# Poverty in Ireland



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

Following on from the fact sheets that Brendan listed here, and from the reports we have all read and heard about in the media for the last 20 years, it is clear that Ireland is a very unequal society before social transfer (taxes and welfare) but a very equal society after social transfer.

I would like to discuss the reason why this is deemed acceptable and why, in my opinion, it is both socially and economically damaging.
Firstly let me say that I want to see the most equal society possible and that this should be the policy of the government.

The problem I have is that we are using taxation and welfare to mask a serious and divisive underlying social issue; a large proportion of the population of this country is not properly equipped to function in mainstream society. If anyone hasn't done so I suggest that they spend a few hours in a district court in a socially deprived area (Tallaght is my local one). You will see, in no uncertain terms, the ruled and the rulers. The people in charge dress differently, talk differently and act differently. The Gardai bridge the gap but there is something distinctly medieval about the whole thing.
Instead of ensuring that that cohort of society have the skills, education and outlook to engage fully in the society the rest of us create and maintain we keep them relatively compliant and comfortable by throwing them scraps in the form of welfare. We do this knowing that we need more than material things to be happy and feel fulfilled. Anyone who has eve lost their job knows the impact it has on their self esteem, their sense of self worth, and yet we think that giving someone a house they don't own and an income they didn't earn is somehow the solution.
Self worth and self respect demand more than that. We live in a country where treating the symptoms of a problem is always enough. There is a reason that we refer to socially deprived areas and not economically deprived areas as poverty is a symptom of a social problem. It is not a root cause. 

Knowing this the Charity industry in general, and the homelessness industry in particular, still spends all its time looking for more money, more handouts, more "resources", more of the same things that kill self esteem and self respect. Of course we need to treat symptoms so that the patient doesn't die but we also need to treat root causes so that we break the cycle of inter-generational dependency.
Suicide rates among people on welfare are three times higher than among people who work. Male suicide rates are five times higher than female rates. I don't think it takes a PhD in psychology to see the link here. Where are the voices in the charity sector talking about this? Where are the empty vessels in People before Profit, or whatever they call themselves now? It strikes me that most who claim to be interested in this issue are really pushing a socialist agenda which is more about attacking wealth than alleviating poverty.
Rather that just taking from those who can provide for themselves and giving to those who cannot why not move the main focus onto ensuring that more people can actually provide for themselves?
The vacuum of long term inter-generational unemployment, under-employment and welfare dependence is more likely to be filled with addiction, crime, domestic abuse and general anti-social behaviour than areas where more people work. 

We are failing a sizable cohort of our citizens. 
What should we do about it?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> I want to see the most equal society possible and that this should be the policy of the government.



As Miriam might say, let me stop you there.

Why?

I don't want to see an equal society. I actually believe that people  who have studied and trained for ten years to qualify as a medical specialist and who work 80 hour weeks should earn far more than someone who has never done a day's work in their life.

I think that a 65 year old who has worked for 40 years should have more wealth than someone who is just leaving college (Age is a big determiner of inequality.)

I want to see an 80 year old who has saved up for their retirement being better off than an 80 year old who lived a flamboyant lifestyle and now has no money left.

I would like to see people who are working in low paid jobs getting priority for social housing close to where they work over people who have never worked and have no intention of working.

And I believe that someone who lives within their means and chooses to pay for private health insurance should get better and faster health care than someone who chooses to spend their money on drink and cigarettes. 

I want to see a fair society where work and risk are rewarded and people who choose not to work are poor. 

I would like to see equality of opportunity, but acknowledge that the children of wealthy parents have much better opportunities, so government policy should try to redress this imbalance in some way. Deis schools is a good example, although I am not sure if they are working.

Brendan


----------



## delfio (19 Feb 2018)

Our government have turned to the private sector and introduced Turas and Seetac, the premise being force them into a job, any job. A policy change doomed to fail like what is happening in the UK.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I would like to see equality of opportunity, but acknowledge that the children of wealthy parents have much better opportunities, so government policy should try to redress this imbalance in some way. Deis schools is a good example, although I am not sure if they are working.


Yes, it's about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. 
An equal society to me is one where every child has the same educational and social resources and economic resources offer a minimal advantage. DEIS schools are a great idea but cannot work to their full potential in a vacuum.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

delfio said:


> Our government have turned to the private sector and introduced Turas and Seetac, the premise being force them into a job, any job. A policy change doomed to fail like what is happening in the UK.


I don't see anything wrong with Turas or Seetac but they just deal with what's there, they don't change anything.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (19 Feb 2018)

delfio said:


> Our government have turned to the private sector and introduced Turas and Seetac, the premise being force them into a job, any job. A policy change doomed to fail like what is happening in the UK.


I don't want to get in too deep .
The way it is set up in Ireland Is the get more money for placing long term  than short term but there is more money to be made out of getting the people who have a skill already to get a job so they spend most of there time on the easy money. leaving the people who really need help sitting on front of a screen time and money not being spent on the people who really need help , the race  to get the people who are going to get a job without there help sorted there are tricks of the trade used to make money ,


The government have the same mind set to unemployed as the had when they brought in the rent controls the finished up only being in the way,


----------



## cremeegg (19 Feb 2018)

That is an excellent opening post Purple.

Inequality is, as you say both socially and economically damaging.

While Brendan's objections to equality of outcome are valid points individually, inequality of outcome is bad for everyone. Its consequences in terms of crime and other anti-social behaviour effect all of society.

I especially like your point that that the reduction in inequality after social transfers masks the scale and indeed the nature of the problem we have in Ireland. The problem being a large cohort of people who are unable to engage economically with life. This will only get worse as the demands of the the economy in terms of educational standards required in the workforce increase.

The educational system is unfortunately moving away from addressing this problem. There is a conscious effort being made by the department of Education to move the JC cycle to being child centred and focused on wellbeing. This is denying a generation any understanding that literacy and numeracy are important in themselves. The world of work will be closed to kids who leave school without those. 

What should we do about it ?

We should provide the opportunity for a solid education in employable skills in the broadest sense to those kids who are able to benefit from it. Inadequate though that maybe for many it will at least give some an opportunity to escape their background.


----------



## Early Riser (19 Feb 2018)

Great Post, Purple. Chris Johns has an interesting article in today's Irish Times that touches on the same territory :

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ok-to-canada-for-our-economic-model-1.3396459


----------



## noproblem (19 Feb 2018)

This is actually a great post, opened my eyes when I read Brendan's take on the Equality issue but he's right in one way and in another way there's an awful lot of the others who would lambaste him.
 Take the good man/woman, pays for everything, does their best almost always but for whatever reason they come before the courts and the book is thrown at them. Now, take the other section of society, they pay for nothing, complain about everything, take everything in sight, want everything for nothing, talk to Joe on a permanent basis, but they also come before the courts. They'll have no legal bills, everything will be paid for, more than likely their cases will be looked on very sympathetically, their social/living hardships will be put to the fore by their legal brief and no way will the book be thrown at them. Sometimes, one has to just stand there and wonder what's right and wrong and who's fooling who?


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Now, take the other section of society, they pay for nothing, complain about everything, take everything in sight, want everything for nothing, talk to Joe on a permanent basis, but they also come before the courts. They'll have no legal bills, everything will be paid for, more than likely their cases will be looked on very sympathetically, their social/living hardships will be put to the fore by their legal brief and no way will the book be thrown at them. Sometimes, one has to just stand there and wonder what's right and wrong and who's fooling who?


