went in my family. You have as many children as you can feed, clothe, educate and generally provide for comfortably. Having five children while you live in a two bed house and on one minimum wage income is not an accident but selfishness and stupidity.


----------



## Complainer

Yachtie said:


> As it was pointed out by somebody else, it is unfair for tax paying parents who educate their children privately to be paying for the service they don't avail of. To me, the same should apply to healthcare if proper two-tier system existed. I personally wouldn't want to be paying somebody else's education or medical expenses if an opt-out was possible.


What is unfair is for the State to continue subsidising a two-tier system, whereby some people use the State subsidy to continue and deepen the considerable inequalities in education and healthcare. 



Yachtie said:


> So because there is always a different case scenario, no personal responsibility or accountability should exist? My example was to differentiate between a treatment given to basically a common criminal and a hard working, tax paying citizen who just got unlucky.


I didn't suggest that there was no place for personal responsibility. I simply pointed out some of the very practical difficulties of going down that road. Was the roofer unlucky, or careless? Is the doctor supposed to make that judgement before he provides treatment?

There is a good reason for having a universal emergency care system.




Yachtie said:


> A link was provided to me to report somebody anonymously, which I did. I wasn't aware that you didn't have to provide any of your own deatails and that you wouldn't have to testify should the fraudster be brought to court. For a start, I wouldn't want my windows broken or my family terrorised.


I understand your concern, and I'd share it to some degree. However, I'd imagine that (like in most aspects of life) an anonymous report is given a lot less weight than an attributable report. It's just too easy for anyone to use the anonymous report for a grudge.

There should be no scenario where the person reporting the fraud would end up testifying in court. The evidence of fraud would be gathered by the SW inspector.



Yachtie said:


> =
> You can call it an accident but to me it's a rather basic calculation. At least that's how it went in my family. You have as many children as you can feed, clothe, educate and generally provide for comfortably. Having five children while you live in a two bed house and on one minimum wage income is not an accident but selfishness and stupidity.


You miss the point. The children concern didn't make the judgement that you describe. Yet they get to benefit from the better education or better healthcare of whatever. That's the accident of birth. For two kids born in the same ward in Holles St on the same day, one gets better education and better healthcare, and gets to live longer, and has a better chance of providing better education and better healthcare for their own children. What kind of system penalises one child for their accident of birth?


----------



## Superman

Complainer said:


> I didn't suggest that there was no place for personal responsibility. I simply pointed out some of the very practical difficulties of going down that road. Was the roofer unlucky, or careless? Is the doctor supposed to make that judgement before he provides treatment?


Such a system would work on an after the fact assessment. Treat them first - then bill them if a certain threshold of culpability was reached. There would have to be some sort of fair procedures element to it also - which would mean it could only be used where the costs of the fair procedure process were less than the gains of seeking to recoup costs.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> You miss the point. The children concern didn't make the judgement that you describe. Yet they get to benefit from the better education or better healthcare of whatever. That's the accident of birth. For two kids born in the same ward in Holles St on the same day, one gets better education and better healthcare, and gets to live longer, and has a better chance of providing better education and better healthcare for their own children. What kind of system penalises one child for their accident of birth?



No, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.


----------



## DerKaiser

purple said:


> no, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.



+1.


----------



## johnd

Purple said:


> No, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.


 
You seem to be assuming that if you don't sent your child to a private schol or attend the Blackrock clinic when ill the reason is because you are a feckless waster who prefers to spend the money on fags, booze and holidays. That is not the case!

Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.

People choose private health insurance to jump ahead of people with public health access. At least with that money is the only consideration.


----------



## Purple

johnd said:


> You seem to be assuming that if you don't sent your child to a private schol or attend the Blackrock clinic when ill the reason is because you are a feckless waster who prefers to spend the money on fags, booze and holidays. That is not the case!


 The assume a lot, all of it incorrect. I am simply saying people make choices.



johnd said:


> Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.


 You’ve got a major chip on your shoulder. We moved our special needs son from the local public school to the local private school because a friend had done the same thing with great results. As it’s such a good school we also moved our other son. Before having direct contact with the school I presumed that standards would be lower, special needs would not be catered for and there would be a snobbish attitude from staff and parents. I was wrong on all counts. My daughters are in the local public school because it’s the best school in the area. We’ve had to make major changes at home to pay for the private school but if we do the groundwork now we may avoid spending a fortune on grinds when they are older. We still pay the full cost of sending our children to school (and then some) since we pay fully through our taxes and then again with fees.



johnd said:


> People choose private health insurance to jump ahead of people with public health access. At least with that money is the only consideration.


People choose private health insurance out of fear and because the people who run the public system do such a bad job.


----------



## Complainer

Superman said:


> Such a system would work on an after the fact assessment. Treat them first - then bill them if a certain threshold of culpability was reached. There would have to be some sort of fair procedures element to it also - which would mean it could only be used where the costs of the fair procedure process were less than the gains of seeking to recoup costs.



And where are you going to set that threshold of culpability? Are smokers culpable? Are obese people culpable? Are speeding drivers culpable? Are unsafe workers culpable? Are parents who both carry the CF gene culpable for reproducing? Where are you going to draw the line?

And what happens where (as is the case with most families) there is no real money available to be recouped?


----------



## Superman

Complainer said:


> And where are you going to set that threshold of culpability? Are smokers culpable? Are obese people culpable? Are speeding drivers culpable? Are unsafe workers culpable? Are parents who both carry the CF gene culpable for reproducing? Where are you going to draw the line?


If I were introducing such a system, I'd apply the existing Tort based negligence test. In fact one could probably tie the entire thing into the existing PIAB system.  Lines are already drawn and use a reasonableness standard.

Applying to your examples above:
Smokers are culpable;
Obese people may or may not be culpable based on the cause of obesity;
Speeding drivers are culpable;
Unsafe workers are culpable (depending on their level of awareness of the risks they are running) - as well as their employers;
Parents' carrying the CF gene would be exempt on constitutional and human rights grounds - as they would under the current tort system.



> And what happens where (as is the case with most families) there is no real money available to be recouped?


Same thing that happens when a Court Judgement is given and the family is unable to recoup. I'd point out that there may be an issue of misuse of process by any body seeking to recoup costs from someone with no ability to pay.


BTW:
I am merely pointing out that such a system does not have major practical difficulties with its setup - whether people would like such a system or not is a different question.


----------



## Complainer

The current system of legal culpability has its own problems; http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=163435


----------



## thedaras

johnd said:


> Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background..



To sum up how you think, you believe that those who choose a private school for their kids,do so for the following reasons;

1) Parents  don't want their kids to mix with the "average joe soap".
WRONG; Most of the kids in private schools are the kids of very average people.

2) They don't want their kids hanging around with council estates kids.

WRONG; Their kids would spend 8 years of primary school with kids from all areas and still hang out with them,and there are parents from council estates who have their kids in private schools,the only person that suffers is the kid,who has to put up with the slagging and isolation of the people who seem to think that the parents who do this, think they are better than the rest.

3) They don't want their kids to pal with those from "Less affluent areas".
WRONG: All of the kids in private schools are from a variety of areas..

4) They don't want their kids to pal with those who have a "Common accent".
WRONG: In a particular area,most of the kids speak the same way.

That has to be the biggest load of rubbish I have read in a very long time.
While I dont particulary wish to comment on such utter tripe,( Because to read it says it all), I will say the following.

I would send my kids to any school that didnt have parents who thought like the poster,private,public,RC,Church of Ireland ,educate together,anywhere to keep them away from this horrific/ignorant attitude.

I have had my kids in Private school, Public schools,grind schools, RC schools and Church of Ireland schools..
I also live in an area which has a lot of private schools,and the kids here,who go to the Public schools don't have what the poster calls Common accents,so that is utter rubbish!

The primary schools where I live,have the butcher the baker and the candle stick maker,so lets look at what happens to those kids when they leave 6th class..

They all live in the same area,They have spent 8 years together,some are from council estates some are not,the parents of those kids have all kinds of jobs,some have no work,so what is the deciding factor on which secondary school to send their kids too?

Having known the parents for the best part of the 8 years in primary school and having discussed the various schools and options available,here is the reality..

Some of the parents send their kids to the Public schools,reason is that most of the kids they pal with are going to the same school,and sometimes their brothers/sisters are also in that school and are doing very well.

Some send them to the more "Arty " type schools,reason..because that is the environment they want their kids to be in.They are usually Arty types themselves.

Some go to the Irish schools,(Public ) reason; they usually have a love of the language and want to pass it on.

Some send kids to the private schools, reason,mainly because their friends are also going,they may have brothers/sisters at that school who are doing well.
Some have the money to send their kids to a private school,but choose a public school that they believe better suits their childs needs..
Some dont have the money to send their kids to private schools,so they saved for years,or will sacrifice something to get their kids into the school which best suits their needs.

I do not believe that any parent would send their kids to a school that didn't suit them or that they would be unhappy in..

If the poster thinks that parents who send their kids to private school do so on the basis of the other kids accents,where they live etc ,then it is an incorrect assumption.

Now interestingly,all the kids that spent 8 years in primary school,who then went on to various different types of secondary school, all still keep in contact,and meet up,and go to the local disco and play on the same sports teams etc.

It is no doubt a begrudery ,that would make anyone think otherwise..
I would ask the poster if he has children in private schools? And if not what was the decision to not send them to one?

I would hope like most parents you did what you thought best for your child,sadly you seem to think anyone who doesnt make the same choice as you is doing so just to avoid council estate kids/common accents etc..it is your attitude that needs to be looked at..

Ill finish as I started, if I met parents who sent their kids to school based on the accents of the other kids ,then I wouldn't want my kids to be around such ignorance,and would not send them there.

The logical conclusion is that the parents of kids who have what the poster calls "Common " accents would also be as selective,ie they wouldn't send their kids to a school where the kids are from private estates,or are not "average joe soaps"..
And I don't believe any parent would be so ignorant on either side.

So lets get real here, as someone who has had kids in a variety of schools,public and private, I and most of the parents I know do what is best for the particular child,however if it makes some people feel better to believe that we choose based on the posters assumtions,well good luck to you,thankfully my kids wont be in the same schools!


