# Homeless mother of 5 wants social housing



## TheBigShort

ClubMan said:


> She started off by saying that the interview with the mother of five was "very powerful" and should be played to all local authority councillors.
> She didn't seem to clarify why and for what reason.



I took it to mean that the mother (Edel) spoke in a manner that simply set out the facts as they are. 17 people in a house, having to look after a child with cerebral palsy.
The bit that struck me was when she said of the child with cerebral palsy "it would be great if he could have a bed to stretch out his legs"!



ClubMan said:


> Later she did seem to offer some opinions somewhat in line with what Brendan has been arguing for.



I would disagree. Brendan has not outlined in any great detail what it is that he wants when he says that those that are not working should be moved to wherever is cheap and quick to build housing.



ClubMan said:


> Many people questioned why somebody eight years homeless would have five kids during that time and seem to expect to be handed a home close to their parents.



To which Alice responded that she was never going to start moralizing people about who should or should not, or how many kids should people have.
Human reproduction is a human condition, it is essential for the survival of the human species. It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.
This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.


 It is if you have to pay for them yourself.



TheBigShort said:


> This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.


 Really, that's the justification for continuing to pop out sprogs and expecting someone else to pay for them?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It is if you have to pay for them yourself.



I'm talking about the basic desire for sex and to reproduce. It is not something that you can switch on and off.
You can of course _choose not_ to have children, but that does not extinguish the desire (if you have it).
That's why they invented rubbers.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I'm talking about the basic desire for sex and to reproduce. It is not something that you can switch on and off.
> You can of course _choose not_ to have children, but that does not extinguish the desire (if you have it).
> That's why they invented rubbers.


Yes, exactly. Eating is also a natural desire but unless you want to be a fatty you have to control the amount of foot you stick in your gob. I am fond of fillet steak and fine wines but I can't afford them very often so I can't have them very often.


----------



## ClubMan

TheBigShort said:


> 17 people in a house


There are not 17 people living in the house.

_"Edel also told Kenny that at weekends when other children come to stay there could be 14 people living in the house."_

As far as I can tell there are 11 living there. Not ideal but hardly unique in Ireland.



> To which Alice responded that she was never going to start moralizing people about who should or should not, or how many kids should people have.


And nobody should - but it's fair comment to point out that some level of reproduction and in certain circumstances is arguably irresponsible.



> Human reproduction is a human condition


Not sure what you mean. But in this day and age there's a large element of choice to it too. And it is always a responsibility.



> it is essential for the survival of the human species. It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.
> This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.


I consider this an irrelevant non sequitur to the topic in hand to be honest.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Eating is also a natural desire but unless you want to be a fatty you have to control the amount of foot you stick in your gob.



Doesn't stop you eating though does it? Unless you suffer from an eating disorder you will succumb to the natural human condition to feed yourself. Ditto, sexual desire.
Whether you take protection against pregnancy or whether you choose to eat healthy or fast food is choice of the individual(s).


----------



## TheBigShort

ClubMan said:


> There are not 17 people living in the house.



I stand corrected, my err.



ClubMan said:


> And nobody should - but it's fair comment to point out that some level of reproduction and in certain circumstances is _arguably_ irresponsible.



And that is ultimately the issue. Where do you draw the line? Is it inconceivable that her children grow up to be high achievers? Inventors? Scientists? Peace makers? Entertainers? Artists? Etc..etc and in turn, return everything and more to society than was ever provided to them growing up?







ClubMan said:


> Not sure what you mean. But in this day and age there's a large element of choice to it too. And it is always a responsibility.





ClubMan said:


> I consider this an irrelevant non sequitur to the topic in hand to be honest.


----------



## newirishman

TheBigShort said:


> And that is ultimately the issue. Where do you draw the line? Is it inconceivable that her children grow up to be high achievers? Inventors? Scientists? Peace makers? Entertainers? Artists? Etc..etc and in turn, return everything and more to society than was ever provided to them growing up?


Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.

I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.


----------



## TheBigShort

newirishman said:


> Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.



That is an assumption that accepts the possibility that her children, or a child may achieve great things. 



newirishman said:


> I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.



A reasonable stable environment? Is that what you would say to Syrians now today? Or Palestinians? Or Puerto Ricans today? Should Puerto Ricans hold off on having children until they have established a 'reasonable stable environment'. 
Is that what the impoverished Irish should have done for 100+ after the famine? In which case our population would be depleted.

For the record, she and her family are not homeless. They are on the housing waiting list, due not being able to afford a home of their own. They were moved to the emergency housing list on foot of her health condition (a life threatening blood clot) and having to take care of a child with cerebral palsy.


----------



## ant dee

Except we do not have a civil war, nor a famine, nor is the species threatened. You cant be comparing those situations...

They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.
Yet, they chose to have them, because they knew social welfare will foot the bills.

Yes, social welfare should help now, and it will. But that family should have also acted more responsibly and not have that many kids while in this situation.
Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> Except we do not have a civil war, nor a famine, nor is the species threatened. You cant be comparing those situations...
> 
> They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.



My grandparents got married in 1932. They had a small farm holding in East Kerry. By any yardstick they were poor. No central heating, no electricity, no industry, no welfare, life expectancy about late 40's, infant mortality way higher than today no doubt.
Conditions arguably far worse with even less potential opportunity than today.

Should they have had any kids?



ant dee said:


> Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!



The 'safety net' as you call I think was first adopted in Japan around a hundred years ago when they started paying the old age pension. Human kind has survived for thousands of years before that without the 'safety net'.
The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies



ant dee said:


> and not have that many kids while in this situation.



So how many kids should they, or anyone for that matter, have?
Have you got a chart that outlines how many kids anyone should have?
If people in poor conditions should not have kids, how many kids should wealthy people be having?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> My grandparents got married in 1932. They had a small farm holding in East Kerry. By any yardstick they were poor. No central heating, no electricity, no industry, no welfare, life expectancy about late 40's, infant mortality way higher than today no doubt.
> Conditions arguably far worse with even less potential opportunity than today.
> 
> Should they have had any kids?


Did they expect someone else to house them, cloth them and feed them?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The 'safety net' as you call I think was first adopted in Japan around a hundred years ago when they started paying the old age pension. Human kind has survived for thousands of years before that without the 'safety net'.
> The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies


Bismarck introduced the first State old age pension in Germany in 1881.
People got it at 70. Life expectancy was 71. Most people started work in their teens so 50 years plus at work before getting a pension for a few years = sustainable.


----------



## Firefly

newirishman said:


> Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.
> 
> I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.



I agree. I'm not sure enough people think things through in general, be it taking on debt they cannot afford or having kids when they can't afford to. As long as someone else picks up the tab then why should the bother?

Living within your means is a pretty fundamental concept to help safeguard your future. It should be drilled into the minds of every child.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Did they expect someone else to house them, cloth them and feed them?



No I don't think so. They relied on the local community when food was tight, as they provided to others in their community when their neighbours were struggling.
But that wasn't my question. Given the circumstances that they lived in, should they have had any kids (or how many)? Or should they have left the replacement of the population to those who could 'afford' it?



Purple said:


> Bismarck introduced the first State old age pension in Germany in 1881.



I stand corrected.



Purple said:


> People got it at 70. Life expectancy was 71. Most people started work in their teens so 50 years plus at work before getting a pension for a few years = sustainable.



Yes, but again, it is the worker who ultimately pays for it through wealth created through Labour.
So perhaps time for the ownership of all wealth to be transferred to those who do all the work?


----------



## Firefly

ant dee said:


> They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.
> Yet, they chose to have them, because they knew social welfare will foot the bills.
> 
> Yes, social welfare should help now, and it will. But that family should have also acted more responsibly and not have that many kids while in this situation.
> Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!