We have to ask the question why; why do we have two societies, one into which your first person fits and the other into which the second person fits. Why is it so hard for the latter to move away from the sub-society they live in and why is it so easy to stay there? What are we doing as a society to break the cycle of social inadequacy, mainly perpetuated by parents who don't have the educational or life skills to teach their children any better?


----------



## noproblem (19 Feb 2018)

I've seen children from supposedly inadequate family circumstances and neighborhoods who wouldn't be long teaching anyone a lesson in financial survival. Believe me. I'm sick and tired of the sob stories, the depression, the why me mentality, the snowflakes and the media obsession with their stories. 
Very simple as to why we have the two tier society, or three tier society for that matter. In an awful lot of cases it's by choice and we'll always have at least 2 tiers.


----------



## cremeegg (19 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Take the good man/woman, pays for everything, does their best almost always but for whatever reason they come before the courts and the book is thrown at them.
> 
> Now, take the other section of society, ... more than likely their cases will be looked on very sympathetically, their social/living hardships will be put to the fore by their legal brief and no way will the book be thrown at them.



This is reality. I was recently involved as a witness in a fairly horrible criminal case. The guard gathering the evidence, out of nowhere, gave me a lecture on the difficult background etc that the perpetrator came from and how we could not expect the same standards of behaviour from such people as we might expect from people coming from more privileged backgrounds. Real ideological stuff.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

cremeegg said:


> We should provide the opportunity for a solid education in employable skills in the broadest sense to those kids who are able to benefit from it. Inadequate though that maybe for many it will at least give some an opportunity to escape their background.


Yes, education is the great equaliser and  it is the best solution to break the cycle for kids but what do we do for people over the age of 15 or 16?


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

cremeegg said:


> This is reality. I was recently involved as a witness in a fairly horrible criminal case. The guard gathering the evidence, out of nowhere, gave me a lecture on the difficult background etc that the perpetrator came from and how we could not expect the same standards of behaviour from such people as we might expect from people coming from more privileged backgrounds. Real ideological stuff.


The reality is that it's no big deal to go to prison for some people as they have no job  and no social status to lose.


----------



## Early Riser (19 Feb 2018)

cremeegg said:


> The guard gathering the evidence, out of nowhere, gave me a lecture on the difficult background etc that the perpetrator came from and how we could not expect the same standards of behaviour from such people as we might expect from people coming from more privileged backgrounds.



The behaviour cannot be excused and society has to be protected. However, the behaviour can often be predicted from an early age. Children do not choose their parents but they learn form them and surrounding sub-culture. We can get exasperated and angry about this - very understandably so - but that in itself does nothing about it.Purple's post points to possible ways to tackle the issue. It is long term and far from simple to achieve. It costs, but certainly no more than perpetual welfare and/or the criminal justice system.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> I've seen children from supposedly inadequate family circumstances and neighborhoods who wouldn't be long teaching anyone a lesson in financial survival. Believe me. I'm sick and tired of the sob stories, the depression, the why me mentality, the snowflakes and the media obsession with their stories.
> Very simple as to why we have the two tier society, or three tier society for that matter. In an awful lot of cases it's by choice and we'll always have at least 2 tiers.


I don't think anyone here is making excuses, rather they are looking for reasons. The law should be applied to everyone equally but the reality is that it will still have a much greater impact on someone with a job and a mortgage who lives in an area and is part of a social group where being convicted of a crime is socially unacceptable.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (19 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> We have to ask the question why; why do we have two societies, one into which your first person fits and the other into which the second person fits. Why is it so hard for the latter to move away from the sub-society they live in and why is it so easy to stay there? What are we doing as a society to break the cycle of social inadequacy, mainly perpetuated by parents who don't have the educational or life skills to teach their children any better?





Purple said:


> We have to ask the question why; why do we have two societies, one into which your first person fits and the other into which the second person fits. Why is it so hard for the latter to move away from the sub-society they live in and why is it so easy to stay there? What are we doing as a society to break the cycle of social inadequacy, mainly perpetuated by parents who don't have the educational or life skills to teach their children any better?


Posters seem to shifting there positions which is to be welcomed, What are we as a society doing to break the cycle of inadequacy very little . We need to be questioning who is allowing this to happen and why. I think lots don't have the network to better themselves . The chances of the people you talk about in your first post getting a life changing break and making something of there life is slim ,

Back in the  eighties my Daughter spent weeks on end in a Dublin Hospital over several years I traveled all around Dublin looking at the neglected building and streets you could see back then the money was not being spent in Dublin compared to the rest of the country , I could see back then we were not spending money like we were in other parts of the Country, Other parts gained at there expense ,Parts of Dublin got hands out other parts of the Country got a hand up now we are paying the price,

some posters seam to think the stole the hand outs and are blaming them ,

the Question is on who's watch was it allowed to happen are you happy to keep on supporting the people who allowed it to happen then you are not really interested in changing the system that got us to where we are today,

Judges have being sending us a message for a long time no point in taking it out on the people up in front of them take it out on the people who allowed it to happen if you want change,


----------



## noproblem (19 Feb 2018)

No, I don't agree with you at all RETIRED 2017. No matter what's done there will always be the poorer section of society, always, and not just in Ireland. Nowdays, when driving too fast is mentioned, cyclists breaking traffic lights, underage sex, homosexuality, etc, etc, we're told that the school has to be the place children will learn the right way, blah, blah, blah. If it's smoking, obesity, drinking, we blame our hospitals, dr's, teachers, etc, for not getting the message across. I could go on and on but what's the point? What we never do is blame the parents, tell them how un-responsible they are, how they've got to get their act together, how they have to take on the task of parenthood and not be always saying how they have no resources to give them what's needed and every other excuse in the book.   No, a lot of them have invented crime to get what they want, get what hard working people have earned, take it off them by robbing them and using the system to get off with it. I'll help anyone who's hungry and in need but i'll not help those who won't help themselves and this country had an abundance of them, a huge plethora of them and breeding more of them because they're being paid to do it. 
I'm not a cold, uncaring person, but it's too obvious to me now that the "talk to Joe" people and others use the system, rob the system, and will try their best to break the system so they can have what they haven't earned and what they believe they should have too, just because they can. Rant over, but mean every bit of it.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2018)

I don't disagree with you noproblem but given that bad parenting is the root cause of a lot of this what should we do? Do we sterilise the long term unemployed, those with multiple convictions? Do we take their children from them and put them into care? The Swedish practiced eugenics until the 1970's but thankfully it never took here. We did put kids into homes. We all know how that turned out. 