----------



## Superman

Complainer said:


> The current system of legal culpability has its own problems; http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=163435


I would suggest that the current system does not have problems of the nature you suggest. You do not know the facts surrounding the case in question. If the Defendant involved feels hard done by, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review. 

If you feel there is something wrong with the current standards, please specify and suggest corrections.


----------



## Complainer

Superman said:


> If the Defendant involved feels hard done by, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.



Not true. If the Defendant involved feels hard done by *and they have considerable financial resources at their disposal*, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.


----------



## Firefly

johnd said:


> Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.



Some do, I have no doubt. These are the vanity brigade. Most don't...these parents want the best start for their children and forego things that they could enjoy for themselves.


----------



## Chris

Firefly said:


> Finally, how do you see your voucher plan operate in the rural areas where there is simply not the demand for multiple private schools? In this case would the parents simply use their vouchers to attend the local public schools anyway? Relations of our come to mind - they live in the North West and their child is attending a primary school with 14 kids!


The country school would still exist as the voucher has to be handed in to a public school as well. However, if some teachers figured out a way to set up a school that would compete for those 14 kids then that would be a good thing; the kids and pat rents would not lose out, they simply have additional choices.



Complainer said:


> If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid fully unionised teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.


Irish teachers are already among the highest paid in Europe. Are you suggesting that Irish teachers are not fully unionized? By those argumentations Ireland should have one of the best systems.



Complainer said:


> What is unfair is for the State to continue subsidising a two-tier system, whereby some people use the State subsidy to continue and deepen the considerable inequalities in education and healthcare.


And how is supporting a two tier system negative for education in general?



Purple said:


> No, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.


Well said!!!


----------



## Firefly

Chris said:


> The country school would still exist as the voucher has to be handed in to a public school as well. However, if some teachers figured out a way to set up a school that would compete for those 14 kids then that would be a good thing; the kids and pat rents would not lose out, they simply have additional choices.



Chris, the problem I have with this is that the likelyhood of the teachers setting up a school to attract some or even all of the 14 pupils is remote. It simply would not pay. If the existing school had to rely on vouchers (the same cash value per child) they too would close their doors. The effect I imagine would be fewer, larger schools in urban areas. I could see that working well in countries predominately based on large cities, but apart from Dublin and to a much lesser extent Cork and Limerick, we have a largely dispersed rural population. How would they be educated? Don't get me wrong...I am all in favour of privatisation where possible, but perhaps in this case the voucher system may not be ideal?

Interestingly I suspect the same would apply if bus routes were privatised - the outer locations might not even be served. 

Perhaps in both cases, the education / bus routes of *entire *counties should be put out to tender. ie existing schools/buses services retained and the best provider selected on an annual basis.


----------



## Sunny

Private education is no different to private health insurance. The problem in this country is we do everything arseways trying to please everyone. There should not be a two tier system in primary or secondary level education. Wealth or place of birth should not dictate the type of education a child gets. The problem I have is the amount of money the state pours into third level education. This money would be better spent on younger children getting a top quality second level education. If you want to go to third level, you or your parents should pay for it. And let the third level colleges compete against each other. Good luck to them.


----------



## T McGibney

Firefly said:


> Interestingly I suspect the same would apply if bus routes were privatised - the outer locations might not even be served.



The quality of bus services on the Cavan-Dublin route has plummeted since the law was used to push private coach operators off the route and give Bus Eireann a monopoly. Although the M3 motorway has been built in the meantime, it now takes longer for buses to travel to and from Cavan and Dublin than it did 25 years ago when three or four competitors plied the route.


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> The quality of bus services on the Cavan-Dublin route has plummeted since the law was used to push private coach operators off the route and give Bus Eireann a monopoly. Although the M3 motorway has been built in the meantime, it now takes longer for buses to travel to and from Cavan and Dublin than it did 25 years ago when three or four competitors plied the route.



I was thinking more of once-a-day type routes up the Dublin mountains and such. I would imagine the Cavan route is quite busy, yet even here, you have shown how the removal of competition that was in place has adversely affected commuters.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Private education is no different to private health insurance. The problem in this country is we do everything arseways trying to please everyone. There should not be a two tier system in primary or secondary level education. Wealth or place of birth should not dictate the type of education a child gets. The problem I have is the amount of money the state pours into third level education. This money would be better spent on younger children getting a top quality second level education. If you want to go to third level, you or your parents should pay for it. And let the third level colleges compete against each other. Good luck to them.



How would stop parents paying for evening and/or weekend grinds?
Why penalise parents who choose to prioritise their child’s education?

The real disparity happens at early primary school level, not second or third level.
Children whose parents are in  a position to help them with their homework and who value education are at an automatic advantage.
Schools in areas that are socially disadvantaged are at a huge disadvantage. These schools need smaller class sizes, breakfast clubs, homework clubs, more special needs support but they need it most for children in infants and up to  second and third class. If a child who can’t rely on their parents for help has fallen behind by second class they won’t catch up.

I don’t think the primary school budget should be cut but I do think teachers wages should be cut so that we can employ more teachers and provide the necessary supports. I’ve got the quaint notion that public services should be run for primary benefit of the public.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> How would stop parents paying for evening and/or weekend grinds?
> Why penalise parents who choose to prioritise their child’s education?
> 
> The real disparity happens at early primary school level, not second or third level.
> Children whose parents are in a position to help them with their homework and who value education are at an automatic advantage.
> Schools in areas that are socially disadvantaged are at a huge disadvantage. These schools need smaller class sizes, breakfast clubs, homework clubs, more special needs support but they need it most for children in infants and up to second and third class. If a child who can’t rely on their parents for help has fallen behind by second class they won’t catch up.
> 
> I don’t think the primary school budget should be cut but I do think teachers wages should be cut so that we can employ more teachers and provide the necessary supports. I’ve got the quaint notion that public services should be run for primary benefit of the public.


 
Not stopping anyone paying from grinds if they want to. Just like I am not stopping them paying for all those extra curricular activities if they want. I am talking about the fact that a two tier system exists for basic education depending on wealth and the area you come from. There are some marvellous 'public schools' and there some average 'private schools' but a kid from inner city Dublin might be as smart as a kid born in Dalkey but is not getting the same experience at school as a child attending Wesley College. There are also still huge disparities between schools at second level. 

The idea of free third level education is nonsence for numerous reasons including that not everyone has to go or is suitable for third level education. Now we have numerous colleges/universities offering numerous pointless courses just so we can say look at all the people who attend third level in Ireland. It has also done nothing to improve access for people from disadvantaged areas. The whole sector has become bloated and uncompetitive because they got lazy relying on State funds. Money should be taken out of that sector and poured back into primary education so every kid gets a good start. Stop conning students with this registration fee and bring back proper third level fees and student loans. The degree will pay for itself or so they say.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Not stopping anyone paying from grinds if they want to. Just like I am not stopping them paying for all those extra curricular activities if they want. I am talking about the fact that a two tier system exists for basic education depending on wealth and the area you come from. There are some marvellous 'public schools' and there some average 'private schools' but a kid from inner city Dublin might be as smart as a kid born in Dalkey but is not getting the same experience at school as a child attending Wesley College. There are also still huge disparities between schools at second level.
> 
> The idea of free third level education is nonsence for numerous reasons including that not everyone has to go or is suitable for third level education. Now we have numerous colleges/universities offering numerous pointless courses just so we can say look at all the people who attend third level in Ireland. It has also done nothing to improve access for people from disadvantaged areas. The whole sector has become bloated and uncompetitive because they got lazy relying on State funds. Money should be taken out of that sector and poured back into primary education so every kid gets a good start. Stop conning students with this registration fee and bring back proper third level fees and student loans. The degree will pay for itself or so they say.



I agree completely about third level fees; the state should provide free education for children. 3rd level students are adults.

I also agree that there is major educational disparity between (for example) Dalkey and West Finglas but I disagree that the problem is private schools. The two tier system is alive and well but the divide is not between private and public, it’s between public and public. Wealth of the locality (and corresponding ability of the school to fund-raise), social and economic demographic of the catchment area, attitude and education level of the parents and attitude to education amongst the pier-group are the factors that divide schools, not the fees they charge or don’t charge. Do you think that a Gaelscoil in Blackrock in Dublin faces the same problems as a school in Killenarden? Is the divide between that Gaelscoil in Blackrock and Blackrock College bigger than the gap between that Gaelscoil and Killenarden Community College? 

I don’t understand why you don’t have a problem with parents sending their children to grinds (which don’t subsidise the public school system) and you do have a problem with parents sending their children to private schools (which do subsidise the public school system). Penalising parents who send their children to private schools just increases the cost to the state.


----------



## Complainer

T McGibney said:


> The quality of bus services on the Cavan-Dublin route has plummeted since the law was used to push private coach operators off the route and give Bus Eireann a monopoly. Although the M3 motorway has been built in the meantime, it now takes longer for buses to travel to and from Cavan and Dublin than it did 25 years ago when three or four competitors plied the route.



Is there something special about the Cavan route? I thought competition was fairly open these days. There is certainly no shortage of private operators on other routes, and at least private route within Co Cavan; http://www.sillan.ie/index.php/bus-timetables



Chris said:


> Irish teachers are already among the highest paid in Europe. Are you suggesting that Irish teachers are not fully unionized? By those argumentations Ireland should have one of the best systems.


Strangely enough, selectively picking two of the five factors I mentioned will not give you a good result. 


Chris said:


> And how is supporting a two tier system negative for education in general?


Because it promotes cross-generational inequity. Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.


----------



## shnaek

I went to a public school and it was pretty good. But one eye opening experience I had was spending a week in Leeson Street the winter before my leaving cert. I have to say, the teachers were amazing. If I had that physics teacher for the full two years, I'd have been as good as Einstein himself! Alas, the physics teacher I had in my public school believed that reading chapters from the book out loud was the way to go. We never saw the inside of a lab. And the guy didn't turn up on a regular basis. 
This would not be tolerated in a private school. This is the attitude we need to bring to public schools if we are truly to have a one tier education system that is top class. Otherwise we'll end up with a one tier system that is just rubbish and we'll have cut off our nose to spite our face. A top class one tier system where good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are retrained or let go - I'd vote for that.