+1


----------



## Delboy

I know lots of people who have moved to Dublin to find work. Broke their backs to save for mortgages, many still in negative equity. They got married and struggled for years during the recession with wage cuts and luckily, very few were laid off who didn't find work again quickly.
But all of those couples really had to think hard about the number of kids they could afford. Most had 2 and some had only the one. Others tried for a 2nd but as they had left it so late for the 1st, it sadly wasn't possible to have any more kids. They are feeling really guilty about only having the one but that was all they could afford at the time.

That's personal responsibility. Thats what the current structure of the Irish State has done to hard working people.
Having several kids while waiting to be housed and having no job is a personal choice that is funded by the people I mention above. It's not 1930's east Kerry, it's not nature calling.  It's people playing a system that's there to be gamed


----------



## ant dee

TheBigShort said:


> My grandparents got married in 1932



Except we live in 2017 and infant mortality rates are like 0.5%. Yes, you had to try quite a few times in the old ages to make sure a couple of kids survived to adulthood, but that is no the case today.



TheBigShort said:


> The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies



Correlation does not mean causation though. Are you saying social welfare caused the advancement of modern societies?



TheBigShort said:


> So how many kids should they, or anyone for that matter, have?
> Have you got a chart that outlines how many kids anyone should have?
> If people in poor conditions should not have kids, how many kids should wealthy people be having?



Common sense says wealthy people can have as many kids as they want. Is that bad?

A couple struggling with their mortgage will not go and have 5 kids. But a homeless couple will, and it will get them higher up the housing list and there is nothing wrong with that?

I am not saying it is reasonable to make any rules regarding how many kids we should have. The kids are here now and the State will help.
But can you not agree it was irresponsible to have so many while homeless?


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> That's personal responsibility.



Something a lot of people lack!


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> So perhaps time for the ownership of all wealth to be transferred to those who do all the work?



Transferred ? Why transferred. I acquired my small sliver of "all wealth" by working and investing. I didn't get it as a result of a transfer, and I certainly don't want to give it up in a transfer.

I would be very happy to see those who do all the work having ownership of all the wealth, it would happen a lot faster if taxes were reduced.


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> Are you saying social welfare caused the advancement of modern societies?



It has assisted in the advancement of modern societies, yes of course. Why else would these societies adopt a social welfare model so?
In doing so, it means families with no income, or no obvious means to generate an income, will  not starve. It means they won't need to beg on the city streets. This can be very beneficial if you are in the tourist trade for instance. From my perspective, when I holiday, I prefer not to encounter an undue amount of beggars.
The welfare state also prevents others (not all) from thievery and robbery. Again, helps businesses with insurance costs, makes business centres more attractive if people feel safe in them.
All of this, and much much more, has helped in the advancement of modern societies through higher standards of living, better education, better opportunities, increased wealth etc.



ant dee said:


> A couple struggling with their mortgage will not go and have 5 kids.



My neighbours have 5 kids, both working, struggling with their mortgage...



ant dee said:


> But can you not agree it was irresponsible to have so many while homeless?



I would agree that, if you agree that any generation that lived in poverty, were also irresponsible, including my grandparents?
Despite all 5 of their offspring developing careers for themselves, owning their own homes, and two owning their own businesses employing people.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Transferred ? Why transferred. I acquired my small sliver of "all wealth" by working and investing. I didn't get it as a result of a transfer, and I certainly don't want to give it up in a transfer.
> 
> I would be very happy to see those who do all the work having ownership of all the wealth, it would happen a lot faster if taxes were reduced.



Staying on topic is one thing, but staying _in_ topic is another.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> Staying on topic is one thing, but staying _in_ topic is another.



I was only responding to your comments. 

And I had been congratulating myself for having resisted getting into the Famine to set you straight on that one as well.


----------



## Firefly

cremeegg said:


> I would be very happy to see those who do all the work having ownership of all the wealth, it would happen a lot faster if taxes were reduced.



I think it depends on what you define as "work". Those flipping burgers should never expect to earn the same as those who design the process, the science behind it, those who take the financial risks in setting up or those that devise ingenious advertising campaigns...otherwise why would they bother? The central point being that that awfully used term "Value Add" comes into play. Some people are lucky to inherit wealth but for the vast majority it comes down to adding value and for that a market economy helps ensure that those who add most value get the most rewards.


----------



## ant dee

TheBigShort said:


> I would agree that, if you agree that any generation that lived in poverty, were also irresponsible, including my grandparents?



How could I say if what your grandparents did nearly 100 years ago was a good idea or not? Those were different times, I know little of what happened back then.


----------



## qwerty5

ant dee said:


> How could I say if what your grandparents did nearly 100 years ago was a good idea or not? Those were different times, I know little of what happened back then.



Was going to type the same thing myself. We don't base our lives on the standards of a century ago. Our society and values of 100 years ago weren't the same as today. I don't see many people looking wistfully back and saying I wish I could live like my ancestors. Yes, I'd take certain aspects of it but if I was transported back to 1917 I think I'd be wanting to get back to 2017 (and that's excluding the wars around those times).

My grandparents did loads of stuff I wouldn't do today and vice versa. It doesn't mean I think they were stupid or irresponsible.


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> How could I say if what your grandparents did nearly 100 years ago was a good idea or not? Those were different times, I know little of what happened back then.



I would suggest you know very little about the life of a woman with 5 kids, no home of her own, with child that requires full-time care either.
Doesn't stop you commenting on her though does it?


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> I would suggest you know very little about the life of a woman with 5 kids, no home of her own, with child that requires full-time care either.
> Doesn't stop you commenting on her though does it?



He may not, but we do know that taxpayers are being asked to pay for her housing and child care.


----------



## TheBigShort

qwerty5 said:


> We don't base our lives on the standards of a century ago.



You don't think so, no?



qwerty5 said:


> Yes, I'd take certain aspects of it but if I was transported back to 1917 I think I'd be wanting to get back to 2017



What do you base that on?



qwerty5 said:


> My grandparents did loads of stuff I wouldn't do today and vice versa. It doesn't mean I think they were stupid or irresponsible.



Of course, it was your grandparents. Just like mine. In fact, does anyone look on their grandparents as being irresponsible?
Do you think in 2117, the grandchildren of this woman wont be thinking the same?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I would suggest you know very little about the life of a woman with 5 kids, no home of her own, with child that requires full-time care either.
> Doesn't stop you commenting on her though does it?




The Big Short a question please if I may. Do you think the person with the five children should take any responsibility for the position she finds herself in. I am referring to the fact that she has five children some of which were conceived when she was homeless.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Do you think the person with the five children should take any responsibility for the position she finds herself in.



Absolutely, no question. Do you not?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Absolutely, no question. Do you not?


I do I am just interested in your views as to what responsibility she should take.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> I do I am just interested in your views as to what responsibility she should take.



She should look after her children as best she can, you know, feeding, clothing, roof over head...the usual stuff.
What do you think?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> She should look after her children as best she can, you know, feeding, clothing, roof over head...the usual stuff.
> W


Interesting that you respond with "She" and " a roof over head", which I find a bit ironic as "She" is not looking after her children "We" are. She had an additional child conceived while she was homeless!

To me it appears "She" in your eyes and "We" appear to be the same thing. Do you not agree that she was irresponsible to have another child while homeless?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Interesting that you respond with "She" and " a roof over head", which I find a bit ironic as "She" is not looking after her children "We" are. She had an additional child conceived while she was homeless!