So, given that we aren't building the Master Race and we have signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights how do we as a society deal with children whose parents can't or won't parent them properly? It seems to me the choices are the penal system or the education system. I'd prefer the latter. Morality aside it's much cheaper and has been shown to produce better results. 
We then have to decide what we do with the parents. The British used to be able to round up their undesirables and send them to the Colonies. We can't do that so we we just forget about them or do we reconstruct our welfare and educational system to stop perpetuating the same cycle of inter-generational dependence?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (19 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> No, I don't agree with you at all RETIRED 2017. No matter what's done there will always be the poorer section of society, always, and not just in Ireland. Nowdays, when driving too fast is mentioned, cyclists breaking traffic lights, underage sex, homosexuality, etc, etc, we're told that the school has to be the place children will learn the right way, blah, blah, blah. If it's smoking, obesity, drinking, we blame our hospitals, dr's, teachers, etc, for not getting the message across. I could go on and on but what's the point? What we never do is blame the parents, tell them how un-responsible they are, how they've got to get their act together, how they have to take on the task of parenthood and not be always saying how they have no resources to give them what's needed and every other excuse in the book.   No, a lot of them have invented crime to get what they want, get what hard working people have earned, take it off them by robbing them and using the system to get off with it. I'll help anyone who's hungry and in need but i'll not help those who won't help themselves and this country had an abundance of them, a huge plethora of them and breeding more of them because they're being paid to do it.
> I'm not a cold, uncaring person, but it's too obvious to me now that the "talk to Joe" people and others use the system, rob the system, and will try their best to break the system so they can have what they haven't earned and what they believe they should have too, just because they can. Rant over, but mean every bit of it.





noproblem said:


> No, I don't agree with you at all RETIRED 2017. No matter what's done there will always be the poorer section of society, always, and not just in Ireland. Nowdays, when driving too fast is mentioned, cyclists breaking traffic lights, underage sex, homosexuality, etc, etc, we're told that the school has to be the place children will learn the right way, blah, blah, blah. If it's smoking, obesity, drinking, we blame our hospitals, dr's, teachers, etc, for not getting the message across. I could go on and on but what's the point? What we never do is blame the parents, tell them how un-responsible they are, how they've got to get their act together, how they have to take on the task of parenthood and not be always saying how they have no resources to give them what's needed and every other excuse in the book.   No, a lot of them have invented crime to get what they want, get what hard working people have earned, take it off them by robbing them and using the system to get off with it. I'll help anyone who's hungry and in need but i'll not help those who won't help themselves and this country had an abundance of them, a huge plethora of them and breeding more of them because they're being paid to do it.
> I'm not a cold, uncaring person, but it's too obvious to me now that the "talk to Joe" people and others use the system, rob the system, and will try their best to break the system so they can have what they haven't earned and what they believe they should have too, just because they can. Rant over, but mean every bit of it.


I know you are not cold I worked almost 49 years I was out of work for around 4 months in the eighties so I worked 48 and a half years with no break  , If I was to go out now I would not have to go far to find people Gaming the system but I would pass by a lot of people gaming the system before I would come on the people you are talking about,

What I am saying is there are lots gaming the system but sometimes we don't notice or want to notice and they are costing us a lot more than the people you are taking about .we pretend we don't know who they are and while we do that we are in no position to address what you see as a problem,

The problem you see can never be addressed because deep down we all know they are only a small part of a bigger problem ,

They may not be well educated but they know they are not alone in gaming the
system the also know they are a small part of a bigger problem,


I suspect  seeing we turn a blind eye to people who are well off gaming the system
they don't feel two bad taking a few crumbs out of the system to live,


----------



## noproblem (19 Feb 2018)

Maybe cut off the soft financial supply and see what the reaction would be. Just for starters.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (19 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Maybe cut off the soft financial supply and see what the reaction would be. Just for starters.


If we were to start cutting off the soft financial supply to the people gaming the system and started at with the biggest offenders is would be a long time before we get to the people you would like to see hit first but of course it would be stopped long before then by lobby groups ,




  We in Ireland love turning a blind eye to people gaming the system so it is handy to blame the people you are on about

The fact is we are going to be a very high tax Country for as long as you live the top 10 to 20%% along with all unearned Income will be Taxed to feed all of the people gaming the system and the people you are on about are only a very small part of the problem but are very handy so we don't notice the real offenders gaming the system,


----------



## RETIRED2017 (19 Feb 2018)

how do we as a society deal with children whose parents can't or won't parent them properly? It seems to me the choices are the penal system or the education system. I'd prefer the latter. Morality aside it's much cheaper and has been shown to produce better results.
They would buy and sell you 


We then have to decide what we do with the parents.

The British used to be able to round up their undesirables and send them to the Colonies.
It did not always work out so well for the British long term,( hope you are not offended ) often worked out for the so called  undesirables

We can't do that so we we just forget about them or do we reconstruct our welfare and educational system to stop perpetuating the same cycle of inter-generational dependence?[/QUOTE]

The only option divert some of the money already being gamed by other groups at present


----------



## DeclanDublin (19 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> As Miriam might say, let me stop you there.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


A problem with much of this Brendan is that someone needs to differentiate between the morally deserving and the undeserving.  For example:

1. The medical doctor who comes from a stable background which allows for college (and all the conditions that make that choice viable) vs those who don't have this in their background and therefore cannot achieve what might otherwise be possible, circumstances allowing.

2. The pennywise vs pound foolish 80 yrs old who blew money on whatever.  Someone needs to view these two and adjudicate on who and why one is more deserving than the other.  This equally applies to the 'person(s) living within their means'(whatever this even means) vs those who don't, and likewise those deserving ones who get access to social housing and those who don't or won't.  Someone is going to have to decide and adjudicate between the 'deserving and the undeserving' and sit in judgement on their fellow citizens.  Who is qualified to do this?Who could be? That is why the principle of 'universal benefits' has a particular appeal - despite its obvious drawbacks.  The Guardian ran an article on a concept that is gaining wider appeal called 'basic income.'  i think it might also be trialled in Scotland.   https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...versal-basic-income-trial-too-good-to-be-true

There was very good academic piece on equality done a few yrs ago that might be of interest. http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/4ElizabethAnderson.pdf

On the broader issue I think we do need to tackle the issue of meaning in people's lives going forward. Particularly in view of the demise of routine work roles as technology evolves.  A survivor of the Nazi death camps, Viktor Frankel, wrote a gem of a book  called ' Man's search for Meaning.'  The conclusion of this seminal work was that man (sic) needs a purpose, and that the purpose has to be outside of himself, in others. I think we all know that a raison d'etre is a core element of our psychological welfare, and maybe we need to look at ways this can be inculcated into people's lives.  The curious thing I notice in society is that a large proportion of our prison population comes from a few districts from the larger cities.  We spend a fortune locking up people, yet comparatively little in educating them, particularly the most disadvantaged. I imagine a good place to start would be to look at social supports and welfare as an investment.  I used to live in a major EU city with a superb social care system. Unsurprisingly, crime is low and, by almost every barometer of human progress, outcomes are better. We know this is true in almost all Nordic countries. This isn't rocket science. But it must begin with getting away from dividing people into the deserving and the undeserving.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (20 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Maybe cut off the soft financial supply and see what the reaction would be. Just for starters.


There are lots of people gaming the system why are you so hell bent of hitting the people who have nothing to fall back on, look around you and you will see lots of greedy  people gaming the system why not start there,

Unless I picked up purple incorrectly he is posting about the young adults and what we can do to help them feel the can contribute and feel  part of our society,


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> The curious thing I notice in society is that a large proportion of our prison population comes from a few districts from the larger cities.  We spend a fortune locking up people, yet comparatively little in educating them, particularly the most disadvantaged. I imagine a good place to start would be to look at social supports and welfare as an investment.  I used to live in a major EU city with a superb social care system. Unsurprisingly, crime is low and, by almost every barometer of human progress, outcomes are better. We know this is true in almost all Nordic countries. This isn't rocket science. But it must begin with getting away from dividing people into the deserving and the undeserving.



Your comments bear no relation to actual government spending in Ireland.