----------



## Firefly

shnaek said:


> i went to a public school and it was pretty good. But one eye opening experience i had was spending a week in leeson street the winter before my leaving cert. I have to say, the teachers were amazing. If i had that physics teacher for the full two years, i'd have been as good as einstein himself! Alas, the physics teacher i had in my public school believed that reading chapters from the book out loud was the way to go. We never saw the inside of a lab. And the guy didn't turn up on a regular basis.
> This would not be tolerated in a private school. This is the attitude we need to bring to public schools if we are truly to have a one tier education system that is top class. *otherwise we'll end up with a one tier system that is just rubbish and we'll have cut off our nose to spite our face. *a top class one tier system where good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are retrained or let go - i'd vote for that.



+1


----------



## T McGibney

shnaek said:


> I went to a public school and it was pretty good. But one eye opening experience I had was spending a week in Leeson Street the winter before my leaving cert. I have to say, the teachers were amazing. If I had that physics teacher for the full two years, I'd have been as good as Einstein himself! Alas, the physics teacher I had in my public school believed that reading chapters from the book out loud was the way to go. We never saw the inside of a lab. And the guy didn't turn up on a regular basis.



Just wondering, you're not a former pupil of St Pat's Cavan, by any chance?


----------



## thedaras

shnaek said:


> I went to a public school and it was pretty good. But one eye opening experience I had was spending a week in Leeson Street the winter before my leaving cert. I have to say, the teachers were amazing. If I had that physics teacher for the full two years, I'd have been as good as Einstein himself! Alas, the physics teacher I had in my public school believed that reading chapters from the book out loud was the way to go. We never saw the inside of a lab. And the guy didn't turn up on a regular basis.
> This would not be tolerated in a private school. This is the attitude we need to bring to public schools if we are truly to have a one tier education system that is top class. Otherwise we'll end up with a one tier system that is just rubbish and we'll have cut off our nose to spite our face. A top class one tier system where good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are retrained or let go - I'd vote for that.


WOW shnaek, fantastic post..
You have hit the nail on the head..well done.Defo my post of 2011.
Until teachers suffer the consequences of their actions nothing will change.
Take Lesson St as an example, there is no way that any teacher would get away with that behavior.
However the principles hands are tied,they have no way of reprimanding a teacher..

My daughters class were all preforming badly in physics, some of them were "A" students,the parents went to the principal and were told there was nothing he could do,and we should speak to the teacher directly.

At a parent teacher meeting, I asked the teacher if she could tell me why my daughter wasnt getting  a good grade,and was told that she needed to put in more work,( not true)and that I wasnt to worry as after the easter break the girls show a vast improvement.

Turns out ,the parents send their kids to grinds during the easter break and hence their grades improved!!

However it is the fact that the teachers wont be sacked/disiplined or be seen to be that is the real reason why there is a two tier system..

Yes I do know that teachers can apparently be sacked, however..Anyone care to give a figure for the number of teachers that have been sacked?? I doubt that any of them would be unless it involved murder/sexual or drug use..


----------



## Complainer

shnaek said:


> I went to a public school and it was pretty good. But one eye opening experience I had was spending a week in Leeson Street the winter before my leaving cert. I have to say, the teachers were amazing. If I had that physics teacher for the full two years, I'd have been as good as Einstein himself! Alas, the physics teacher I had in my public school believed that reading chapters from the book out loud was the way to go. We never saw the inside of a lab. And the guy didn't turn up on a regular basis.
> This would not be tolerated in a private school.


Funnily enough, I had a similar experience at the Institute - brilliant maths teacher in my case. We had a dreadful maths teacher - only people who did grinds got an honour in honours maths.

But I'm not so sure that this isn't tolerated at private schools. From anecdotal discussions with current and recent past pupils at Castleknock College, Terenure College and Blackrock College, their general feedback on teachers wasn't that different from my CBS experience - most teachers were OK, a couple were brilliant and a couple were duds.



shnaek said:


> A top class one tier system where good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are retrained or let go - I'd vote for that.


Me too.




thedaras said:


> However the principles hands are tied,they have no way of reprimanding a teacher..
> 
> My daughters class were all preforming badly in physics, some of them were "A" students,the parents went to the principal and were told there was nothing he could do,and we should speak to the teacher directly.


Either you have a terrible principal, or there was a communications mix up here. The complaints procedure for most schools says that the first port of call for any complaint is the teacher concerned. I wonder if this is what the principal was trying to communicate. There is an escalation procedure if complaints dont get resolved by the teacher - first to the principal, and then to the Board of Management.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> The complaints procedure for most schools says that the first port of call for any complaint is the teacher concerned. I wonder if this is what the principal was trying to communicate. There is an escalation procedure if complaints dont get resolved by the teacher - first to the principal, and then to the Board of Management.



I think what Complainer has highlighted is very good. If you feel like you are not getting somewhere then you can ask the principal to formally walk you through the complaints process. At least this way something has to be done and you should expect something in writing after the process has been completed. Would that be reasonable from what are aware of Complainer? 

I have used this technique myself in other situations and it works quite well!


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Would that be reasonable from what are aware of Complainer?



Yes, very reasonable. Here's the agreed procedure for community schools;

[broken link removed]


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Yes, very reasonable. Here's the agreed procedure for community schools;
> 
> [broken link removed]



Thanks for that. I note though that the Board of Management seems to be the final decider for any complaints. I would have thought if agreement was still not reached here the Dept of Education would get involved?


4.1  If the Board of Management considers the complaint is not  substantiated, the Teacher and the Complainant should be so informed  within 3 days of the Board of Management meeting. 

4.4  The decision of the Board of Management shall be final subject to section 4.5.  
 4.5. In the event of the complaint being upheld the Teacher will have  recourse to Trade Union and Management agreements, where they exist,  but all disciplinary procedures undertaken by the Board of Management  will proceed in accordance with the principles of natural justice.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Thanks for that. I note though that the Board of Management seems to be the final decider for any complaints. I would have thought if agreement was still not reached here the Dept of Education would get involved?


Don't think so - the BoM own the school, so they have final responsibility. There is an appeals process to the Dept around refusal of a place, but in general, the BoM is the final word.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Don't think so - the BoM own the school, so they have final responsibility. There is an appeals process to the Dept around refusal of a place, but in general, the BoM is the final word.



If it's a Catholic school then they own the school. You can write to the Archbishop (I kid you not) .


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Don't think so - the BoM own the school, so they have final responsibility. There is an appeals process to the Dept around refusal of a place, but in general, the BoM is the final word.



I must say, I'm quite surprised at this as the Dept of Education pays the bills so to speak. It really does make the choosing the right school for parents all the more important.

It must be quite difficult to enforce standards or drive change if the Dept has to deal with different owners for each school.


----------



## Chris

Firefly said:


> Chris, the problem I have with this is that the likelyhood of the teachers setting up a school to attract some or even all of the 14 pupils is remote. It simply would not pay. If the existing school had to rely on vouchers (the same cash value per child) they too would close their doors. The effect I imagine would be fewer, larger schools in urban areas. I could see that working well in countries predominately based on large cities, but apart from Dublin and to a much lesser extent Cork and Limerick, we have a largely dispersed rural population. How would they be educated? Don't get me wrong...I am all in favour of privatisation where possible, but perhaps in this case the voucher system may not be ideal?



OK, I see where you are coming from. From what I understand in the Swedish system, public schools are not solely dependent on the income from vouchers, so in your example the small country school would still exist as it is subsidized by the state (technically it does not compete on the same terms financially as a rival private school). What has happened in Sweden is that as larger public schools, where parents have been unhappy with the service provided, have lost pupils, the state has looked at trying to improve them and if this does not reversed the trend then the school has been shut down. It is by any means not a perfect competition system, but it greatly improves choice without a reduction in existing services that are not warranted by bad performance.



Sunny said:


> Private education is no different to private health insurance. The problem in this country is we do everything arseways trying to please everyone. There should not be a two tier system in primary or secondary level education. Wealth or place of birth should not dictate the type of education a child gets.


This I don't agree with. I do not believe that the two tier system is making the public system worse and thus disadvantaging the poor.


Sunny said:


> The problem I have is the amount of money the state pours into third level education. This money would be better spent on younger children getting a top quality second level education. If you want to go to third level, you or your parents should pay for it. And let the third level colleges compete against each other. Good luck to them.


This I absolutely agree with. It would also result in a huge reduction of the amount of wasters going to college. I saw many of them when I went.



Complainer said:


> Strangely enough, selectively picking two of the five factors I mentioned will not give you a good result.





> If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid fully unionised teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.


So your five points are:
1) few private schools
I am certain that the number of private schools in Finland is not restricted, so this is not something that can be actively achieved through law or policy.
2) well trained
Are teachers in Ireland badly trained? I wouldn't say that this is true.
3) well paid
Irish teachers are among the highest paid in Europe
4) fully unionized
I have to meet a teacher that is not a union member
5) freedom to educate
I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here, but if this means giving teachers more freedom to taylor the curriculum as they see fit then I am all for it as a point of improvement.

Other than that, 3 of the 4 factors that can be influenced are already apparent in Ireland. I do not think that these are the secret ingredients to a good education system.




Complainer said:


> Because it promotes cross-generational inequity. Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.





Complainer said:


> But I'm not so sure that this isn't tolerated at private schools. From anecdotal discussions with current and recent past pupils at Castleknock College, Terenure College and Blackrock College, their general feedback on teachers wasn't that different from my CBS experience - most teachers were OK, a couple were brilliant and a couple were duds.



I'm a bit confused with these two statements. First you say that rich families get perpetually richer because they get a better education through private schools than poor families, but then you say that the benefit from private schools is not much better than from public schools based on feedback on teachers.
The solution is not to force everyone into an inferior system, but rather create competition between the two systems. Let's also not forget that those rich people, let's call them the top 5%, pay 40% of the income taxes that pay for the public system.


----------



## Firefly

Chris said:


> OK, I see where you are coming from. From what I understand in the Swedish system, public schools are not solely dependent on the income from vouchers, so in your example the small country school would still exist as it is subsidized by the state (technically it does not compete on the same terms financially as a rival private school). What has happened in Sweden is that as larger public schools, where parents have been unhappy with the service provided, have lost pupils, the state has looked at trying to improve them and if this does not reversed the trend then the school has been shut down. It is by any means not a perfect competition system, but it greatly improves choice without a reduction in existing services that are not warranted by bad performance.