She is looking after her children, did you not listen to the interview?
"We", are not looking after her children. Get of your high horse (no pun intended), but your personal tax contribution to society is so inadequate, barely relevant, to anything in that woman's life. This notion that 'your' taxes pay for 'everything', for everybody is delusional. 
Tell us, how much tax do you pay? And then tell us do you have children? Do you use public roads, were you educated in the public school system? Ever use a public hospital? Ever use a public park? Public beaches? Ever visit a public museum? Use public transport? Use public sewerage system? Use public water system? Ever vote? Ever called the emergency services for anything?...etc...etc

Your personal tax contributions are so miniscule, so tiny, that you would have to work twenty lifetimes before they would even register as any sort of meaningful contribution considering all the things that you use and avail of from the rest of the taxpayers. And that applies to use all. 
You live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, one of the most developed countries in the world by global standards, one of the safest and politically stable countries in the world.
When we start to take responsibility for all our actions, instead over consuming, polluting, feeding the illegal drug trade buying lines of coke that leave teenage apprentice plumbers dead. Stop abusing alcohol, stop wasting vast quantities of food, etc...then we can lecture others.
Having a child is not irresponsible, leaving a child in crowded conditions, suffering from cerebral palsy is.


----------



## ant dee

If only taxation was voluntary and you could only pay for the things you wanted...


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> She is looking after her children, did you not listen to the interview?
> "We", are not looking after her children. Get of your high horse (no pun intended), but your personal tax contribution to society is so inadequate, barely relevant, to anything in that woman's life. This notion that 'your' taxes pay for 'everything', for everybody is delusional.
> Tell us, how much tax do you pay? And then tell us do you have children? Do you use public roads, were you educated in the public school system? Ever use a public hospital? Ever use a public park? Public beaches? Ever visit a public museum? Use public transport? Use public sewerage system? Use public water system? Ever vote? Ever called the emergency services for anything?...etc...etc
> 
> Your personal tax contributions are so miniscule, so tiny, that you would have to work twenty lifetimes before they would even register as any sort of meaningful contribution considering all the things that you use and avail of from the rest of the taxpayers. And that applies to use all.
> You live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, one of the most developed countries in the world by global standards, one of the safest and politically stable countries in the world.
> When we start to take responsibility for all our actions, instead over consuming, polluting, feeding the illegal drug trade buying lines of coke that leave teenage apprentice plumbers dead. Stop abusing alcohol, stop wasting vast quantities of food, etc...then we can lecture others.
> Having a child is not irresponsible, leaving a child in crowded conditions, suffering from cerebral palsy is.




Do you think her behaviour is acceptable? And by her behaviour I mean having a 5th child while homeless.

Also, while my taxes may only pay for her needs in part that doesn't mean I can't be pissed off at what she is doing.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> She is looking after her children, did you not listen to the interview?
> "We", are not looking after her children. Get of your high horse (no pun intended), but your personal tax contribution to society is so inadequate, barely relevant, to anything in that woman's life. This notion that 'your' taxes pay for 'everything', for everybody is delusional.
> Tell us, how much tax do you pay? And then tell us do you have children? Do you use public roads, were you educated in the public school system? Ever use a public hospital? Ever use a public park? Public beaches? Ever visit a public museum? Use public transport? Use public sewerage system? Use public water system? Ever vote? Ever called the emergency services for anything?...etc...etc
> 
> Your personal tax contributions are so miniscule, so tiny, that you would have to work twenty lifetimes before they would even register as any sort of meaningful contribution considering all the things that you use and avail of from the rest of the taxpayers. And that applies to use all.
> You live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, one of the most developed countries in the world by global standards, one of the safest and politically stable countries in the world.
> When we start to take responsibility for all our actions, instead over consuming, polluting, feeding the illegal drug trade buying lines of coke that leave teenage apprentice plumbers dead. Stop abusing alcohol, stop wasting vast quantities of food, etc...then we can lecture others.
> Having a child is not irresponsible, leaving a child in crowded conditions, suffering from cerebral palsy is.




I am not going to answer personal questions, and yes I do use public roads I also pay road tax for the privilege, yes I was educated in a public school which my family contributed to using their taxes and I continue to contribute to using my taxes. Yes I use public water systems which the stamp duty and council levies on the cost of my residence was included therein, yes I have called the emergency services.

You mention the overconsumption, pollution, illegal drugs trade, these are all choices people are making, no one forces these on people they choose to make these decisions. 

At what point do you think people should be accountable for their decisions/life choices?


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Do you think her behaviour is acceptable? And by her behaviour I mean having a 5th child while homeless.



I think our collective behavior, that means seriously disabled children are left in crowded conditions are deplorable.
Her behavior, you mean having sex, that is of course acceptable. Giving birth, perfectly acceptable.
Do I wish her children were brought into a more stable environment, absolutely.
But the situation is, as it is. I assume you find her 'behavior' unacceptable?
What do you propose to do about it now, and what do you propose should be done for future instances of this 'behavior'?



PGF2016 said:


> Also, while my taxes may only pay for her needs in part that doesn't mean I can't be pissed off at what she is doing.



You can be peeved off all you want, but your taxes are so insignificant in paying for her needs. 
In fact, as I understand it, she doesn't have a house of her own, so not only are your taxes insignificant, they are not actually paying for her needs.
On the other hand, she looks after her disabled child. How much would it cost the tax payer for full-time medical care? This would be required if she wasn't being responsible and didn't look after her child.
My guess is she is saving the State, and you, a small fortune. So show some gratitude.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You mention the overconsumption, pollution, illegal drugs trade, these are all choices people are making, no one forces these on people they choose to make these decisions.



I'm talking about the consequences of this behavior. Dead kids are the consequence. Obesity and diabetes are health costs. 
Pollution and climate change are consequences. 
Why should my taxes have to pay to for the disastrous consequences of people who choose to pollute the environment and abuse their own health?


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> I think our collective behavior, that means seriously disabled children are left in crowded conditions are deplorable.
> Her behavior, you mean having sex, that is of course acceptable. Giving birth, perfectly acceptable.
> Do I wish her children were brought into a more stable environment, absolutely.
> But the situation is, as it is. I assume you find her 'behavior' unacceptable?
> What do you propose to do about it now, and what do you propose should be done for future instances of this 'behavior'?


Thanks for answering questions I didn't ask. 



TheBigShort said:


> You can be peeved off all you want, but your taxes are so insignificant in paying for her needs.
> In fact, as I understand it, she doesn't have a house of her own, so not only are your taxes insignificant, they are not actually paying for her needs.
> On the other hand, she looks after her disabled child. How much would it cost the tax payer for full-time medical care? This would be required if she wasn't being responsible and didn't look after her child.
> My guess is she is saving the State, and you, a small fortune. So show some gratitude.



You're missing the point. Her's is one case of many. If all those irresponsible people were more responsible then the money that's wasted on them could go towards more productive uses. Like helping those who are sick through no fault of their own. 

And no... I'm not perfect. No one is. But there's far too little help available for those who need it through no actions of their own.


----------



## Firefly

PGF2016 said:


> If all those irresponsible people were more responsible then the money that's wasted on them could go towards more productive uses



Socialists have a big problem with the concept of limited resources. The answer is easy....just tax the "rich"


----------



## Delboy

Money trees!

This is the section of society where socialists mostly seek their mandate from so you should not be surprised by the deflective/absurd answers/analogies your are getting on this and other epic threads which have arisen here recently. 
Though I am surprised that so many long established and intelligent posters would continue to engage with such a level of debate!


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> Her behavior, you mean having sex, that is of course acceptable. Giving birth, perfectly acceptable.
> Do I wish her children were brought into a more stable environment, absolutely.





PGF2016 said:


> Thanks for answering questions I didn't ask.



My answer to the question you did ask is above. Perhaps you would care to answer mine?


TheBigShort said:


> I assume you find her 'behavior' unacceptable?
> What do you propose to do about it now, and what do you propose should be done for future instances of this 'behavior'?





PGF2016 said:


> You're missing the point. Her's is one case of many. I



How many?



PGF2016 said:


> If all those irresponsible people were more responsible then the money that's wasted on them could go towards more productive uses.