In 2017 government spending in Ireland was:

€20 billion on Social Protection.
€14 billion on Health.
€9.5 billion on Education.
€2.6 billion on Justice (of which €0.5 billion was on prison and courts)

http://www.thejournal.ie/government-money-website-3333906-Apr2017/
I think the wheel has spun the other way. There's a generation of criminals the streets today who should be in prison, who are in their 20s and no amount of social protection or eduation spending will reach them. Look at the guys involved in feud incidents they all have charge sheets as long as your arm. They should have been put away for decades for the offences they've already committed, so they wouldn't be in a position to commit even more serious crimes.

I don't know why the outcomes are so different for Ireland v Nordic countries, is it in how they are spending their money? But one thing for sure, it is not as simple as mere budgetary priorities.

I'm not sure how much of the Nordic experience is transferrable to Ireland... They have their own conundrums to crack... Sweden has a murder rate twice that of Norway... why?


----------



## DeclanDublin (20 Feb 2018)

This is obviously a complex problem odyssey, and probably not amenable to short answers. The problems may relate more to how money is spent and separately how the legal system works, amongst many other factors. Early childhood intervention is shown to help in terms of offending by working in areas of educational disadvantage via the DEIS scheme.  There is a strong argument that money spent in earlier years can be saved by not incarcerating people in later years. That poverty, disadvantage and crime are linked are self-evident.  Some info on this is here: https://www.education.ie/en/Schools...livering-Equality-of-Opportunity-in-Schools-/  I heard an interview on Marianne F. 2 weeks ago with 2 people from the inner city in Dublin.  One telling point was that they felt excluded.  One mentioned that the joke in the inner city was that they belonged to the outer city.  The reference was in relation to the IFSC which abuts some of Dublin's most deprived areas. People felt it was where the 1st world met the 3rd and never the twain should meet.  Such levels of exclusion and alienation are not conducive to solving the problem.  As for the revolving door of criminality and bail, one would have to look at how this works and its obvious failings.  I think there are strong vested interests that gain from the whole justice system and resist change. Wasn't this a point made by the Troika when they were here?  One we never addressed.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2018)

The old concept of hard power and soft power come to mind. In international terms, using the USA as an example, hard power is the military and soft power is McDonald's and Disney and Hollywood.
We need both here too; we need to show those who engage in a criminal lifestyle, i.e. multiple convictions and a life funded by crime, that they will spend most of their life in prison but we also need to show people that there is an alternative.
I spoke to a guy from Finland before about the difference between here and there and he said that in Finland receiving welfare was seen as a personal failure, that you were living off your neighbours and generally quite humiliating whereas in Ireland is was a right and a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice for some people.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> I heard an interview on Marianne F. 2 weeks ago with 2 people from the inner city in Dublin.  One telling point was that they felt excluded.  One mentioned that the joke in the inner city was that they belonged to the outer city.  The reference was in relation to the IFSC which abuts some of Dublin's most deprived areas. People felt it was where the 1st world met the 3rd and never the twain should meet.  Such levels of exclusion and alienation are not conducive to solving the problem.



It would have been interesting if she had asked them if they felt their lives would be better if instead of the IFSC next to them, they'd rather have any deprived area? Ask them where they think the money that funds their schools comes from - in part it comes from the people who get up early to work in the IFSC. Do they see that connection???
They certainly seem to be alienated, I am not at all convinced that they are excluded.

Those areas were even more deprived, in material terms, in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet there didn't seem to be alienation. Why? You were expected to work and earn and make your way and it was seen as a personal failure if you did not (as per Norway). That is the view of my parents, and they grew up on the same streets that today people are being shot on around D1. They wouldn't even understand the concept of alienation, and if anyone tried to exclude them, they'd get an earful.

We need to get these people working. In society. Feeling useful. And welfare (as Ireland doles it out) is stopping that from happening, though it is alleviating the material deprivation of earlier times.


----------



## Delboy (20 Feb 2018)

We need to stop rewarding people for the simple act of reproducing - if you have a kid, here's €140 per month and you've now got a much better chance of getting a council house!
-The father's need to be hit hard to pay for the kids they produce (automatic deductions from welfare or wages).
-Pay girls/women at risk of poverty/having multiple children too soon to not have babies i.e. give them an allowance until they reach a certain age...tie further education, work experience etc into the equation
-Cap social welfare. It should not pay more than the average industrial wage to have a couple of kids and never have worked a day in your life.

Stop giving people social housing in the areas in which they grew up. Break the cycle, get them away from the bad influences. Working people have to move counties/countries to chase jobs and no one shrieks about them leaving their 'support networks' or 'communities'.

Put criminals in jail, not out on bail, not on continuous suspended sentences pending probation reports etc. Stop concurrent sentencing...it's a licence to commit as many crimes as possible in a short space of time after getting caught for one.
This will mean taking on the real Government of Ireland, the legal industry. The Troika tried and didn't succeed. Putting criminals away for long time will mean less legal aid for our Betters and it will be hard to get this through, but it simply has to be done.
The PD's/FF spent millions on a few fields in North Dublin for a prison back in the boom. Build the thing and start locking hundreds of recalcitrant people up until the message gets out there. Or even better, build it well away from Dublin and spread some jobs around.

Keep ploughing money into schools in deprived areas and into sports facilities. Get them into college where a whole new world opens up, if thats suitable. Otherwise get a proper apprentice scheme going in this country...plumbers, electricians etc earn big money and they are good jobs which are in demand. Get the word out there, let the children in these areas see another life is possible.


----------



## The Horseman (20 Feb 2018)

Delboy said:


> We need to stop rewarding people for the simple act of reproducing - if you have a kid, here's €140 per month and you've now got a much better chance of getting a council house!
> -The father's need to be hit hard to pay for the kids they produce (automatic deductions from welfare or wages).
> -Pay girls/women at risk of poverty/having multiple children too soon to not have babies i.e. give them an allowance until they reach a certain age...tie further education, work experience etc into the equation
> -Cap social welfare. It should not pay more than the average industrial wage to have a couple of kids and never have worked a day in your life.
> ...




Completely agree with this. Some people are beyond help yet we seem to think we should help them no matter what. We are all great at saying we should do this or that but when it affects us personally then its a different story. Look at those who object to planning permission for social housing. They are all in favour of more housing but "not in my back yard".

Criminals should be put in prison full stop. They are a menace to society we seem to look after the criminal but not the victim. At what point do we actually look at wider society and say if someone is an habitual criminal they should lose their freedom rather than have society suffer just because we think the criminal can be rehabilitated. How often do we here in the media of some one with multiple convictions in front of a judge. These people will never change if they have not changed with the chances they have received in the past what makes us think they will change now.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2018)

The Horseman said:


> These people will never change if they have not changed with the chances they have received in the past what makes us think they will change now.


There is a strong link between crime and addiction, particularly drug addiction. Without rehab sending addicts to prison is zero deterrent. Therefore if we want addicts to shop breaking the law then send then to rehab rather than prison.


----------



## DeclanDublin (20 Feb 2018)

I think there's an immutable link between poverty, exclusion and crime. I agree people need to have work, and that's linked to a sense of well-being and belonging. There may well have been a different spirit in the 50's or 60's much like there was a certain camaraderie during the blitz. Drugs changed all that. As did the wide availability of guns. We are where we are. My point remains that dealing with poverty and its consequences through education is perhaps the only way to solve the problem long term.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> I think there's an immutable link between poverty, exclusion and crime. I agree people need to have work, and that's linked to a sense of well-being and belonging. There may well have been a different spirit in the 50's or 60's much like there was a certain camaraderie during the blitz. Drugs changed all that. As did the wide availability of guns. We are where we are. My point remains that dealing with poverty and its consequences through education is perhaps the only way to solve the problem long term.