That makes much more sense to, thanks for expanding. A potential downside I see though would be that the improvements (that would I have no doubt) accrue to the larger, urban schools where competition existed ,would result in relatively inferior level of education provided to the country school with 14 children. This is more than likely the case at present anyway (multiple ages groups in the same class and little competition between the teachers themselves) and you can't just spend a fortune on creating a competing school for competition's sake.


----------



## Complainer

Chris said:


> So your five points are:
> 1) few private schools
> I am certain that the number of private schools in Finland is not restricted, so this is not something that can be actively achieved through law or policy.
> 2) well trained
> Are teachers in Ireland badly trained? I wouldn't say that this is true.
> 3) well paid
> Irish teachers are among the highest paid in Europe
> 4) fully unionized
> I have to meet a teacher that is not a union member
> 5) freedom to educate
> I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here, but if this means giving teachers more freedom to taylor the curriculum as they see fit then I am all for it as a point of improvement.
> 
> Other than that, 3 of the 4 factors that can be influenced are already apparent in Ireland. I do not think that these are the secret ingredients to a good education system.


Seeing as you've got your very first point wrong (private schools not restricted), I don't really have the time or inclination to help you to develop an understanding of the facts. So let's save each other a bit of time. I'm not an education expert. You're not an education expert. We're not going to solve the problems of Ireland's education system with a few posts on a bulletin board.


Chris said:


> I'm a bit confused with these two statements. First you say that rich families get perpetually richer because they get a better education through private schools than poor families, but then you say that the benefit from private schools is not much better than from public schools based on feedback on teachers.


You have a flawed assumption that earning opportunities are directly related to economic achievement. In my experience, earning opportunities are linked to the name and status of the school as to academic achievement.



Chris said:


> Let's also not forget that those rich people, let's call them the top 5%, pay 40% of the income taxes that pay for the public system.


Wrong. It's not income taxes that pay for the public system - it is ALL taxes, including VAT, customs and excise, motor tax. capital gains tax, corporation tax etc etc.



Chris said:


> The solution is not to force everyone into an inferior system, but rather create competition between the two systems.


Not the one-trick-pony answer-for-all-seasons competition gig again. How about instead of a Pavlovian response, we look at what actually works in other countries, such as the Finnish system - which is producing the best education outcomes in the world. They don't have or need competition to produce the best educated students in the world.


----------



## beffers

johnd said:


> Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.



That is complete and utter bull$hit. I come from a very average, middle class, Dublin north side family. Both of my parents were teachers, but they came from working class backgrounds in Drumcondra. My sisters and I were sent to posh, private schools in Dublin 2 because my mother thought that _we would get a better education there._ Social snobbery never came into it. End of story. They scrimped and saved, never had holidays and drove 12 year old rust bucket cars until they fell apart, so that we could do so. 

Did I feel out of place there surrounded by all the Hurray Henrietta's and Ross O'Carroll Kelly wannabees? Nope. Sure they were there, but at least half of my class mates came from backgrounds very similar to mind. Just your average working Joe and Josephine doing what they could to give their kids the best start in life that they could. I fit in just fine, and had no problem being accepted by my class mates, teachers or the nuns who ran the place.

The school that I went to was in town, and had pupils from all over Dublin. As result, my closest school friends were from all over the place....Ashbourne, Glenageary, Malahide, the Navan Road, Ballsbridge (_*gasp*....oh the shame_) Cabra, Phibsboro, Bray etc etc. Not easy places to to get to and from for a kid in Glasnevin. So after school, weekends and on holidays my sisters and I socialized with the local kids, who went  to all kinds of schools in our area, including one rather rough national school that  locals joked was a feeder school for Mountjoy. My parents had no problem with that as long as we kept bringing home good school reports and didn't overly act the maggot. I highly suggest that you get that over sized chip off your shoulder.


----------



## Firefly

beffers said:


> That is complete and utter bull$hit. I come from a very average, middle class, Dublin north side family. Both of my parents were teachers, but they came from working class backgrounds in Drumcondra. My sisters and I were sent to posh, private schools in Dublin 2 because my mother thought that _we would get a better education there._ Social snobbery never came into it. End of story. They scrimped and saved, never had holidays and drove 12 year old rust bucket cars until they fell apart, so that we could do so.
> 
> Did I feel out of place there surrounded by all the Hurray Henrietta's and Ross O'Carroll Kelly wannabees? Nope. Sure they were there, but at least half of my class mates came from backgrounds very similar to mind. Just your average working Joe and Josephine doing what they could to give their kids the best start in life that they could. I fit in just fine, and had no problem being accepted by my class mates, teachers or the nuns who ran the place.
> 
> The school that I went to was in town, and had pupils from all over Dublin. As result, my closest school friends were from all over the place....Ashbourne, Glenageary, Malahide, the Navan Road, Ballsbridge (_*gasp*....oh the shame_) Cabra, Phibsboro, Bray etc etc. Not easy places to to get to and from for a kid in Glasnevin. So after school, weekends and on holidays my sisters and I socialized with the local kids, who went  to all kinds of schools in our area, including one rather rough national school that  locals joked was a feeder school for Mountjoy. My parents had no problem with that as long as we kept bringing home good school reports and didn't overly act the maggot. I highly suggest that you get that over sized chip off your shoulder.



I must say I love posts like this...they make me warm inside. The single biggest responsibility a parent has, IMO, is to give their children the best start in life and it looks like your parents have done this. I'm glad that you "fit in just fine, and had no problem being accepted by my class mates, teachers or the nuns who ran the place." In fact your parents and yourself if anything should have been more respected as it is obviously a lot easier for wealthy parents to send their children to the same school.

Sadly, it seems that there is a stereotype that parents who send their children to private schools are either loaded or doing so for ego/vanity  reasons. I would bet that the vast majority just want the best for their children and are happy to forego things that other parents are not - and that's no disrespect to those parents..each to their own...people have different priorities.


----------



## Chris

Firefly said:


> That makes much more sense to, thanks for expanding.
> A potential downside I see though would be that the improvements (that
> would I have no doubt) accrue to the larger, urban schools where
> competition existed ,would result in relatively inferior level of education
> provided to the country school with 14 children. This is more than likely
> the case at present anyway (multiple ages groups in the same class and
> little competition between the teachers themselves) and you can't just
> spend a fortune on creating a competing school for competition's
> sake.



I agree that competition will not solve all the problems of the education
system, but I don't think that bad schools will become worse. Also, on the
small country school, while there certainly are ages mixed in class, the
class sizes are generally very small. My wife went to a country primary
school with about 15 kids and when she got to secondary school she was way ahead of her "towny" class mates.




Complainer said:


> Seeing as you've got your very first point wrong (private schools not
> restricted), I don't really have the time or inclination to help you to
> develop an understanding of the facts. So let's save each other a bit of
> time. I'm not an education expert. You're not an education expert. We're
> not going to solve the problems of Ireland's education system with a few
> posts on a bulletin board.


Well, in that case you only had 4 factors and not five, unless you are
willing to point to a fifth one. I don't think anybody here is pretending
to solve any problems on an internet forum, it is a discussion site where
people discuss things.



Complainer said:


> You have a flawed assumption that earning opportunities are directly
> related to economic achievement. In my experience, earning opportunities
> are linked to the name and status of the school as to academic achievement.


I do not believe that it is flawed at all. Simply going to a private
secondary school has little to no effect on your prospects to get a job or
earn more money. Employers generally take into account the third level
qualification and results from the interview itself, not whether the
applicant went to a private school.



Complainer said:


> Wrong. It's not income taxes that pay for the public system - it is ALL
> taxes, including VAT, customs and excise, motor tax. capital gains tax,
> corporation tax etc etc.


Absolutely. And are you telling me that with all the luxury items that rich
people spend their money on, they do not pay the lion's share of VAT or
VRT. A neighbour of mine drives a nice Mercedes CLS, where his VAT and VRT
bill came to about €40,000 (which is more than the average family car) and
his road tax is over €1000. Rich people are often business owners, and are
most likely to be investing larger sums of money, which means that they pay
most of the corporate taxes and CGT. How many poor or even middle class
people do you think invest money or run large businesses? To suggest that
poor and middle class people pay anywhere near as much total tax as rich
people would also have to suppose that the income gap is nowhere near as
high as it is said to be.
Rich people and the companies they run pay the bulk of all taxes, it's as
simple as that.



Complainer said:


> Not the one-trick-pony answer-for-all-seasons competition gig again. How
> about instead of a Pavlovian response, we look at what actually works in
> other countries, such as the Finnish system - which is producing the best
> education outcomes in the world. They don't have or need competition to
> produce the best educated students in the world.



Pavlovian response my backside. There is endless proof that competition in
a non-interfered environment results in huge benefits to both the producers
and consumers of goods and services, but it seems to be socialist and Labour policy to simply ignore basic economics. It is your kind of response, i.e. that only government can solve certain problems, that is pavlovian and totally baseless.

I have no problem implementing things that worked for Finland, but high
pay, training and unionization are not the factors, as these are also in
place in Ireland. What I have a problem with is government forcing a
monopoly on the public and not giving the public a choice.

Why are you so opposed to introducing competition that works perfectly well
in all other aspects of non-interfered economic life? What would the
downside be to allowing people to choose whether they send their children
to a state run school or privately run school through a voucher system?


----------



## demoivre

Complainer said:


> Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.



Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend  €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)


----------



## Firefly

demoivre said:


> Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend  €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)



Private schools also cost a lot less than the price of sending a child to creche. OK, there are fancy uniforms to think about, but no nappies


----------



## Yachtie

Complainer said:


> Because it promotes cross-generational inequity. Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.


 
What is your gripe with those better off??? Based on your arguments on this thread, a top brain surgeon and a cleaner should enjoy the same living standard. It was pointed out already that a top surgeon pays a lot more tax (directly and indirectly) than a cleaner yet is entitled to the same level of public services.  