You know you could apply that statement to the whole population?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Socialists have a big problem with the concept of limited resources. The answer is easy....just tax the "rich"



Ah, Comrade Firefly, I thought we were making progress with you after you declared your support for our social democratic model in the previous topic. You know, the one that supports Marxist ideology. What was it called? "Why do people who work hard pay for everything?"


----------



## PGF2016

Delboy said:


> Money trees!
> 
> This is the section of society where socialists mostly seek their mandate from so you should not be surprised by the deflective/absurd answers/analogies your are getting on this and other epic threads which have arisen here recently.
> Though I am surprised that so many long established and intelligent posters would continue to engage with such a level of debate!


Point taken.


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Point taken.



Are you bailing out now? Without answering my questions to you?
That's unfortunate, if I come across the homeless woman with 5 kids I'll be sure to wag my finger and frown at her on your behalf!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Get of your high horse (no pun intended), but your personal tax contribution to society is so inadequate, barely relevant, to anything in that woman's life. This notion that 'your' taxes pay for 'everything', for everybody is delusional.


 The Horseman didn't mention their own taxes, they said "We" are looking after them. Since she is in no way providing for herself or her children then logically others are doing it for her. Those others are the "we".


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> We" are looking after them. Since she is in no way providing for herself or her children then logically others are doing it for her. Those others are the "we".



With respect, "we" are not looking after her or her children. She has not been provided with a house, she has been moved from the housing waiting list, to the housing emergency list.
From the interview on PK, it appeared she was providing the bulk of healthcare to her child with cerebral palsy. If she was receiving adequate care from the State (or anyone else), the child would at least have a bed.
There is apparently between 11 and 14 people living in the two bed house that they are staying in. "We" as in the 2m+ working people who pay for everything, are, between us all, paying diddly-squat in taxes for this woman and her children.

In the meantime, AIB, 25% holding sold earlier this year will not pay any corporate tax for 20yrs. Not because it isn't profitable, it is, but because it is the law.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...-corporation-tax-for-20-years-ceo-807486.html


----------



## Andarma

The lack of compassion on here is astounding at times. The couple in this story, yes that's right there is a partner in all of this who seems to have been forgotten about here, are in dire circumstances. If they're not entitled to housing them who the hell is?


----------



## The Horseman

Andarma said:


> The lack of compassion on here is astounding at times. The couple in this story, yes that's right there is a partner in all of this who seems to have been forgotten about here, are in dire circumstances. If they're not entitled to housing them who the hell is?



Can you not understand why people feel the way they do on this thread. On the face of this we have a 28 yr old person and her partner who have five children between them. One of which was conceived while they were homeless. They say they are living in cramped conditions but yet added to their family despite the fact they were homeless and therefore added to an already difficult situation.

They then feel compelled to use the national media to plead their case. We also recently had another case where a 32 yr old mother of two was on the housing list for 12 yrs with two children aged 4 and the second was 4 months. This person decided when they were 20 yr old to go on the housing list rather than trying to get a career etc. I suspect there are many more of these cases which then ruins it for those who actually deserve help ie those who tried to better themselves and failed rather than those who don't try at all.

So if you look at these two cases as examples you have situations where people have decided to act in selfish ways and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. Do you not see the frustration of those who try to better themselves so they are not a burden on the State (and by extension the tax payer).


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> if you look at these two cases



I'm happy to look at these two cases. Beforehand, I was wrong to reference your personal tax contributions earlier. 



The Horseman said:


> On the face of this we have a 28 yr old person and her partner who have five children between them. One of which was conceived while they were homeless. They say they are living in cramped conditions but yet added to their family despite the fact they were homeless and therefore added to an already difficult situation.



I'm not going to sit here and advocate that the situation she is in is desirable or ok. But people do make mistakes, and all we know about this woman is what we heard on radio.
I don't know if her partner is father to all her children, or if she had a different partner before bailing out on her? Leaving her with children to bring up? I don't know if she a job previously and subsequently lost it? 
She did reference that she was paying rent to a landlord in accommodation that was unfit for habitation. So should she have stayed, paying rent, in a location that is unhealthy for children?
Aside all that, there could multiple other factors to consider as to why she is in the situation that she finds herself in.
We do know however that she has a child that has cerebral palsy and requires full-time healthcare. We know that child doesn't even have a bed.
So, to answer your question, no I can't understand why people feel the way they do on this site.



The Horseman said:


> We also recently had another case where a 32 yr old mother of two was on the housing list for 12 yrs with two children aged 4 and the second was 4 months. This person decided when they were 20 yr old to go on the housing list rather than trying to get a career etc



Do you think that someone on the housing waiting list should cancel their lives in terms of starting a family?
Deciding to go on housing list v trying to get a career are not comparable options. It is not an option for people to choose in.
Some people are from deprived socio-economic backgrounds, they don't have the education, the confidence, the abilities to compete with everyone else. It is a problem no doubt, but probably best that you propose your solutions at this point.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I'm happy to look at these two cases. Beforehand, I was wrong to reference your personal tax contributions earlier.
> 
> You apology is accepted ( I suspect you feel as strongly about this issue as I do but from different sides of the fence).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and advocate that the situation she is in is desirable or ok. But people do make mistakes, and all we know about this woman is what we heard on radio.
> I don't know if her partner is father to all her children, or if she had a different partner before bailing out on her? Leaving her with children to bring up? I don't know if she a job previously and subsequently lost it?
> She did reference that she was paying rent to a landlord in accommodation that was unfit for habitation. So should she have stayed, paying rent, in a location that is unhealthy for children?
> Aside all that, there could multiple other factors to consider as to why she is in the situation that she finds herself in.
> We do know however that she has a child that has cerebral palsy and requires full-time healthcare. We know that child doesn't even have a bed.
> So, to answer your question, no I can't understand why people feel the way they do on this site.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that someone on the housing waiting list should cancel their lives in terms of starting a family?
> Deciding to go on housing list v trying to get a career are not comparable options. It is not an option for people to choose in.
> Some people are from deprived socio-economic backgrounds, they don't have the education, the confidence, the abilities to compete with everyone else. It is a problem no doubt, but probably best that you propose your solutions at this point.



If she presents herself as homeless she would be accommodated either in a hotel room or one of the hubs. While not ideal initially it would provide a bed for her family. Yes there probably are other factors that have led her to this situation some she had no influence on and some she had influence on. You refer to the child that has Cerebal Palsy on your replies but you never seem to reference the fact that she had another child while homeless.

Also you question whether people on the housing list should cancel starting a family. The point I made was why not try for a career and try house yourself and if that fails then go on the housing list. The second example I gave shows that this person did not even try to get a career, they decided to go straight on the housing list. Getting a career does not happen just over a four year period (assuming this person left school at 18 and left college at 22).

Being from a deprived social economic background does not hinder people from college. Most if not all qualifications can be delivered online. I came from a working class background, left school at 16 (back in the late 80's during the last recession) to get a job to contribute to the household. I went to college part time while working full time in my mid twenties, got a degree, a masters and am currently studying for a professional qualification.

You ask for solutions, the current system does not work, the social welfare system needs a fundamental overhaul. I don't have an issue with the sick and the elderly, I do however have an issue with those who blatantly play the system. Children's allowance should have a financial cap at 2 children, if you have any more than you get food stamps. Council property/differential rents should reflect the local rents. Limits should be regularly reviewed in line with current conditions, any damage (beyond normal wear and tear)to council property the tenant should make a contribution to the cost. If you don't pay your rent you are either evicted or alternative accommodation is provided at a figure the tenant can afford again with some reference to the local rents in the area. 

If you refuse to pay your rent either the rent is taken directly from your welfare payment or you are evicted.