Agreed but, again, poverty is a symptom of other problems. Poverty doesn't cause lack of education, bad parenting, antisocial behaviour, exclusion and crime; lack of education, bad parenting, antisocial behaviour, exclusion and crime cause poverty.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> There is a strong link between crime and addiction, particularly drug addiction. Without rehab sending addicts to prison is zero deterrent. Therefore if we want addicts to shop breaking the law then send then to rehab rather than prison.



Or let's just cut out the justice costs entirely and legalise it... Think it'd be a lot cheaper to treat it as a rehab issue than a criminal one, and we wouldn't have powerful criminal gangs being created from its profits.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Or let's just cut out the justice costs entirely and legalise it... Think it'd be a lot cheaper to treat it as a rehab issue than a criminal one, and we wouldn't have powerful criminal gangs being created from its profits.


I agree. Talk to the Gardai and ask them how many cases they see as mental health issues are treated a criminal issues.


----------



## noproblem (20 Feb 2018)

A mother with a loaded gun hidden in a pram along with a child, on her way to hand that gun to a criminal friend and then she's let go by our justice system????????  Only in Ireland!


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> A mother with a loaded gun hidden in a pram along with a child, on her way to hand that gun to a criminal friend and then she's let go by our justice system????????  Only in Ireland!


There was a clear exonerating circumstance there though; she's a woman.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Feb 2018)

We can differentiate between long term preventative interventions, like early childhood education and supports, and dealing with immediate issues. By the time someone is actively engaged with the criminal justice system rehabilitation is very difficult (but not impossible, depending on the nature of the offences). Of course society needs to be protected from dangerous and habitual criminals.But the next generation are coming shortly behind.

I think the main point here is on the long-term. Children do not choose their environment, culture or parents. Good quality early intervention can help break the cycle. One great difficulty is ensuring that it is "good quality" and that it is maintained (even a good service can deteriorate quickly unless management and quality control are on the ball). Simple child-minding is not enough - nor giving cash to parents to do "more of the same".


----------



## noproblem (20 Feb 2018)

And well able to go too Purple.


----------



## DeclanDublin (20 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Or let's just cut out the justice costs entirely and legalise it... Think it'd be a lot cheaper to treat it as a rehab issue than a criminal one, and we wouldn't have powerful criminal gangs being created from its profits.


Agreed. We need to decriminalise drugs and provide safe injecting sites.  This has happened in Portugal with some promising results  Altho I have to disagree Purple about poverty not being a root cause of most other social problems. Without a doubt, addiction exists everywhere in society, but the combination of addiction, cultural norms, exclusion, even low societal expectations, means that people born in certain areas, generally poor areas, continue to be poor and show up disproportionately in the justice system.  Slum clearance across the world has generally led to improved outcomes at all levels. When I was living in major EU city that consistently ranks as the best place to live in the world, there was a commitment to ensuring people from various economic groups were mixed into all areas. Social housing appeared everywhere. There are no ghettos.


----------



## qwerty5 (20 Feb 2018)

Well this thread is controversial. I was expecting some bleeding hearts to come along. I'm happy to see they're not here yet. I agree with most of the posts so far.

For my 2c. I'm all for education and improving peoples lives to allow them to lift themselves out of poverty. We also need a stage where we start to put the rights of the people who contribute to society ahead of the people who damage it. I think we're skewed towards protecting the vulnerable, which is correct, but we seem to include criminals in the vulnerable category.
Look at the newspapers any day of the week. Career or serious criminals are being given suspended sentences every week. The extenuating circumstances (from recent cases I've seen) include gender, whether the person is a parent and whether the person is really sorry for committing crime number 50 for which they're in court. At some stage we need to draw a line under some criminals and say for the safety of society we need to lock you up for a long time. Give people a fair chance but if you're up for conviction number 10 or 20 or more then who's going to object to throwing away the key for a long time.

An example is that "lady" that got the suspended sentence for carrying a loaded gun. Her time was suspended due to her "personal circumstances". https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0219/941809-nikita-murtagh-court/
Do we have to wait for somebody to be murdered with the gun before she should get a reasonable sentence? If that's me, or somebody in my family I won't give a damn about her personal circumstances. And what were here personal circumstances. Is that a defense I can use if I'm ever in court. If it's good enough for somebody carrying a loaded gun it should be good enough for me if I'm ever in court (hopefully if I am it'll be for a significantly lesser crime). It must be pretty demoralizing for the Gardai? Why bother? Put your life at risk to stop these criminals and they just go through a revolving door.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> Altho I have to disagree Purple about poverty not being a root cause of most other social problems. Without a doubt, addiction exists everywhere in society, but the combination of addiction, cultural norms, exclusion, even low societal expectations, means that people born in certain areas, generally poor areas, continue to be poor and show up disproportionately in the justice system. Slum clearance across the world has generally led to improved outcomes at all levels. When I was living in major EU city that consistently ranks as the best place to live in the world, there was a commitment to ensuring people from various economic groups were mixed into all areas. Social housing appeared everywhere. There are no ghettos.


I'm not suggesting that the areas of highest crime are poor. I am suggesting that the simple fact that they are poor is not the root cause for all of the other issues. You said it yourself with _"but the combination of addiction, cultural norms, exclusion, even low societal expectations, means that people born in certain areas, generally poor areas, continue to be poor and show up disproportionately in the justice system" _The factors you listed result in these areas being poor, not the other way around.


----------



## DeclanDublin (20 Feb 2018)

There is a conspiring of circumstances that lead to poor outcomes.  Is poverty a key driver? I think it is. Is it alone? No. You could list out innumerable factors that, in the round, combine to continue the cycle of poverty. Poor parenting, addiction(s), poor achievement of parents, bad health and poor health choices, abuse, a culture of dependency, lack of employment, etc. The list could go on. But I think the experience of most societies that education is the key driver of better outcomes across the board. So I think the solution to it is evidenced in more socially cohesive societies by addressing the problem(s) in a range of ways that empower people to avail of and make better choices and achieve better outcomes. Tackling deprivation, however it arises would be part of that solution.  What seems important to me is to take out the blaming element that often creeps into these debates and which achieves nothing. I know people who grew up in poor areas, or with poor parenting and more and never resorted to crime. We probably all do.This doesn't change the fact that something about how we organise society isn't working.   The problem exists, however it was caused it needs to be addressed. From a purely financial basis, if nothing else, education would seem to be the way to tackle it. We need to invest in kids education so we don't have to lock em up later.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (20 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> I'm not suggesting that the areas of highest crime are  poor. I am suggesting that the simple fact that they are poor is not the root cause for all of the other issues. You said it yourself with _"but the combination of addiction, cultural norms, exclusion, even low societal expectations, means that people born in certain areas, generally poor areas, continue to be poor and show up disproportionately in the justice system" _The factors you listed result in these areas being poor, not the other way around.


The might be up before the courts  I suspect there are higher crime rates we never hear about, Lots are doing a good job that we never hear about,


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Feb 2018)

I'm going to (try) avoid clashing with the stereotypical, prejudiced and ill-informed commentary contained within _some _of the posts above and stick to what I think the OP is basically trying to do, namely, commence a discussion that brings with it progressive ideas that may break the perpetual cycle of poverty that is prevails in some areas of our society. 
The level of poverty can, and does, vary within society, but also within all our perceptions of what poverty is. So even trying to define what is poverty, absolute and relative, is a cause for disagreement in itself and thus lends itself to the political system to somehow unravel those disagreements into some sort of policy which invariably not everyone agrees with. 