There is nothing stopping a child from a disadvantaged area from doing well in public (non-private) education and doing well in life. Same as there is no guarantee that a child born into a wealthy family will do well. How is this creating inequity?


----------



## Complainer

demoivre said:


> Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend  €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)



Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground. 



Firefly said:


> I must say I love posts like this...they make me warm inside. The single biggest responsibility a parent has, IMO, is to give their children the best start in life and it looks like your parents have done this. I'm glad that you "fit in just fine, and had no problem being accepted by my class mates, teachers or the nuns who ran the place." In fact your parents and yourself if anything should have been more respected as it is obviously a lot easier for wealthy parents to send their children to the same school.



I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year (or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.




Chris said:


> Well, in that case you only had 4 factors and not five, unless you are
> willing to point to a fifth one. I don't think anybody here is pretending
> to solve any problems on an internet forum, it is a discussion site where
> people discuss things.


Five factors

Very, very few private schools
well paid teachers 
fully unionised teachers 
well trained teachers 
given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.




Chris said:


> I do not believe that it is flawed at all. Simply going to a private
> secondary school has little to no effect on your prospects to get a job or
> earn more money. Employers generally take into account the third level
> qualification and results from the interview itself, not whether the
> applicant went to a private school.


I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.



Chris said:


> Absolutely. And are you telling me that with all the luxury items that rich
> people spend their money on, they do not pay the lion's share of VAT or
> VRT. A neighbour of mine drives a nice Mercedes CLS, where his VAT and VRT
> bill came to about €40,000 (which is more than the average family car) and
> his road tax is over €1000. Rich people are often business owners, and are
> most likely to be investing larger sums of money, which means that they pay
> most of the corporate taxes and CGT. How many poor or even middle class
> people do you think invest money or run large businesses? To suggest that
> poor and middle class people pay anywhere near as much total tax as rich
> people would also have to suppose that the income gap is nowhere near as
> high as it is said to be.
> Rich people and the companies they run pay the bulk of all taxes, it's as
> simple as that.


Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.




Chris said:


> Pavlovian response my backside. There is endless proof that competition in
> a non-interfered environment results in huge benefits to both the producers
> and consumers of goods and services, but it seems to be socialist and Labour policy to simply ignore basic economics. It is your kind of response, i.e. that only government can solve certain problems, that is pavlovian and totally baseless.


Because you have not shown any evidence where your 'competition' model has improved educational outcomes anywhere in the world.




Chris said:


> I have no problem implementing things that worked for Finland, but high
> pay, training and unionization are not the factors, as these are also in
> place in Ireland. What I have a problem with is government forcing a
> monopoly on the public and not giving the public a choice.


So you're going to pick and choose the factors that suit your own ideology, rather than looking at the evidence of what actually works elsewhere - good luck with that. I've never proposed a 'government forcing a monopoly'. People are welcome to pay whatever they like for whatever education they choose, once they pay the full economic cost of that education.



Chris said:


> Why are you so opposed to introducing competition that works perfectly well
> in all other aspects of non-interfered economic life? What would the
> downside be to allowing people to choose whether they send their children
> to a state run school or privately run school through a voucher system?


Because what works well in business doesn't generally work well in public services. Public service is not a business. The goal of public service is not to make profit. The goal is to provide a public service. When you have different goals, then different operational approaches don't generally transfer well.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground.


 demoivre made no such analogy and your inference that he did is disgraceful.





Complainer said:


> I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year (or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.


 You hate posts like that because they highlight the flaws in your bankrupt ideology. There is a disconnect between the facts on the ground and the view from upper-middle class socialist leafy suburbia. Middleclass guilt about the poor can turn people pink but it doesn’t change the facts.




Complainer said:


> Five factors
> 
> Very, very few private schools
> well paid teachers
> fully unionised teachers
> well trained teachers
> given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.


How’s that different from here?



Complainer said:


> I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.


 Link please, otherwise it’s just hear-say. If one of the big 6 firms was employing people based on where they went to school rather than how good they were at their job, or how smart/qualified they were, then they wouldn’t be one of the big 6 for long, would they? That’s competition for ya. 
By the way, how come you have trouble spelling the full names of the three schools you remember seeing on that leaflet?




Complainer said:


> Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.


That’s right, there’s 4’000’000 people here so what 2 people (or even a few dozen people) do with their money has a major bearing on discussions about taxation.




Complainer said:


> So you're going to pick and choose the factors that suit your own ideology, rather than looking at the evidence of what actually works elsewhere - good luck with that


 I’ve always admired your appreciation of irony. 



Complainer said:


> Because what works well in business doesn't generally work well in public services. Public service is not a business. The goal of public service is not to make profit. The goal is to provide a public service. When you have different goals, then different operational approaches don't generally transfer well.


 I agree and in a world of limitless resources value for money and measurement matrix and competition wouldn’t matter but we don’t live there.


----------



## DerKaiser

Purple said:


> That’s right, there’s 4’000’000 people here so what 2 people (or even a few dozen people) do with their money has a major bearing on discussions about taxation.


 
Well you know where that one is coming from, If only the people richer than me gave all their money to those poorer than me I'd straight away have less people to both envy and pity and feel better about my own life.


----------



## thedaras

DerKaiser, great post..and purple and beefers and firefly..
I have only one thing to add, 
When my kids complain about studying,I tell them its all about choices in life.

On a four hour flight, the captain is paid the most,then the cabin crew etc etc,however they both spend the same amount of time in the air.

The Captain has the most responsibiltiy and therefore paid more than the air stewards,the air stewards are paid more than those who clean the plane..yet they may all spend the same amount of time doing their jobs..so kids during your working day what do you want to do. ,your choice..same hours..
But at least give yourself the choice.


----------



## Firefly

...


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground.



I think that's a bit unfair. Demoivre was showing how the consumption of 2 very popular luxury items could otherwise be spent on providing private education for a child. As I've said before, getting the best education (and I've no doubt the "perceived" best education in a lot of cases) for your child is not every parent's priority. However, the fees for private education are well within the reach of many people if they allocated their income differently. If you really, really wanted to send you child to a private school then I think for many it would be possible. Unemplopyment and poverty does not have to be permanent. I accept that those physically/mentally impaired are at a disadvantage, but for most determination and hard work should be enough. In addition, most children who go to private schools do so at secondary school so the parent has in effect 12 years to get the fees together. I'm not sure of the rates in Dublin but in Cork I believe they are approx 3,500 per year which is under 20k in total. 



Complainer said:


> I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year



I'm not being smart but I genuinely do not understand this point. Are you saying that the quality of education in public education is lower due to the existance of private schools? If so, in what way?



Complainer said:


> (or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.



The full economic cost should not include the cost that would otherwise be bourne by the state if those children went to a public school. For this to be transparent and fair the Dept should produce an average cost of educating a child in the public school system. This amount should be refunded to parents who send their children to a private school where the full cost arises. Would you agree with this?





Complainer said:


> I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.




I have no doubt that leaflets like this have existed. However, this is not confined to the upper/elite class. Discrimination in the work place occurs at many places of employment in this country. I am willing to bet that there are plenty people in the public sector who have gotten jobs because of someone they now (I know one person myself personally and it's a family member). Plenty people get jobs in the private sector too based on who you know. I myself have been personally approached by a private company recently offering me a position with their firm without any formal interview at all. This was due to previous engagements I had worked along side them with. By the way, I'm not saying any of this is fair, legal, just or otherwise, I'm just pointing out that, sadly, who you know rather than what you know is still alive and well in this country and it's not just present in the Big 6.. 



Complainer said:


> Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.



Perhaps you could point to a specific illegal act here? The free movement of people and money is central to international trade. Indeed, there is plenty money flowing through our country also...even if on a percentage basis it does not produce much taxation, the amounts themselves are significant and would be more so if they did not pass through here. Indeed, why should a tax compliant person be obliged to pay more tax here than move it abroad? If you won 40m in the lotto tomorrow would you not seek taxation advice? I know I would. 



Complainer said:


> Because you have not shown any evidence where your 'competition' model has improved educational outcomes anywhere in the world.



Anecdotally I know, but I personally know a teacher who teaches in a SCD  public school surrounded by private schools. I met with him recently and he in no uncertain terms told me that they work like crazy to be better than the private schools so that they will attract children from the area. The school in question has a superb reputation and record. The children in this area are blessed as a result. I concede this is only one example but in almost everywhere it is introduced, competition results in better services and lower costs to consumers. Perhaps if you are against competition you would be so kind as to outline why you would think it would be such a bad idea?


----------



## beffers

Chris said:


> I do not believe that it is flawed at all. Simply going to a private secondary school has little to no effect on your prospects to get a job or earn more money. Employers generally take into account the third level qualification and results from the interview itself, not whether the applicant went to a private school.



Maybe so. But how do kids get the points to get into college to get those third level qualifications in the first place? By doing well in secondary school. If you aren't the best studier in the world, or you have a learning disability or you are just an unmotivated dosser, the smaller class sizes in private schools mean that kids often get more individual help and attention that bears results come exam time. There were roughly 22 kids per class in my private school. Specialty subjects had about 10 pupils. 

My sister had dyslexia, but she got a lot of great help from teachers at a time when dyslexia was virtually unheard of. She never fell behind, or was dismissed as being a bit thick in ways that may have happened if there were 40 kids in her class. She went on to get 5 A's and 2 B's in her Leaving Cert, was accepted for her first choice on her CAO application & went on to have a very successful career. Would that have happened if she went to the local national school where one hard working, well intentioned but ultimately over whelmed person is trying to control and teach and motivate 40 kids? Maybe so. But the odds of her falling thru the cracks of the educational system (as so many other people do) were far greater if she did not have the secondary education that she did.



> I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor  quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent  education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year (or €26k a year,  when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We  need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in  life, as occurs in Finland.



I am not saying that our educational system is perfect. Far from it. It needs major changes and a lot of money pumped into it to give each and every kid in this country a shot at a decent education. But in the mean time, what are people supposed to do who have the ability and the will to bring about change and improvements in _their_ situations at a given moment in time? Just sit on their hands and do nothing while waiting for the Upopia Fairy to wave her magic wand and transport us all to a Finlandian educational paradise?