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> I came from a working class background, left school at 16 (back in the late 80's during the last recession) to get a job to contribute to the household. I went to college part time while working full time in my mid twenties, got a degree, a masters and am currently studying for a professional qualification.



Fair plain and well done to you!


----------



## Andarma

I'm not going to speculate on why this particular couple has five children. I don't know if they're working at the moment or not,  or if they have in the past.

Having  a family is a normal part of life. Some people want a large family, others don't. Some start off younger, others don't. There's not  a lot you can do about an unplanned pregnancy in this country.  I really dislike the prevailing theme on AAM that people in social housing should be treated like pawns. Send them  to the other side of the country if there's an empty house there! Turf them out if they have a spare bedroom! Let's police their spending habits - no treats for you!! I foresee a suggestion of compulsory sterilisation for the unemployed.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> She did reference that she was paying rent to a landlord in accommodation that was unfit for habitation. So should she have stayed, paying rent, in a location that is unhealthy for children?


 I don't buy that at all. The RTB would be all over the Landlord. I work with a guy who owns an apartment which he rents out. The tenant wrecked the place and then complained that it wasn't up to scratch. The RTB insisted that he repair everything, despite the fact that the tenant damaged it and wasn't paying the rent. Threshold were also involved. So, she could have stayed put and used the State services to force the Landlord to bring the place up to standard.



TheBigShort said:


> Some people are from deprived socio-economic backgrounds, they don't have the education, the confidence, the abilities to compete with everyone else. It is a problem no doubt, but probably best that you propose your solutions at this point.


 I agree. Where I have a problem is the poverty industry pretending that the root cause of all of this is economic. It isn't. Poverty is a symptom of a social problem, or basket of inter-related social problems. While all the emphasis is placed on treating the symptom the root causes will never be tackled. 
My solution is education, mainly primary school level. Build more schools in the small number of areas where most social problems are concentrated, hire more teachers, lower the pupil-teacher ratio to 12 or 16, have breakfast clubs and homework clubs and teach the kids how to cook and vote and basically try to replace the parent with the school as the primary influence on the children because the root cause of all of this is bad parenting. That may not mean the parents aren't trying, it may not even be the parents of the particular child, but poverty is a result of a culture which is dislocated from, and incompatible with, mainstream society.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Where I have a problem is the poverty industry pretending that the root cause of all of this is economic. It isn't. Poverty is a symptom of a social problem, or basket of inter-related social problems. While all the emphasis is placed on treating the symptom the root causes will never be tackled.
> My solution is education, mainly primary school level. Build more schools in the small number of areas where most social problems are concentrated, hire more teachers, lower the pupil-teacher ratio to 12 or 16, have breakfast clubs and homework clubs and teach the kids how to cook and vote and basically try to replace the parent with the school as the primary influence on the children because the root cause of all of this is bad parenting. That may not mean the parents aren't trying, it may not even be the parents of the particular child, but poverty is a result of a culture which is dislocated from, and incompatible with, mainstream society.



This is the best post I have read on AAM in a very long time.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't buy that at all.



The problem with that view is that we are then into cherry-picking the parts of her story we don't like, to admonish her and the situation she is in, and ignoring the parts that perhaps we don't want to hear, because it may spoil the narrative.
You mentioned the states agencies etc. The implication is that those state agencies are so well resources and efficient that all this takes is a simple phone call?
Wasn't there fatalities last month in Rathmines in a house that was carved up into eight units? I thought this thing was supposed to be in the past?



Purple said:


> My solution is education, mainly primary school level. Build more schools in the small number of areas where most social problems are concentrated, hire more teachers, lower the pupil-teacher ratio to 12 or 16, have breakfast clubs and homework clubs and teach the kids how to cook and vote and basically try to replace the parent with the school as the primary influence on the children because the root cause of all of this is bad parenting. That may not mean the parents aren't trying, it may not even be the parents of the particular child, but poverty is a result of a culture which is dislocated from, and incompatible with, mainstream media



I would be hard pressed to disagree with any of that, other than to say it will cost money (short-medium term) to get it up and running to avail of the benefits long-term.
But considering what people are like around here if they whiff an opportunity to spot taxes being 'wasted', then I would be surprised if it found much support.
But overall, you have proposed a solution that makes sense, seems doable, and shouldn't result in exacerbating the housing crisis.

I should add, it is a refreshing viewpoint from the general bile typically regurgitated about taxes.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The problem with that view is that we are then into cherry-picking the parts of her story we don't like, to admonish her and the situation she is in, and ignoring the parts that perhaps we don't want to hear, because it may spoil the narrative.


Can't that be said of every side in this debate?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Wasn't there fatalities last month in Rathmines in a house that was carved up into eight units? I thought this thing was supposed to be in the past?


Had the house been reported to the RTB? They can't fix things that they don't know about. What I do know is that the institutions of the state are hostile to landlords and assume the tenant is in the right until proven otherwise so that aspect of her story doesn't hold water.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I would be hard pressed to disagree with any of that, other than to say it will cost money (short-medium term) to get it up and running to avail of the benefits long-term.


I've no problem with hiring more teachers. I do have a problem with paying them more when there is no shortage of suitable candidates willing to take the jobs at the current pay rates. 
I do think that they should all be paid the same. That can be done by making the pension levy a pay cut, thereby reducing the pensions of retired teachers. The money saved will be more than enough to equalize the pay of recent recruits.


----------



## michaelm

If we want to maintain our population some women have to have more than two kids, to balance those who have one or none, although that won't be their motivation.  It would be handy if well-off women rather than poorer women had the larger families, but that tends not to happen so much.


----------



## Firefly

michaelm said:


> If we want to maintain our population some women have to have more than two kids, to balance those who have one or none, although that won't be their motivation.  It would be handy if well-off women rather than poorer women had the larger families, but that tends not to happen so much.



So they should "take one for the team"?


----------



## TheBigShort

michaelm said:


> If we want to maintain our population some women have to have more than two kids, to balance those who have one or none, although that won't be their motivation.  It would be handy if well-off women rather than poorer women had the larger families, but that tends not to happen so much.



I've touched on this before as it is a very important aspect of the housing issue.
I've referenced Ireland in the period after the famine where poverty was widespread but large families were abundant. Some didn't accept that the way Ireland was 100yrs ago is any way of comparing standards by today.
But if anyone wants to, all they have to do is Google the countries with the fastest growing populations and take note of how many of them are also in the poorest regions too.
The end point being, judging someone for having a baby because they are poor, and should be more responsible, is totally futile and serves no purpose other than to stigmatize people and bastardise their children. Having sex and giving birth is a natural human inclination in most human beings, regardless of their socio-economic position.

There is economic theory (Ricardo?) that identifies a correlation between wealth and decreasing family sizes and vice versa.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I've touched on this before as it is a very important aspect of the housing issue.
> I've referenced Ireland in the period after the famine where poverty was widespread but large families were abundant. Some didn't accept that the way Ireland was 100yrs ago is any way of comparing standards by today.
> But if anyone wants to, all they have to do is Google the countries with the fastest growing populations and take note of how many of them are also in the poorest regions too.
> The end point being, judging someone for having a baby because they are poor, and should be more responsible, is totally futile and serves no purpose other than to stigmatize people and bastardise their children. Having sex and giving birth is a natural human inclination in most human beings, regardless of their socio-economic position.
> 
> There is economic theory (Ricardo?) that identifies a correlation between wealth and decreasing family sizes and vice versa.



We are not comparing like with like here. In the past the social welfare system inclusive of the housing aspect was completely different to the way it is now. People had to work otherwise they got no welfare payments. I remember when I left school you were not automatically entitled to any welfare payments. You had to work for at least 9 months before you could claim anything, hence the reason you went to work. And even then when your "Stamps" were used up you got nothing other than a means tested payment which if you lived at home and either of your parents were working equated to little or nothing.