So some things I agree with in the OP are the overall sentiment to try find a way to break the cycle of poverty, and, perhaps more crucially to end the perpetual political solution of simply throwing more and more money at a problem in the vein hope it will fix it (or for the more cynically minded, move off the agenda).

What I may not agree with is that in the absence of alternative, progressive ideas to end the cycle of poverty is that in actual fact the welfare system as it is, is the best way. Notwithstanding the very valid point that while on-paper our society is equal, in reality there are huge gaps in our society. And while the welfare system does paper over a lot of those gaps, I would add that those supports do provide a security base for a lot of honest hard-working people who through no fault of their own may have got a bum deal somewhere along the way, illness, death in the family, job loss, alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, assaulted or raped or robbed...even to have been broken-hearted can set off a chain of events that lead to wrong decisions being made and ultimately to poverty and dependency. 

So I think it's a good idea to have the discussion, but I would be wary of laying blame or responsibility at feet of any particular grouping for societal poverty. Instead, it would be refreshing to hear some ideas that are untypical responses. 
I have a few ideas around use of technology and attitudes to alcohol which I hope to share during this discourse.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I'm going to (try) avoid clashing with the stereotypical, prejudiced and ill-informed commentary contained within _some _of the posts above



How dare you. 

You don’t have to agree with other posters. It may be the case that they all share a similar outlook. 

But what gives you the right to come along with condescending snotty remarks like that in a thread where people have been expressing concerns about important issues in Irish society and making genuine efforts to suggest possible approaches to dealing with those issues.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Feb 2018)

You may even had something worth reading to contribute, coming from a different perspective. But after that opening I wasn’t going to read any further.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Feb 2018)

cremeegg said:


> How dare you.
> .



I wouldnt take it too seriously. If you cant spot the commentary I am referring too then perhaps put it down to my harsh interpretation.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Maybe cut off the soft financial supply and see what the reaction would be. Just for starters.



What is the 'soft' financial supply?


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2018)

I'm not suggesting we spend less. We may have to spend more. What I am suggesting is that we have an end goal and a plan on how to get there rather than just sustaining the intolerable.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> I'm not suggesting we spend less. We may have to spend more. What I am suggesting is that we have an end goal and a plan on how to get there rather than just sustaining the intolerable.



Which brings the topic nicely onto how the cycle of poverty can be broken by other means.
Alcohol is, or rather abuse of of alcohol is a major factor in creating and perpetuating the cycle of poverty imo. However, aside from some public awareness campaigns (mostly drink driving) very little of significance is ever offered to support the concept of alcohol free lifestyle or to educate, particularly young people, the dangers of alcohol.

Im not for a moment suggesting to be a party-pooper, but when you have young kids there is a tendency to hope that they dont make the same mistakes as I did.

With that, in all my life it has become apparent that either our legislators are beholden to the drinks industry or that all the education, advice, studies on alcohol consumption has left experts to conclude that there are only two significant deterrents in managing peoples alcohol consumption - dont drink and drive and you must be 18yrs and over. Thats it. And neither work very well imo.

So what I propose, given the age of technology that we are in, that someone somewhere thinks of ideas that can better educate people with regard to alcohol, its consumption and its dangers.

One proposal I would suggest, by no means a panecea for any societies alcohol problems is to make the purchase of alcohol a card only purchase. No more cash payments for alcohol.
Hardly revolutionary, but here are some possible effects

1) Underage drinking could be thwarted as debit cards could identify the age of purchaser.
2) For 18yr olds, laws could be set to limit how much money could be spent on debit cards for alcohol products on daily/weekly basis.
3) Penalty points (yes, you read right) could be added to debit cards where anyone is engaged in a drunken brawl, vomiting in a public place, staggering onto public roads etc
4) The penalty points are added to your debit card and the next time you buy a drink, the price has increased say 25%, for six months.
5) On the plus side, anyone without any penalty points will see their daily quota rise as the get older, and also see a price reduction on the purchase.

I suspect there will could be a hundred scenarios as to why none of this would work, or why it is unfair etc...etc...but the underlying point is that our attitude to alcohol is primitive considering the toxic nature of the product when it is abused.


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Feb 2018)

Your solution to poverty is a totalitarian state on the unfounded pretext that alcohol is a major cause of poverty...

Limit how much people can spend based on their age??? A state interfering like that in the lives is totalitarian. Whatever revenue our current government needs you can triple it for this totalitarian state with an expanded army of civil servants to police us all in this way.

In any kind of free society... people find a way to indulge their vices... prohibition of alcohol didnt work... illegal drugs are readily available
... I guarantee you an alcoholic will find a way to get that drink unless you have a stasi to stop them.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Your solution to poverty is a totalitarian state on the unfounded pretext that alcohol is a major cause of poverty...



Alcohol abuse, imo, _can _lead to poverty, and _is _a factor in perpetuating that poverty.



odyssey06 said:


> Limit how much people can spend based on their age???



Limit how much an 18yr old can spend on alcohol, please read the post.
How much is a 17yr old allowed to spend on alcohol?
Any limits placed on L-drivers before they take the wheel? Any limits on who can smoke tobacco, enter an Adult store, earn a minimum wage, get married, vote, etc...there are plenty of age limits in place for all sorts of things.



odyssey06 said:


> Whatever revenue our current government needs you can triple it for this totalitarian state with an expanded army of civil servants to police us all in this way.



Actually, the thinking would be to reduce government spending.
You see the only way I can have a PP account, is that my debit card verifies my age. So if alcohol can only be purchased by debit card, and you are only 17(?) the card machine will block the transaction.
As for pen points, equip gardai with similar equipment, they swipe the card, job done. No court appearance, no solicitors fees (unless on appeal).



odyssey06 said:


> In any kind of free society... people find a way to indulge their vices... prohibition of alcohol didnt work... illegal drugs are readily available
> ... I guarantee you an alcoholic will find a way to get that drink unless you have a stasi to stop them.



It is not about prohibition of anything. It is about instilling a culture that says even though you have just turned 18yrs tanking up on 10 beers and some vodka shots is a bad start. Its about acknowledging the dangers of alcohol and giving some kids a better opportunity to learn moderate drinking instead of heavy drinking.

Its no panecea, just a new approach.


----------



## noproblem (21 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What is the 'soft' financial supply?



It's called money and in my opinion there's a hell of a lot of people getting it that shouldn't be. Hope that makes it very clear and yes, i've been responsible for some people who were not disabled in being refused the payment. What's more, they didn't appeal it either and are living without it with no problems apart from being very cross with "someone" and have told me so. Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Alcohol abuse, imo, _can _lead to poverty, and _is _a factor in perpetuating that poverty.


I wholeheartedly agree.
The link should be between alcohol content and price, otherwise cheap beer becomes even more popular.
I'm in favour of minimum unit pricing.
I also think there should be far greater educational supports for parents of those who have addiction problems. A course over a weekend for the parents of a 15 year old with drug and alcohol problems teaching them best practice in how to handle their child's addiction problems could literally save lives and would certainly reduce crime and easy the burden for the family of the addict. At the moment the parents have to go blind into a complex, highly charges and potentially dangerous situation wiith lessons learned only in retrospect.