> I have no doubt that leaflets like this have existed. However, this is  not confined to the upper/elite class. Discrimination in the work place  occurs at many places of employment in this country. I am willing to bet  that there are plenty people in the public sector who have gotten jobs  because of someone they now (I know one person myself personally and  it's a family member). Plenty people get jobs in the private sector too  based on who you know. I myself have been personally approached by a  private company recently offering me a position with their firm without  any formal interview at all. This was due to previous engagements I had  worked along side them with. By the way, I'm not saying any of this is  fair, legal, just or otherwise, I'm just pointing out that, sadly, who  you know rather than what you know is still alive and well in this  country and it's not just present in the Big 6..


Yep. My father worked for Aer Lingus. My sibings and I all got summer jobs at Dublin Airport without even having to show up for an interview. They were low paid menial jobs, but jobs none the less & we were bloody grateful for them at the time. Our being our fathers kids was enough for the hiring department. I am not saying that to brag. Its just how things were then. Jobs for the boys is not something that elitest Dublin 4 firms engage in.


----------



## Firefly

beffers said:


> Yep. My father worked for Aer Lingus. My sibings and I all got summer jobs at Dublin Airport without even having to show up for an interview. They were low paid menial jobs, but jobs none the less & we were bloody grateful for them at the time. Our being our fathers kids was enough for the hiring department. I am not saying that to brag. Its just how things were then. Jobs for the boys is not something that elitest Dublin 4 firms engage in.




Reminds me of a part time Xmas job I got with the post office once (My mother's friend was a posty). No interview, nothing...just turn up for "induction" which consisted of shadowing a crazy man being chased by crazy dogs (not sure who caused the other to be crazy). Like you I was delighted with the week's work at the time. It's all around and alive and kicking. Lot's of larger institutions no doubt have fancy policies and procedures in place for the masses, but from the top to the bottom it happens.


----------



## Firefly

beffers said:


> Maybe so. But how do kids get the points to get into college to get those third level qualifications in the first place? By doing well in secondary school. If you aren't the best studier in the world, or you have a learning disability or you are just an unmotivated dosser, the smaller class sizes in private schools mean that kids often get more individual help and attention that bears results come exam time. There were roughly 22 kids per class in my private school. Specialty subjects had about 10 pupils.
> 
> My sister had dyslexia, but she got a lot of great help from teachers at a time when dyslexia was virtually unheard of. She never fell behind, or was dismissed as being a bit thick in ways that may have happened if there were 40 kids in her class. She went on to get 5 A's and 2 B's in her Leaving Cert, was accepted for her first choice on her CAO application & went on to have a very successful career. Would that have happened if she went to the local national school where one hard working, well intentioned but ultimately over whelmed person is trying to control and teach and motivate 40 kids? Maybe so. But the odds of her falling thru the cracks of the educational system (as so many other people do) were far greater if she did not have the secondary education that she did.



Hi Beffers,

I think that you are arguing a different point (Chris, feel free to correct me here). I think you are arguing that private schools are by and large better than public schools for the reasons you have highlighted above. In particular, you have a better chance of getting those LC points. I would tend to agree....afterall, apart from the vanity brigade, why would anyone pay 3-4k per year for something when they can get something of the same or better quality for free? 

Chris on the other hand is saying that if 2 candidates present themselves to an employer with the same qualifications then it shouldn't make a difference whether they went to a public or private school. I would agree with this. Some employers might be swayed with the fancy school or went there themselves, whereas some others might be impressed with the "tougher" route the public school applicant took.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> I think that you are arguing a different point (Chris, feel free to correct me here). I think you are arguing that private schools are by and large better than private schools



Typo?


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Typo?



Fixed that now...hot whiskey season and all that


----------



## Chris

Complainer said:


> Five factors
> 
> Very, very few private schools
> well paid teachers
> fully unionised teachers
> well trained teachers
> given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.


But yet you tell me here I got the first one wrong: 


Complainer said:


> Seeing as you've got your very first point wrong (private schools not restricted), I don't really have the time or inclination to help you to develop an understanding of the facts. So let's save each other a bit of time. I'm not an education expert. You're not an education expert. We're not going to solve the problems of Ireland's education system with a few posts on a bulletin board.


The low number of private schools in Sweden is not the result of some direct government policy to restrict its numbers.



Complainer said:


> I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.


A leaflet? Are you seriously arguing based on what you saw on a leaflet?



Complainer said:


> Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.


Even when rich people move their money off-shore for investment purposes they have to declare gains in this country, so they still pay CGT or DIRT or income tax. And imagine if people throughout the world didn't invest their money in other countries, where would Ireland be without all the foreign direct investment?



Complainer said:


> Because you have not shown any evidence where your 'competition' model has improved educational outcomes anywhere in the world.


Sweden and Netherlands



Complainer said:


> So you're going to pick and choose the factors that suit your own ideology, rather than looking at the evidence of what actually works elsewhere - good luck with that. I've never proposed a 'government forcing a monopoly'. People are welcome to pay whatever they like for whatever education they choose, once they pay the full economic cost of that education.


But you want parent's of children that do not use the public system to also fund it. That is forcing a monopoly down the throat of every parent and not allowing competition for children of parent's that cannot afford current private schools. The Swedish system allows for a private school to be set up and accept the school vouchers with no additional payment. That is competition, and if the public system is so great, then there should be no fear of competition.



Complainer said:


> Because what works well in business doesn't generally work well in public services. Public service is not a business. The goal of public service is not to make profit. The goal is to provide a public service. When you have different goals, then different operational approaches don't generally transfer well.


Yes, only through profit and loss calculation can it be determined whether scarce resources are utilized efficiently. And that is why wastage is endemic in public services. That is why every form of socialism has failed. That is why we should have less government mandated services and not more.
As I already mentioned, if the public system is so good, then why not give a voucher to parents and let them decide whether they want to send their child to a state run school or a privately run one?



Firefly said:


> I think that you are arguing a different point (Chris, feel free to correct me here). I think you are arguing that private schools are by and large better than public schools for the reasons you have highlighted above. In particular, you have a better chance of getting those LC points. I would tend to agree....afterall, apart from the vanity brigade, why would anyone pay 3-4k per year for something when they can get something of the same or better quality for free?
> 
> Chris on the other hand is saying that if 2 candidates present themselves to an employer with the same qualifications then it shouldn't make a difference whether they went to a public or private school. I would agree with this. Some employers might be swayed with the fancy school or went there themselves, whereas some others might be impressed with the "tougher" route the public school applicant took.



Yes, that is what I am saying. If someone has a better chance in life because of their parent's wealth then so be it. If the public system fails to help those of a poor background then you cannot blame the wealthy or the private schools for this, you can only blame the public system for this. Rich families getting richer does not make poor families poorer.


----------



## Purple

Chris said:


> Rich families getting richer does not make poor families poorer.


 But that doesn't matter to socialists; they are more interested in bringing people down than lifting people up.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> But that doesn't matter to socialists; they are more interested in bringing people down than lifting people up.



Has socialism/communism actually worked anywhere? I'm not being clib here...but is there any evidence of a country with open borders where people have naturally migrated there for a better life? I am not saying this is the only measure of success, but IMO it's pretty valid. Generally, people migrate somewhere to make their lives better. I agree it's not all roses in many capitalist economies (and when I say capitalist I am not referring to pure capitalism, but what we would associate in the West) but people still seem to want to migrate to the West. I have a problem with China in that it is supposed to be a communist state, but it is closer to capitalism than New York iteslf it seems.


----------



## TarfHead

Firefly said:


> Has socialism/communism actually worked anywhere?


 
The Chinese leader Zhou Enlai is reputed to have said, about the success of the French Revolution of 1789, " .. it's too soon to say".


----------



## T McGibney

TarfHead said:


> The Chinese leader Zhou Enlai is reputed to have said, about the success of the French Revolution of 1789, " .. it's too soon to say".



Sorry to spoil a good story but Zhou was actually replying to a question on the effects of the student uprising in Paris in 1968.


----------



## Sunny

T McGibney said:


> Sorry to spoil a good story but Zhou was actually replying to a question on the effects of the student uprising in Paris in 1968.


 
Indeed. The wrong reference just sounds so wise though!


----------



## TarfHead

T McGibney said:


> Sorry to spoil a good story but Zhou was actually replying to a question on the effects of the student uprising in Paris in 1968.


 
Gah !

Damn you, wikiquotes  !

It's a popular misconception. First page of  generally point to 1798.


----------



## Deiseblue

T McGibney said:


> Sorry to spoil a good story but Zhou was actually replying to a question on the effects of the student uprising in Paris in 1968.



Pretty sure that Zhou Enlai's oft quoted response was prompted by a question on the effects of the 1798 French Revolution.

Probably apocryphal - the question was supposedly raised by Nixon on his visit to Chine


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> Pretty sure that Zhou Enlai's oft quoted response was prompted by a question on the effects of the 1798 French Revolution.
> 
> Probably apocryphal - the question was supposedly raised by Nixon on his visit to Chine


 
No, it came out earlier this year that he wasn't talking about that.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Deiseblue

Sunny said:


> No, it came out earlier this year that he wasn't talking about that.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Thanks Sunny.

God - that's terribly disappointing though, I wish I hadn't heard the truth


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> Thanks Sunny.
> 
> God - that's terribly disappointing though, I wish I hadn't heard the truth



I know! Felt the same.


----------



## Chris

Firefly said:


> Has socialism/communism actually worked anywhere? I'm not being clib here...but is there any evidence of a country with open borders where people have naturally migrated there for a better life? I am not saying this is the only measure of success, but IMO it's pretty valid. Generally, people migrate somewhere to make their lives better. I agree it's not all roses in many capitalist economies (and when I say capitalist I am not referring to pure capitalism, but what we would associate in the West) but people still seem to want to migrate to the West. I have a problem with China in that it is supposed to be a communist state, but it is closer to capitalism than New York iteslf it seems.



I think the simple answer is no. While you cannot freely enter North Korea, I believe it is possible to enter Cuba to live, but I could be mistaken. I think it's pretty safe to say that more Cubans flee the country for the US than people from the rest of the world try to enter it for non-tourist purposes.