You refer to how the poorest nations have big families to help support themselves. The reason this happens is specifically because there is no welfare systems in place, no pensions no sick pay etc. These people rely on their families to support them financially if they get sick or when they get old.

We have a welfare system for this. The welfare system is designed to be a safety net not a way of life. We are not judging people for having children, we are asking why they continue to have children when they don't have the means to support them.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Poverty is a symptom of a social problem, or basket of inter-related social problems. While all the emphasis is placed on treating the symptom the root causes will never be tackled.
> My solution is education, mainly primary school level. Build more schools in the small number of areas where most social problems are concentrated, hire more teachers, lower the pupil-teacher ratio to 12 or 16, have breakfast clubs and homework clubs and teach the kids how to cook and vote and basically try to replace the parent with the school as the primary influence on the children because the root cause of all of this is bad parenting. That may not mean the parents aren't trying, it may not even be the parents of the particular child, but poverty is a result of a culture which is dislocated from, and incompatible with, mainstream society.





TheBigShort said:


> it will cost money (short-medium term) to get it up and running to avail of the benefits long-term.
> But considering what people are like around here if they whiff an opportunity to spot taxes being 'wasted', then I would be surprised if it found much support.
> But overall, you have proposed a solution that makes sense, seems doable, and shouldn't result in exacerbating the housing crisis.
> 
> I should add, it is a refreshing viewpoint from the general bile typically regurgitated about taxes.



But reducing class sizes would not be a waste of taxes. The primary school system is in reasonably good shape in Ireland, (unlike the secondary school system).

There would be no shortage of public support for increased public spending if it was to be spent on improving society. At present there is a justified suspicion that increased public spending just masks bad practice in the public sector.

Money for more teachers, no problem, more money for the existing teachers, I'm not so sure.


----------



## Purple

BS, the Horseman summed it up very well.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> But reducing class sizes would not be a waste of taxes.


 It is in most areas. The most expensive thing you can do in education is reduce the pupil-teacher ratio. It required more teachers and more classrooms and so more schools. Reducing the class below 28 has negligible results on outcomes. Reducing it below 16 generally has negative outcomes.  There's an excellent section on this in Malcolm Gladwell's book David and Goliath.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> This is the best post I have read on AAM in a very long time.


Thanks.


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> While all the emphasis is placed on treating the symptom the root causes will never be tackled.
> My solution is education, mainly primary school level. Build more schools in the small number of areas where most social problems are concentrated, hire more teachers, lower the pupil-teacher ratio to 12 or 16, have breakfast clubs and homework clubs and teach the kids how to cook and vote and basically try to replace the parent with the school as the primary influence on the children because the root cause of all of this is bad parenting. That may not mean the parents aren't trying, it may not even be the parents of the particular child, but poverty is a result of a culture which is dislocated from, and incompatible with, mainstream society



Excellent suggestion there, Purple.

The only thing, I'd add is that primary school level is probably too late, at least for some. There is also a need for high quality pre-school education, concentrated in areas of most need, and with home-school liaison work. Unfortunately, everyone will call for a piece of such a pie, and we would end up with glorified creches, unless very tightly ring-fenced.


----------



## Purple

Early Riser said:


> Excellent suggestion there, Purple.
> 
> The only thing, I'd add is that primary school level is probably too late, at least for some. There is also a need for high quality pre-school education, concentrated in areas of most need, and with home-school liaison work. Unfortunately, everyone will call for a piece of such a pie, and we would end up with glorified creches, unless very tightly ring-fenced.


I agree we need to get them before they are 7. There is no way that private sector creches should get in on the act though. Start and junior infants.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> the Horseman summed it up very well.



I'm sorry I disagree entirely with his summation.



The Horseman said:


> You refer to how the poorest nations have big families to help support themselves. The reason this happens is specifically because there is no welfare systems in place, no pensions no sick pay etc. These people rely on their families to support them financially if they get sick or when they get old.



Would you propose we revert to this type of society?
As well as no welfare, they have higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, poorer disease control - a neighbor brought their kid for pre-school vaccination, no cost. Another form of welfare that is a benefit to us all in the prevention of disease.



The Horseman said:


> We have a welfare system for this. The welfare system is designed to be a safety net not a way of life. We are not judging people for having children, we are asking why they continue to have children when they don't have the means to support them.



If there are people engaging in the welfare system as a 'way of life', that is first and foremost a sad way to be in my opinion. If they are people, capable of going to work that is even sadder. If they are people capable of going to work, and employers are actually wishing to hire them, then that is the worst of all.
But I would suggest that these people are a tiny cohort of individuals and of such insignificance to the overall welfare bill that any cuts (or whatever is proposed) will be so small as to be not worth deliberating over.
On the other hand, there are people, through no fault of their own, that have grown up in environments that are, putting it mildly, deprived. Be it drugs, alcohol, illiteracy, neglect,criminality, mental or physical abuse, no education etc that are simply not capable of holding down a steady job at best, or are simply not offered employment in the first place. I am always somewhat bemused at the 'go out and get a job' mentality, when in reality,  employers wont hire any of these people in any case!
Anyone remember the character Ratz! from Paths to Freedom? I wouldn't trust him to be a lollipop man.
So it is simply not good enough to judge someone as 'lifestyle' welfare recipients and then introduce blunt policy instruments that will adversely affect thousands of others who are genuinely on the wrong side of a bit of luck. Yes there are people playing the system but they are very much the thin end of the wedge.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Would you propose we revert to this type of society?
> As well as no welfare, they have higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, poorer disease control - a neighbor brought their kid for pre-school vaccination, no cost. Another form of welfare that is a benefit to us all in the prevention of disease.


No, of course not. Nobody is. It is simply being pointed out that such a country/society requires high birth rates and ours does not.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If there are people engaging in the welfare system as a 'way of life', that is first and foremost a sad way to be in my opinion. If they are people, capable of going to work that is even sadder. If they are people capable of going to work, and employers are actually wishing to hire them, then that is the worst of all.
> But I would suggest that these people are a tiny cohort of individuals and of such insignificance to the overall welfare bill that any cuts (or whatever is proposed) will be so small as to be not worth deliberating over.
> On the other hand, there are people, through no fault of their own, that have grown up in environments that are, putting it mildly, deprived. Be it drugs, alcohol, illiteracy, neglect,criminality, mental or physical abuse, no education etc that are simply not capable of holding down a steady job at best, or are simply not offered employment in the first place. I am always somewhat bemused at the 'go out and get a job' mentality, when in reality, employers wont hire any of these people in any case!
> Anyone remember the character Ratz! from Paths to Freedom? I wouldn't trust him to be a lollipop man.
> So it is simply not good enough to judge someone as 'lifestyle' welfare recipients and then introduce blunt policy instruments that will adversely affect thousands of others who are genuinely on the wrong side of a bit of luck. Yes there are people playing the system but they are very much the thin end of the wedge.


Yes, but our current welfare system maintains and encourages such people and such a sub-culture. It will take generations to fix but high welfare rates sustains and so encourage such a scenario. I don't particularly want to see less spending on this problem. I want to see the money spent differently. Our current system fails these people; it sustains a type of just tolerable despair which leaves people in a chronic state of underachievement and dissatisfaction which in turn leads to higher rates of substance abuse and hopelessness. There is a reason that suicide rates are so high among young men from economically deprived (really socially deprived) areas and money isn't it.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> If she presents herself as homeless she would be accommodated either in a hotel room or one of the hubs. While not ideal initially it would provide a bed for her family.



No she wouldn't! That is the whole point! She has been placed on the Emergency Housing List! She has not been given emergency housing! She has not been given a hotel room or a hostel! I can't think why? Would it have something to do with hotels and hostels being particularly inadequate places to house a child needing full-time medical care? Would it be to do with hotels and hostels being reluctant, understandably, to take on the responsibility of housing a child that needs full-time medical care?