----------



## PGF2016 (22 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Which brings the topic nicely onto how the cycle of poverty can be broken by other means.
> Alcohol is, or rather abuse of of alcohol is a major factor in creating and perpetuating the cycle of poverty imo. However, aside from some public awareness campaigns (mostly drink driving) very little of significance is ever offered to support the concept of alcohol free lifestyle or to educate, particularly young people, the dangers of alcohol.
> 
> Im not for a moment suggesting to be a party-pooper, but when you have young kids there is a tendency to hope that they dont make the same mistakes as I did.
> ...


 
Don't usually agree with much of what you say but banning the sale of alcohol (I'd add cigarettes) to underage people via their debit cards is a great idea.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> Don't usually agree with much of what you say but banning the sale of alcohol (I'd add cigarettes) to underage people via their debit cards is a great idea.



It's already illegal for them to be sold full stop ... how's that ban working out?
17 year olds can evade that, they'll evade this idea.

The US tried the whole food stamps idea, so that welfare money wouldn't be blown on drink and drugs... did that work?

What might work is allowing 16 and 17 year olds to have drinks in a pub, just pints or wine, no spirits, so they are in a controlled environment instead of a field getting obliterated.


----------



## Ceist Beag (22 Feb 2018)

I completely agree with TBS on the sale of alcohol being something we should target. I would actually go a lot further personally in that I think it is ridiculous to allow sale of alcohol in supermarkets and would support going back to alcohol only being sold in off licences. It's not that long since this was the case and I think the easy access in supermarkets has led to the surge in people drinking at home. I'm sure many will object to that and I can already hear the arguments saying "I want to buy a bottle of wine to go with dinner" but I still think it is crazy that someone can buy a carton of milk and pick up a bottle of vodka while they're at it.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> I completely agree with TBS on the sale of alcohol being something we should target. I would actually go a lot further personally in that I think it is ridiculous to allow sale of alcohol in supermarkets and would support going back to alcohol only being sold in off licences. It's not that long since this was the case and I think the easy access in supermarkets has led to the surge in people drinking at home. I'm sure many will object to that and I can already hear the arguments saying "I want to buy a bottle of wine to go with dinner" but I still think it is crazy that someone can buy a carton of milk and pick up a bottle of vodka while they're at it.



It's not ridiculous. It's not crazy. What's wrong with drinking at home??? I think you are the one with the puritan problem, the fear that someone somwehere is having a good time - not the person picking up a bottle of wine to go with dinner. Which I do often. So if you are demonising those people you are insulting me.

What's crazy is that people say we need more restrictions and higher prices for alcohol without lifting their heads from Ireland ... look at France, they have less restrictions and lower prices.
Do they have more or less poverty than Ireland? More or less alcoholism or social issues with alcohol?

The proposition that we can cure poverty through these kind of restrictions of alcohol has no merit in any way shape or form.

We need to normalise alcohol to show teenagers how to use it properly.
Not demonise it. Demonising it leads 16 year olds getting obliterated drinking in fields. Normalising means the 16 year has a glass of wine or beer with the family at Sunday lunch.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It's not ridiculous. It's not crazy. What's wrong with drinking at home??? I think you are the one with the problem, not the person picking up a bottle of wine to go with dinner.


We can buy wine in Petrol Stations. Alcohol is an addictive substance and probably has more of a detrimental impact on society than all other drugs and addictive substances. You should have to go to an off licence to buy alcohol just as you should have to go to a tobacconist to buy tobacco. When seeking to overcome addiction the ubiquitous availability of the substance you are addicted to is a major factor in failure. Anyone who has ever been on a diet will know it's much harder to not eat the crisps in the press than the crisps in the shop.



odyssey06 said:


> The proposition that we can cure poverty through these kind of restrictions of alcohol has no merit in any way shape or form.


 "Poverty" in the context of this discussion is a catch-all term used to describe a basket of issues which feed into each other and result in material and social deprivation. 
The contention is that most of the material deprivation is a symptom of the social deprivation and the root causes include low educational outcomes, addiction, and a host of other factors. This results in a general inability to engage with, and therefore put value into and get value out of, mainstream society. The consequences for mainstream society is a social and economic ball and chain and the knowledge that a cohort of our fellow citizens are failing and being fail by societal norms. 

Rather than sustaining that I think we should fix it. I contend that only throwing money at it not only doesn't work but in the longer terms is worse than doing nothing in that it helps to perpetuate the cycle. We need more carrot and more stick. Yes, it is social engineering but that's the function of a government and most of our taxation system. 
Alcohol abuse is one of the many issues, nobody is suggesting otherwise, but we have to tackle them all.


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> We need to normalise alcohol to show teenagers how to use it properly.
> Not demonise it. Demonising it leads 16 year olds getting obliterated drinking in fields. Normalising means the 16 year has a glass of wine or beer with the family at Sunday lunch.



I agree. I think you have somehow missed the point. I wasnt advocating prohibition. I am advocating that more efforts are made to instill responsibilty and to educate more about the consumption of alcohol. 
I chose 18yrs as that is the current legal age to purchase it. Im not necessarily opposed to reducing that age, im just in favour of restricting the amount that can be consumed once the legal age (whatever that should be) is reached. 
Currently, once you hit 18, you can drink till the cows come home. To me, thIs may be cause for alcoholic problems later in life.


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> The link should be between alcohol content and price, otherwise cheap beer becomes even more popular.



I agree also. It is another deficiency in our laws. Not only, after turning 18, can vast amounts be purchased but vast amounts of any alcoholic drink regardless of its potency. 

There is plenty of scientific material and guidelines from organistaion like WHO as to the reasonable limits to safe drinking. I think it is quite feasible for these limits to be applied to young people via card only purchases. 
The legal age should be used as a stepping stone to mature responsible drinking.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The legal age should be used as a stepping stone to mature responsible drinking.



Like N Plates on a car?


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> Like N Plates on a car?



That's kinda what I was getting at with the idea that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to get a few pints or glasses of wine in a controlled environment, maybe a pub that they are registered with and that their parents have ok'd. 
I think they'd rather be in the pub socialising, or watching Sky Sports, than in a field.

I think that would be easier to enforce, police and less easy to get around, and has less overtones of nanny state than the debit card idea.

If you are talking about college age kids, look at the US, legal drinking age is 21 and there's no shortage of booze on campus, so that's why I can't see a debit card idea or off licence sales ban to under 21s working.


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> Like N Plates on a car?



Without actually labelling them with N Plates (although could be fun), effectively yes. 
Learn to drink moderately first, over a sustaIned period - perhaps the notion of getting langered will be diminished long-term?


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> If you are talking about college age kids, look at the US, legal drinking age is 21 and there's no shortage of booze on campus, so that's why I can't see a debit card idea or off licence sales ban to under 21s working.



You are correct, by itself it wouldnt work. But it may act as a small step towards changing attitudes. Buy-in from the alcohol industry, some slick marketing, government programs all co-ordinating to induce a change in behaviour.


----------



## PGF2016 (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It's already illegal for them to be sold full stop ... how's that ban working out?
> 17 year olds can evade that, they'll evade this idea.
> 
> The US tried the whole food stamps idea, so that welfare money wouldn't be blown on drink and drugs... did that work?
> ...


It's illegal to speed in built up areas yet people still do it. Speed bumps are put in place to assist those people who 'forget' about the speed limits. 

I don't see any issue with another measure to assist those who 'forget' that selling alcohol to underage teenagers is illegal. 