Hayek wrote an excellent book, The Road to Serfdom, on why socialism has and always will end up in tyrannical states, regardless of how well natured and intended the initial intentions and plans were; I highly recommend it, here is a free pdf copy: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook351pdf.pdf. 
I think the most basic summary is that socialism, even in very mild forms of economic planning, requires infringement on liberties; the more liberties are infringed on, the less happy people are happy with this and the more they try to rebel against them leading the state to make further restrictions. Ultimately you end up with an authoritarian state which in the worst case scenario forbids its people to leave under threat of violence(e.g. East Germany, USSR).

While China is politically communist and pretty much authoritarian, its economy is quite free and getting freer by the year ever since the reform started. There are numerous examples of how much easier it is to do and set up business in China than in the western world. One example I came across is a friend of mine in Germany who produces specialty high pressure valves. He wanted to expand his business but the red tape involved with extending his manufacturing facility, dealing with union demands, and getting the machinery into the country frustrated him so much that after 5 months he scrapped the plan. Less than 3 months later he had a factory set up in China producing the very same stuff he want to produce in Germany.


----------



## Complainer

Chris said:


> One example I came across is a friend of mine in Germany who produces specialty high pressure valves. He wanted to expand his business but the red tape involved with extending his manufacturing facility, dealing with union demands, and getting the machinery into the country frustrated him so much that after 5 months he scrapped the plan. Less than 3 months later he had a factory set up in China producing the very same stuff he want to produce in Germany.



I wonder if the fact that he could pay the Chinese 1/10th or maybe 1/50th of what he pays his German staff might have influenced his decision just a little bit too?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> I wonder if the fact that he could pay the Chinese 1/10th or maybe 1/50th of what he pays his German staff might have influenced his decision just a little bit too?



I don’t know about this specific example but better return on capital is usually a reason for moving that capital to a country where wages are low. This is the best thing about capitalism; it moved to where people are poor and gives them a job, causes their economy to develop and, over time and with a democratic government, improves the quality of life of the average citizen. This is something that socialism has never achieved, not once.

People need to have the opportunity and incentive to better themselves. In a way this comes back to the title of this thread; a budget that removes the up-side of hard work and personal risk while at the same time rewarding not working is destructive to the economy, society and state.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> I wonder if the fact that he could pay the Chinese 1/10th or maybe 1/50th of what he pays his German staff might have influenced his decision just a little bit too?



Presumably the multinationals that came to Ireland did so for cost reasons as well?


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Presumably the multinationals that came to Ireland did so for cost reasons as well?



More likely the so-low-as-you-can-barely-see-it corporation tax, I'd have thought.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> More likely the so-low-as-you-can-barely-see-it corporation tax, I'd have thought.



You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

By the way, the effective corporation tax rate for the biggest companies in France is lower than here. Our system is just simple, open and easy (cheap) to administer.
Someone should lean down and whisper that into the ear of the French midget with the Napoleon complex who seems so concerned about it.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> More likely the so-low-as-you-can-barely-see-it corporation tax, I'd have thought.



I'd say it was a combination of both. Regardless, the effect is the same - jobs that would have been based in the home country (the US in this instance) were moved to a cheaper country (Ireland).


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I'd say it was a combination of both. Regardless, the effect is the same - jobs that would have been based in the home country (the US in this instance) were moved to a cheaper country (Ireland).


Don’t forget about our world class education system


----------



## Chris

Complainer said:


> I wonder if the fact that he could pay the Chinese 1/10th or maybe 1/50th of what he pays his German staff might have influenced his decision just a little bit too?



It had an impact on the decision, but nowhere near what you are stating and was not the primary or even secondary reason. As mentioned the valves my friend produces are highly specialized, and the people that operate the machines are not unskilled workers. He set out with full intention of expanding his existing operation in Germany and hadn't considered setting up in China, as he thought it would be too much hassle. The main factors were that after 5 months the local council still refused to grant him permission to expand his premisses, then there was some bizarre EU tariff on the machinery he could source cheaper abroad, and when his workers' union decided that a business expansion plan was enough to demand higher wages for existing workers he simply had enough. He still has his operation in Germany, but all his expansions will be done in China. A picture perfect example of red tape, bureaucracy, tariffs and union demands having the exact opposite effect of what the intentions were.


----------



## Purple

Chris said:


> It had an impact on the decision, but nowhere near what you are stating and was not the primary or even secondary reason. As mentioned the valves my friend produces are highly specialized, and the people that operate the machines are not unskilled workers. He set out with full intention of expanding his existing operation in Germany and hadn't considered setting up in China, as he thought it would be too much hassle. The main factors were that after 5 months the local council still refused to grant him permission to expand his premisses, then there was some bizarre EU tariff on the machinery he could source cheaper abroad, and when his workers' union decided that a business expansion plan was enough to demand higher wages for existing workers he simply had enough. He still has his operation in Germany, but all his expansions will be done in China. A picture perfect example of red tape, bureaucracy, tariffs and union demands having the exact opposite effect of what the intentions were.



You should get him to expand his Chinese company into Ireland. He can't get grants from the IDA moving within the EU but he can expanding from China into Ireland. He'll then get his low taxes, grants and access to the EU without duties.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> You should get him to expand his Chinese company into Ireland. He can't get grants from the IDA moving within the EU but he can expanding from China into Ireland. He'll then get his low taxes, grants and access to the EU without duties.



Don’t forget about our world class education system


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> You should get him to expand his Chinese company into Ireland. He can't get grants from the IDA moving within the EU but he can expanding from China into Ireland. He'll then get his low taxes, grants and access to the EU without duties.



But you see some people would probably argue that this in unfair to the Chinese!


----------



## thedaras

Yeah but.....they dont have a "World class education system".


----------



## Firefly

thedaras said:


> Yeah but.....they dont have a "World class education system".



You're right...the first thing they should do with their teachers is pay them way more, unionise the lot of them and let them teach what they want (just like in Finland and here ).


----------



## Complainer

Chris said:


> It had an impact on the decision, but nowhere near what you are stating and was not the primary or even secondary reason. As mentioned the valves my friend produces are highly specialized, and the people that operate the machines are not unskilled workers. He set out with full intention of expanding his existing operation in Germany and hadn't considered setting up in China, as he thought it would be too much hassle. The main factors were that after 5 months the local council still refused to grant him permission to expand his premisses, then there was some bizarre EU tariff on the machinery he could source cheaper abroad, and when his workers' union decided that a business expansion plan was enough to demand higher wages for existing workers he simply had enough. He still has his operation in Germany, but all his expansions will be done in China. A picture perfect example of red tape, bureaucracy, tariffs and union demands having the exact opposite effect of what the intentions were.


Life's so hard for entrepreneurs, isn't it? All those mean bureacrats who get all uppity about trivial little things like keeping the rivers clean and keeping the workers with all four of their limbs. Much better to head off to China where you don't have to worry about that stuff - disposable Chinese workers are so much easier - just toss em in the skip when you're done.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Life's so hard for entrepreneurs, isn't it? All those mean bureacrats who get all uppity about trivial little things like keeping the rivers clean and keeping the workers with all four of their limbs. Much better to head off to China where you don't have to worry about that stuff - disposable Chinese workers are so much easier - just toss em in the skip when you're done.



Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Life's so hard for entrepreneurs, isn't it? All those mean bureacrats who get all uppity about trivial little things like keeping the rivers clean and keeping the workers with all four of their limbs. Much better to head off to China where you don't have to worry about that stuff - disposable Chinese workers are so much easier - just toss em in the skip when you're done.



Ever buy anything made in China?


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Life's so hard for entrepreneurs, isn't it? All those mean bureacrats who get all uppity about trivial little things like keeping the rivers clean and keeping the workers with all four of their limbs. Much better to head off to China where you don't have to worry about that stuff - *disposable Chinese workers are so much easier - just toss em in the skip when you're done*.



This reminds me of _contract_ employees in the public sector here - just toss em on in the dole queue when you're done. I take it you don't think this is fair either.


----------



## demoivre

Complainer said:


> Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.





demoivre said:


> Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend  €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)





Complainer said:


> Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground.



Not on any high moral ground - just a simple example to highlight your diatribe. It's just so, so, soooooooooo easy to discredit almost everything you come out with. Generally I can't be bothered doing it but _Purple, amongst others,_ does so with aplomb on a daily basis - I guess that's why you've blocked him.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Ever buy anything made in China?



No, it's better to oppose businesses investing in China. That way we protect jobs in the West and keep Chinese people trapped in a cycle of subsistence farming and poverty.
See despite what socialists would like to think the only thing that has ever raised people out of poverty is capitalism. The movement of capital, the economic activity which that capital generates and a responsible government that can raise taxes for the state from that economic activity is what raises people from poverty and, probably more importantly,  gives them hope that their children will have a better life than they had. Well meaning fools who are blinded to that reality by a philosophical bias would, despite their best intentions, see the poorest in the world stay that way.


----------



## Superman

Purple said:


> No, it's better to oppose businesses investing in China. That way we protect jobs in the West and keep Chinese people trapped in a cycle of subsistence farming and poverty.
> See despite what socialists would like to think the only thing that has ever raised people out of poverty is capitalism. The movement of capital, the economic activity which that capital generates and a responsible government that can raise taxes for the state from that economic activity is what raises people from poverty and, probably more importantly,  gives them hope that their children will have a better life than they had.


The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism.


----------



## thedaras

Some of my favourite quotes;

Socialists make the mistake of confusing individual worth with success. They believe you cannot allow people to succeed in case those who fail feel worthless.

I pass the test that says a man who isn't a socialist at 20 has no heart, and a man who is a socialist at 40 has no head. 


There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money will not cure. 


What is a Communist? One who has yearnings for equal division of unequal earnings.


----------



## Chris

Complainer said:


> Life's so hard for entrepreneurs, isn't it? All those mean bureacrats who get all uppity about trivial little things like keeping the rivers clean and keeping the workers with all four of their limbs. Much better to head off to China where you don't have to worry about that stuff - disposable Chinese workers are so much easier - just toss em in the skip when you're done.