The Horseman said:


> Yes there probably are other factors that have led her to this situation some she had no influence on and some she had influence on. You refer to the child that has Cerebal Palsy on your replies but you never seem to reference the fact that she had another child while homeless.



Maybe she was serially raped by an uncle when she was 14? Perhaps she committed self-harm, turned to drugs for a period, attempted suicide. Perhaps she thought about an abortion but her religious faith prevented it?
Or perhaps, she is simply gaming the system. Milking it for all its worth - 5 kids in a two bed house with 10 others and a sick child.
As BB would say, it's like she won the National Lottery!

Either way, or some other way, we don't know. If we don't know, should we judge her on her 'behavior'? Can we conclusively say she was 'irresponsible'?
If not, and I don't think we can, then deal with the facts as we know them to be.

A woman with 5 kids in a two bed house, one seriously disabled, sharing with at least six others.



The Horseman said:


> Being from a deprived social economic background does not hinder people from college.



Yes it can. Very much so.


----------



## rob oyle

michaelm said:


> If we want to maintain our population some women have to have more than two kids, to balance those who have one or none, although that won't be their motivation.  It would be handy if well-off women rather than poorer women had the larger families, but that tends not to happen so much.


That is incorrect, but it gets stated ad nauseam without consideration of the evidence.

Ireland has one of the highest fertility rates in the developed world, in or around 2 over the last 30 years. The fertility rate in Ireland halved between the 1960s (from 4.0) and the 1990s, bottoming out at just under 2.0 before increasing slightly again in subsequent years. A fertility rate of 2 is repeatedly considered to be the ‘replacement rate’ i.e. the rate at which one generation is replaced by the next, the theory being that the two children replace their two parents ultimately. However, the limitation of this theory is that it does not reflect the fact that we are living in multi-generational societies. This means that the idea of a required replacement rate is not borne out in the real world. The average annual natural increase in the 1950s was 27,000, was just under 20,000 in the 1990s and over the last two census periods (2006 to 2016) was 42,000 per annum. That's just shy of 120 extra people to provide for every single day, before accounting for migration. Those population figures all come from the CSO's own records.


----------



## Early Riser

rob oyle said:


> That is incorrect, but it gets stated ad nauseam without consideration of the evidence.



At risk of veering off-topic, have you any links for this evidence. On the face of it, longer life-expectancy would seem to only give a time limited boost to population, without adequate replacement rate. Also, it doesn't address the issue of replacing working age population as opposed to total population (leaving immigration aside).

Anyway, both the OECD and the UN seem to support the 2.1 figure :


http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natli..._sheets/demographics/total_fertility_rate.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_1_Fertility_rates.pdf

Also further  info here:

https://www.thoughtco.com/total-fertility-rate-1435463

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate


----------



## rob oyle

Hi ER, the figures come from here: [broken link removed] Population Estimates&Planguage=0
It's table PEA15, then select Natural Increase (note the title is 'increase', not 'change') and then export to excel. Ireland's native population, before migration, has increased every year on record. It went up 26.6k in 1951, 33.3k in '71, 22k in '91 and a whopping 47.5k in 2011. We're now adding the equivalent of a Drogheda each and every year and yet we're worried about low fertility rates.


----------



## Early Riser

Thanks, Rob. i didn't get to those tables yet. But just to note that in the 66 years from1950 -1966 our fertility rate fell below 2.1 for 26 years while 40 were above. And we have never fallen as dramatically as some other European neighbours. Of course, those lower birth rate years have been concentrated over the past 25 years.

Over the same 66 year period our death rate has fallen from 12.7 to 6.2 per thousand. This is producing an increasing aging population - and as (I believe) life expectancy can't keep increasing as it has done, the death rate is likely to increase again in future years. Even if it didn't it would mean an increasing number of dependent or medically needy people - unless we replace the youth adequately through birth or immigration (or both, as immigrants tend to have high birth rates - being at the right age, I suppose).

I understand that there is a recognized phenomenon of development where falling death rates outpace falling birth rates, producing a temporary natural population increase. But when the population cohort/bulge that failed to replace itself begins to die off there is a rapid population decrease (without immigration). Presumably this is where Japan now finds itself.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> No she wouldn't! That is the whole point! She has been placed on the Emergency Housing List! She has not been given emergency housing! She has not been given a hotel room or a hostel! I can't think why? Would it have something to do with hotels and hostels being particularly inadequate places to house a child needing full-time medical care? Would it be to do with hotels and hostels being reluctant, understandably, to take on the responsibility of housing a child that needs full-time medical care?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe she was serially raped by an uncle when she was 14? Perhaps she committed self-harm, turned to drugs for a period, attempted suicide. Perhaps she thought about an abortion but her religious faith prevented it?
> Or perhaps, she is simply gaming the system. Milking it for all its worth - 5 kids in a two bed house with 10 others and a sick child.
> As BB would say, it's like she won the National Lottery!
> 
> Either way, or some other way, we don't know. If we don't know, should we judge her on her 'behavior'? Can we conclusively say she was 'irresponsible'?
> If not, and I don't think we can, then deal with the facts as we know them to be.
> 
> A woman with 5 kids in a two bed house, one seriously disabled, sharing with at least six others.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can. Very much so.




The hubs have wrap around services so they are resourced to meet the needs of those living there. You make mention on one child needing full time medical care, how will where they live affect this, are you suggesting living in a house under cramped conditions is somehow more medically appropriate to a family hub?

I am a bit surprised at the second paragraph. The question we asked was why an additional child was conceived while homeless? We don't know about the life this person had growing up but to suggest she had no influence on her current situation is wrong. She may have had difficult circumstances to get through we all have that's life. But the question that has been asked by myself and others on this forum is why she and her partner increased the size of their family while homeless?

In respect of your third paragraph I note that you have only taken a snippet from my initial comment to prove your point rather than using the whole of my initial comment. Education has never been more available to all than at any time in the past. The Govt are continually offering course's to help people become more employable in expanding sectors of the economy. The majority (if not all) colleges offer courses both online and classroom based so if you have a broadband connection and a tablet you can access these courses.


----------



## michaelm

rob oyle said:


> That is incorrect, but it gets stated ad nauseam without consideration of the evidence.


There's no Scooby Doo mystery here.  While life-expectancy has crept up we still need a fertility rate of 2(or 2.1) to maintain our population.  While we're close to that level those who have more than two children compensate for those that have one or none.  Otherwise we'd end up with a lot of older people and a dwindling pool of younger people to support the whole pyramid . . and ultimately a shrinking population and a dying society.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> If she presents herself as homeless she would be accommodated either in a hotel room or one of the hubs. While not ideal initially it would provide a bed for her family





The Horseman said:


> The hubs have wrap around services so they are resourced to meet the needs of those living there. You make mention on one child needing full time medical care, how will where they live affect this, are you suggesting living in a house under cramped conditions is somehow more medically appropriate to a family hub?



No. I was suggesting that hotels and hostels were not medically appropriate. Do you recall mentioning that she would have been offered a hotel or hostel? See above quote.



The Horseman said:


> I am a bit surprised at the second paragraph.



Why?



The Horseman said:


> The question we asked was why an additional child was conceived while homeless? We don't know about the life this person had growing up but to suggest she had no influence on her current situation is wrong.



True, we don't know about the life of this person growing up. So I won't be judging her 'behaviour' or determine that she is irresponsible.



The Horseman said:


> But the question that has been asked by myself and others on this forum is why she and her partner increased the size of their family while homeless?


I don't know, have you asked her? Who knows, perhaps she got news that her partner was going to get a steady job and they celebrated wildly, only for the job to fall through a month later. Who knows?


The Horseman said:


> We don't know about the life this person had growing up





The Horseman said:


> Education has never been more available to all than at any time in the past. The Govt are continually offering course's to help people become more employable in expanding sectors of the economy. The majority (if not all) colleges offer courses both online and classroom based so if you have a broadband connection and a tablet you can access these courses.



That is true, I agree with that, but that is not to say it is a job done. People with no or little formal secondary education, through no fault of their own as children growing up in disadvantaged socio-economic conditions, will still tend to find themselves out of the loop, despite all the efforts and the resources that are now available, as you quite rightly point out.

It could be a case that she is 'playing the system', or she could genuinely be someone who never really had a chance ( for a multitude of reasons, including the awful scenario I depicted earlier, or for some other awful reasons). Either way, we don't know. Until we do, I for one, will reserve judgement.


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> Education has never been more available to all than at any time in the past. The Govt are continually offering course's to help people become more employable in expanding sectors of the economy. The majority (if not all) colleges offer courses both online and classroom based so if you have a broadband connection and a tablet you can access these courses.



Pardon the pun, but you can bring the horse to the water... 

For some people there are always excuses and for others they will often make excuses for others.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> No. I was suggesting that hotels and hostels were not medically appropriate. Do you recall mentioning that she would have been offered a hotel or hostel? See above quote.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> True, we don't know about the life of this person growing up. So I won't be judging her 'behaviour' or determine that she is irresponsible.
> 
> 
> I don't know, have you asked her? Who knows, perhaps she got news that her partner was going to get a steady job and they celebrated wildly, only for the job to fall through a month later. Who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true, I agree with that, but that is not to say it is a job done. People with no or little formal secondary education, through no fault of their own as children growing up in disadvantaged socio-economic conditions, will still tend to find themselves out of the loop, despite all the efforts and the resources that are now available, as you quite rightly point out.
> 
> It could be a case that she is 'playing the system', or she could genuinely be someone who never really had a chance ( for a multitude of reasons, including the awful scenario I depicted earlier, or for some other awful reasons). Either way, we don't know. Until we do, I for one, will reserve judgement.




Lets look at the facts of this case (as I took the opportunity to review the article in the newspaper). This woman at the age of 20 decided to go on the housing list. At this point there were no children born at this point. She has spent 8 yrs on the housing list 17 months of which she and her family were homeless.

They left accommodation because it was not fit for human habitation. With the powers of the RTB and Threshold all she needed to do was open a case with The RTB and the matter would have been resolved. The local authority via the RTB would have fined the landlord for failing to bring the property up to regulation. I fail to see why she made herself intentionally homeless if she did not follow the RTB process. The local authority would not have allowed her move without finding her alternative accommodation. I have experience of the Council inspectors and they set extremely high standards for properties. I fail to see how black mould appeared and was not noticed when the inspectors undertook the initial inspection.

If you make yourself intentionally homeless you are (I am led to believe) removed from the housing list for two years. By leaving the accommodation she made herself homeless. You appear determined not to attach any responsibility at all on this person for her current situation. You continually provide "what if's" for any question asked. I do not accept that she has no responsibility for her situation.

The facts of the case as described in the media are as follows at the age of 20 she went on the housing list, having spent 8 yrs on the housing list her family went from herself to having five children, one of which was conceived while homeless. I am sorry but to me it appears from the facts on this that she never had any intention of fending for herself and has chosen the welfare system as a way of life.

You are entitled to reserve your judgment but based on the facts available from the article on the paper I am of the opinion that this person is playing the system.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You are entitled to reserve your judgment but based on the facts available from the article on the paper I am of the opinion that this person is playing the system.



Do you have a link to the newspaper article please? Or tell me which publication. Thks.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Do you have a link to the newspaper article please? Or tell me which publication. Thks.




http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...list-after-nearfatal-blood-clot-36169198.html
As per post number 5 in this thread.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> This woman at the age of 20 decided to go on the housing list. At this point there were no children born at this point. She has spent 8 yrs on the housing list 17 months of which she and her family were homeless.



There is no evidence that this woman decided 'to go on the housing list'. To get on to the housing list you need to meet certain criteria, one typical criteria is that your income is simply insufficient to pay private rents or sustain a mortgage. There is evidence to suggest that between herself and her partner that was the case. 

_"Edel told Kenny how she and her partner Gary and her four boys became homeless 17 months ago when they moved out of unsuitable accommodation in Hartstown."
"The young mother described... how she was looking for a new home but when...landlords heard she had four kids they didn't call back"_
This indicates they were looking for private rental accommodation. It doesn't confirm either way if one or both parents were in gainful employment at the time, but that possibility exists. In which, if either one or both were in gainful employment at the time then surely these are the people who should be prioritised for housing?




The Horseman said:


> With the powers of the RTB and Threshold all she needed to do was open a case with The RTB and the matter would have been resolved.



There is no evidence in the article or the radio interview to suggest that they did, or did not contact RTB. Your assumption that the 'matter would have been resolved' is just that, an assumption.



The Horseman said:


> The local authority via the RTB would have fined the landlord for failing to bring the property up to regulation



Fines do not clear mould or fix holes in windows. Plus, I assume that there is most probably a lenghty legal process (I admit I could be wrong here) in which time the issues are not resolved.



The Horseman said:


> I fail to see why she made herself intentionally homeless if she did not follow the RTB process.



You are assuming that the RTB was in operation, and that it is always effective.



The Horseman said:


> The local authority would not have allowed her move without finding her alternative accommodation.



You are assuming her previous accommodation in Hartstown was LA accommodation. But, assuming it was, you are assuming that the LA keep all their properties at all times up to standard. It's possible that there was a RTB process in train, but that it was taking an undue length of time to conclude? To suggest that a LA can prevent a resident from leaving a property for what the residents consider more suitable accommodation that what they currently have is simply not true.



The Horseman said:


> The facts of the case as described in the media are as follows at the age of 20 she went on the housing list, having spent 8 yrs on the housing list her family went from herself to having five children, one of which was conceived while homeless.



The facts of the case as you have interpreted them are full of assumptions. You also seemed fixated on the fifth child, knowing that even without the circumstances of the fifth child, there are four others to consider.
It appears to me that the woman loves her children, would like a large family, and if she wants, she should have more children, regardless of her socio-economic status.

You have concluded she is playing the system, I remain unconvinced. 
I propose the State should build adequate levels of social housing to accommadate people in this position. What do you propose?


----------



## The Horseman

If you are on the housing list the council pay most if not all of your rent through the various schemes (HAP,RA, RAS etc). At the age of twenty this person was not forced to go on the housing list she choose to. To me that indicates that she has not even tried to get any type of career. I would have no issue with someone in their late twenties going on the housing list having tried to support themselves, but to make the choice at 20 to decide I am not going to even try is something I have an issue with.

Those who are on the housing list and are housed in private accommodation are part of a three party lease between the tenant, landlord and the council. The council would have to agree to any move as they are the ones paying the landlord. Therefore in order to leave one property the council would have had to be informed otherwise who was going to pay the landlord in the new location. I can assure you that the council are well aware of the RTB and its function and would have no issue taking a case against the landlord on behalf of the tenant (as she is a council tenant).

You suggest I am assuming the last property was a LA property, I am not making that assumption, why would the council let its own tenants go homeless knowing full well they would just present themselves homeless to the self same council.

I don't doubt the woman loves her children, but we can't all have a large family just because we want one. We all want things we can't have this unfortunately is life.

I agree the State should build social houses, but not on the current model were you get a house for life in a desired location because you knew how to play the system and because someone shouts loudest they should automatically get what they want.

My viewpoint on this matter remains the same. I respect you have your viewpoint and I have mine. Based on the postings to date neither of us appear willing to change.


----------