Ah yes that ever common socialist crap that without government evil capitalists would be killing both the employees producing stuff and consumers buying stuff. Here is what the real world is like. Entrepreneurs benefit most when their customers are not harmed by their products and when employees are not harmed during production. Not being sued for causing bodily harm (which you do not need endless regulation for) and retaining employees and customers is far more profitable than reducing your workforce and customers by harming them.
Industrial and employment regulations mandated  by government did not exist for almost the entire industrial revolution, but real wages, working conditions and product quality all increased. But this is something socialists simply cannot understand or refuse to accept.

My friend uses the same machines in China as he does in Germany and the workers have the same training and safety rules as recommended by the manufacturer and his years of experience. No matter how many socialist clichés you pull out of your bag they all remain fictitious and totally unfounded in facts.

And yes, life is extremely hard for those people that risk everything to satisfy consumers and provide jobs. That is why they are a minority and why most people do not succeed and very few people know what it's like.




Purple said:


> No, it's better to oppose businesses investing in China. That way we protect jobs in the West and keep Chinese people trapped in a cycle of subsistence farming and poverty.
> See despite what socialists would like to think the only thing that has ever raised people out of poverty is capitalism. The movement of capital, the economic activity which that capital generates and a responsible government that can raise taxes for the state from that economic activity is what raises people from poverty and, probably more importantly,  gives them hope that their children will have a better life than they had. Well meaning fools who are blinded to that reality by a philosophical bias would, despite their best intentions, see the poorest in the world stay that way.


Yes to most of it; I would add thought that the duty of responsible government is to protect property rights and individual liberty. As soon as these rights are infringed upon, things start going bad.



Superman said:


> The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism.


Very good, I hadn't heard it before.


----------



## Chris

Purple said:


> You should get him to expand his Chinese company into Ireland. He can't get grants from the IDA moving within the EU but he can expanding from China into Ireland. He'll then get his low taxes, grants and access to the EU without duties.



Interesting, I'll let him know, but I don't think this will be of much benefit since he mainly sells to water, oil and gas companies in the Middle East and Canada.

Also, a little update on a previous argument about wages being 1/10 or 1/50 in China. My friend emailed me and said that his workers get the equivalent of $3 to $3.50 per hour. He does not pay his German workers anything near between $30 and $150 per hour.


----------



## Deiseblue

One of my favourites is " under capitalism , man exploits man - under socialism the reverse is true "

Just as well then that the Irish Labour Party are social democrats


----------



## T McGibney

Complainer said:


> Life's so hard for entrepreneurs, isn't it? All those mean bureacrats who get all uppity about trivial little things like keeping the rivers clean and keeping the workers with all four of their limbs. Much better to head off to China where you don't have to worry about that stuff - disposable Chinese workers are so much easier - just toss em in the skip when you're done.



Anyone with 4,852 posts should be above this sort of cynical trolling.


----------



## Purple

Chris said:


> Interesting, I'll let him know, but I don't think this will be of much benefit since he mainly sells to water, oil and gas companies in the Middle East and Canada.
> 
> Also, a little update on a previous argument about wages being 1/10 or 1/50 in China. My friend emailed me and said that his workers get the equivalent of $3 to $3.50 per hour. He does not pay his German workers anything near between $30 and $150 per hour.



Where I work our second biggest, and fastest growing, sector is oil and gas companies. We've no problem manufacturing and exporting from Ireland though we are under pressure from our customers to open a plant in Eastern Europe in order to capture new business.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> This reminds me of _contract_ employees in the public sector here - just toss em on in the dole queue when you're done. I take it you don't think this is fair either.



The more you nag, the less motivated I am to think about answering this issue.



demoivre said:


> I guess that's why you've blocked him.


The reason I blocked was because of personalised abuse. I'm happy to debate anything with anybody, as my long record on AAM will show. I don't take abuse from anybody.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> The reason I blocked was because of personalised abuse. I'm happy to debate anything with anybody, as my long record on AAM will show. I don't take abuse from anybody.



One man’s abuse is another man’s discussion.
If I have offended I offer my more heart-felt apologies (and no, I’m not being sarcastic ).


----------



## Complainer

Chris said:


> Also, a little update on a previous argument about wages being 1/10 or 1/50 in China. My friend emailed me and said that his workers get the equivalent of $3 to $3.50 per hour. He does not pay his German workers anything near between $30 and $150 per hour.



Sounds like your buddy is a bit over-generous in China and a bit mean in Germany. 

Average manufacturing wages in China - $3.10 an hour ([broken link removed])
Average manufacturing wages in Germany - $48 per hour (http://prospect.org/article/business-booming-0)


----------



## Sunny

Merry Christmas everyone. Seriously, coming from someone who works in investment banking, with a hatred of socialism, unions and other left wing rubbish, complainer does have a point. Pure capitalism is as much of a failure as pure socialism. I know people will argue that we never had pure capitalism but when Governments decided deregulating or light touch regulation was the way to go, how did the corporate world treat everyone?


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> Merry Christmas everyone. Seriously, coming from someone who works in investment banking, with a hatred of socialism, unions and other left wing rubbish, complainer does have a point. Pure capitalism is as much of a failure as pure socialism. I know people will argue that we never had pure capitalism but when Governments decided deregulating or light touch regulation was the way to go, how did the corporate world treat everyone?


Funnily enough, I was coming close to giving up on AAM all together, but you've inspired me to keep going for another year or two. Merry Xmas Sunny.


----------



## blueband

Chris said:


> Also, a little update on a previous argument about wages being 1/10 or 1/50 in China. My friend emailed me and said that his workers get the equivalent of $3 to $3.50 per hour. He does not pay his German workers anything near between $30 and $150 per hour.


 
are you sure thats not per day!


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> Funnily enough, I was coming close to giving up on AAM all together, but you've inspired me to keep going for another year or two. Merry Xmas Sunny.



God, dont give up. Internet forums are only interesting when people have different opinions. If we all thought the same, it would be extremely boring. Of course, purple will probably put me on his ignore list now!


----------



## thedaras

Sunny





> :God, dont give up.



That your new name for complainer?


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> God, dont give up. Internet forums are only interesting when people have different opinions. If we all thought the same, it would be extremely boring. Of course, purple will probably put me on his ignore list now!



I don't do ignore lists; it's good to talk. Besides, most of the criticism I get is perfectly valid.


----------



## shnaek

Sunny said:


> Pure capitalism is as much of a failure as pure socialism.


I disagree. I'd still choose to live in a failed capitalist state over a failed socialist state. Though I'd like to try a state based on Austrian economics if there was one. Perhaps Switzerland or Hong Kong. Just to see what it's like


----------



## Chris

Complainer said:


> Sounds like your buddy is a bit over-generous in China and a bit mean in Germany.
> 
> Average manufacturing wages in China - $3.10 an hour ([broken link removed])
> Average manufacturing wages in Germany - $48 per hour (http://prospect.org/article/business-booming-0)



Average manufacturing wages in urban Chinese areas are higher, here are some figures broken down from 2008, wages are up considerably since then: http://www.ventureoutsource.com/con...ring-hourly-labor-rate-compensation-costs-ems
And I believe those figures for Germany are very very very wide off the mark. Here is a table from 2005 for qualified professions ranging from butcher to electrician, mechanic and plumber: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/d/d9/DurchschnittsbruttostundenverdienstHandwerk.png
Former East Germany has also got substantially lower wage rates.




Sunny said:


> Merry Christmas everyone. Seriously, coming from someone who works in investment banking, with a hatred of socialism, unions and other left wing rubbish, complainer does have a point. Pure capitalism is as much of a failure as pure socialism. I know people will argue that we never had pure capitalism but when Governments decided deregulating or light touch regulation was the way to go, how did the corporate world treat everyone?


But we also didn't have light touch regulation. Some regulations were repealed while many others were added. Most importantly the implicit and explicit government guarantees were never repealed, which is the main reason why banks behaved recklessly. But that is a discussion for another thread.



blueband said:


> are you sure thats not per day!


Nope, per hour! It is a total myth that Chinese workers are working for a few dollars a day in dodgy sweat-shops. Take a look at chart 2 here: http://www.ventureoutsource.com/con...ring-hourly-labor-rate-compensation-costs-ems


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> The more you nag, the less motivated I am to think about answering this issue.



At this stage I don't really care whether you answer the question or not (at least you refer to it as an issue now). My gut reaction is telling me you are avoiding it (no offense meant) and I have a fair idea what your answer would be if you did answer it. 

I asked another question in post 163 in this thread in response to one of the worst posts I've ever read on AAM, but that probably won't be answered either.  Feel free to ask me any question based on any of my posts..I'll be happy to provide an answer as ultimately I think it's rude not to.


----------



## Leper

Sunny, Complainer if you want to go to the "bad-boy" corner, get in the queue behind me. I gave up this forum for the last fortnight and you know it was a fortnight well spent.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> At this stage I don't really care whether you answer the question or not (at least you refer to it as an issue now). My gut reaction is telling me you are avoiding it (no offense meant) and I have a fair idea what your answer would be if you did answer it.


It just seems a bit strange that you keep on going on about something that you 'don't really care' about. Methinks he doth protest too much. As I explained to you by PM, my world does not revolve around you. There are hundreds of good reasons as to why I haven't answered this question, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with you and nothing to do with avoiding the question. And as I explained to you by PM, the more you nag, the less likely I am to answer.



Firefly said:


> I asked another question in post 163 in this thread in response to one of the worst posts I've ever read on AAM, but that probably won't be answered either.  Feel free to ask me any question based on any of my posts..I'll be happy to provide an answer as ultimately I think it's rude not to.



If you've a problem with any of my posts, click the red triangle. Funnily enough ,there are several questions that I'm thinking about asking you now. Most of them start with 'Would you ever go and'. But ultimately, I think it would be rude to continue. I think that's enough from me on this one.


----------



## thedaras

Complainer To Firefly





> Funnily enough ,there are several questions that I'm thinking about asking you now. Most of them start with 'Would you ever go and'. But ultimately, I think it would be rude to continue. I think that's enough from me on this one.



Stunning.. sums it all up ...

Firefly: Would love to see what you were" PMd"!!
Either way, as Im sure you already know, when someone is avoiding giving an answer you can be certain they dont have a logical one .


----------



## ajapale

Askaboutmoney.com  	>    	> Letting Off Steam   	>  The "Poverty Trap" budget

Thread Closed.


----------