Who is going to control the 16/17 year olds in pubs? The other people in the pubs are potentially part of our problematic drink culture as it is.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> That's kinda what I was getting at with the idea that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to get a few pints or glasses of wine in a controlled environment, maybe a pub that they are registered with and that their parents have ok'd.


I don't think the legal age to buy drink or consume it in public should be below 18. 
The health effects are greater on a young body and the potential to develop an addiction is also greater.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> It's illegal to speed in built up areas yet people still do it. Speed bumps are put in place to assist those people who 'forget' about the speed limits.
> 
> I don't see any issue with another measure to assist those who 'forget' that selling alcohol to underage teenagers is illegal.
> 
> Who is going to control the 16/17 year olds in pubs? The other people in the pubs are potentially part of our problematic drink culture as it is.



A pub is the most controlled place in terms of access to alcohol... there is a barman. There is no barman... no control in a field of 16 year olds. I have never seen someone refused a drink or been barred from the field.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> I don't think the legal age to buy drink or consume it in public should be below 18.
> The health effects are greater on a young body and the potential to develop an addiction is also greater.



I take your point but on the other hand the legal age for wine and beer in France is 16 and there doesnt seem to be higher alcohol problems there... if anything they have less.
They have recently increased age for spirits to 18.
Seems reasonable to me.

I am thinking not just of alcohol issues in proposing lower age but issues with antisocial behaviour due to illicit drinking. It hardly encourages respect for the law or alcohol to have most teenagers drinking illegally...


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I am thinking not just of alcohol issues in proposing lower age but issues with antisocial behaviour due to illicit drinking. It hardly encourages respect for the law or alcohol to have most teenagers drinking illegally...


For that to work alcohol has to be the same price in the supermarket/off licence/ petrol station as it is in the pub.


----------



## galway_blow_in (22 Feb 2018)

will not drinking alone save someone from poverty ?

i know people who have always drank perhaps ten pints each weekend yet were never off work and are not in anyway poverty stricken though not wealthy by any means either , i can go six months without a pint and was never much of a drinker but i dont think drinking and poverty are inextricably linked by any means

some people would end up in destructive habits regardless


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> For that to work alcohol has to be the same price in the supermarket/off licence/ petrol station as it is in the pub.



No... the proposal for here would be that at 16 and 17 you could only buy in pub.
My teenage years are long gone... I can drink at home more cheaply but I drink in pubs and restaurants too. A pub beats a field and it has sky sports.

I dont see MVP doing anything for poverty... an alcoholic wont drink less they will just spend more of their income.


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> That's kinda what I was getting at with the idea that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to get a few pints or glasses of wine in a controlled environment, maybe a pub that they are registered with and that their parents have ok'd.
> I think they'd rather be in the pub socialising, or watching Sky Sports, than in a field.



Thats fine if parents are prepared to act responibly. The issue is not with people who already act responsibly, its with those who act irresponsibly. 
There would be huge pressure on barmen to serve 'just another quick one' or 'its alright boss, he can handle his own' .
In the end, parents who are locked into a cycle of poverty, and use alcohol as an escape mechanism may just perpetuate the problem by bringing their kids to the pub.


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> will not drinking alone save someone from poverty ?
> 
> i know people who have always drank perhaps ten pints each weekend yet were never off work and are not in anyway poverty stricken though not wealthy by any means either , i can go six months without a pint and was never much of a drinker but i dont think drinking and poverty are inextricably linked by any means
> 
> some people would end up in destructive habits regardless



No, not drinking will not eradicate poverty by itself. But for some people it may help them to get out of a cycle of poverty.

People who drink ten pints a night and hold a steady job or live a normal life without depending on anyone else for income supports are not the focus here.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thats fine if parents are prepared to act responibly. The issue is not with people who already act responsibly, its with those who act irresponsibly.
> There would be huge pressure on barmen to serve 'just another quick one' or 'its alright boss, he can handle his own' .
> In the end, parents who are locked into a cycle of poverty, and use alcohol as an escape mechanism may just perpetuate the problem by bringing their kids to the pub.



Yes they could, but if the parents are that irresponsible, they could just do that at home... at least this way there's a social option in a regulated environment. 
I think we have to be realistic about what the state can do, and what limits on liberty are justified on the responsible majority because of an at risk minority.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> what limits on liberty are justified on the responsible majority because of an at risk minority.


That's a bit extreme. We limit the sale of knives and weapons as well as drugs and tobacco. Alcohol is an addictive drug and requires a level of maturity by the user for safe use.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> That's a bit extreme. We limit the sale of knives and weapons as well as drugs and tobacco. Alcohol is an addictive drug and requires a level of maturity by the user for safe use.



I think it's a reasonable question to *ask *what limits are justified, I didn't mean to imply there should be no limits on liberty but that is should be weighed in the balance. 

We don't ban kitchen knives, we don't ban table wine... Our ban on drugs is practically unenforceable in a free society, unless we want to become a police state with massive restrictions on citziens. 
Increases in the price of tobacco don't bother the guy buying from a back alley...


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> We don't ban kitchen knives, we don't ban table wine...


We ban their sale to children though.


----------



## noproblem (22 Feb 2018)

Didn't know this forum was about booze.  That's already catered for elsewhere.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> We ban their sale to children though.



And we don't let kids drive cars, and I don't see too many of them doing so ... yet we seem to have much greater difficulty keeping adults who have been banned from driving off the roads...

If the government wants to do something that is in their power to address a dysfunctional relationship with alcohol, close the loopholes that see 40% of drink cases fail, don't allow alcohol to be considered a mitigating factor in criminal offences... if somone gets so drunk they are not in control, they should be punished twice, once for losing control, and again for whatever they did when out of control. I think Ancient Greece approached it that way.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Didn't know this forum was about booze.  That's already catered for elsewhere.



Yeah it's an interesting discussion but has perhaps gone down a side alley... ps where is this other place that caters for it???


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> And we don't let kids drive cars, and I don't see too many of them doing so ... yet we seem to have much greater difficulty keeping adults who have been banned from driving off the roads...
> 
> If the government wants to do something that is in their power to address a dysfunctional relationship with alcohol, close the loopholes that see 40% of drink cases fail, don't allow alcohol to be considered a mitigating factor in criminal offences... if somone gets so drunk they are not in control, they should be punished twice, once for losing control, and again for whatever they did when out of control. I think Ancient Greece approached it that way.


I agree.
Alcohol is a part of the problem but the one common thread through all of this is education or, more particularly, the value placed on learning and skills.
I've always maintained that there are two types of school, not private and public but the ones where you get slagged for being stupid and the ones where you get slagged for doing your homework. There are parents who want their children to have a better life than they have and are willing and able to invest their time to make that happen and there are parents who can't be bothered and/or don't have the ability due to addiction, domestic strife, mental health issues or just their own lack of intellect or education. 
We need to distinguish between schooling and education. My father left school at 14 but can quote Shakespeare and the classics. Education lasts your whole life and it is the absence of this mindset rather than income which is the most common factor in the section of society in inter-generational poverty.


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Feb 2018)

The topic is about poverty and about generating ways and means to reduce it.
Its a big fish to fry so perhaps it could be considered that it wont be resolved within the pages of AAM.
I took up the cudgel with alcohol as I consider the _abuse _of alcohol has a signigicant prevalence in cyclical poverty traps. It is but one of many factors for persistent poverty. 
I suggested ideas about debit cards and penalty points, not because they are the answer to drinking issues in this country but because it touches on the use of available technology to influence how we shape our society. 
Since I first started drinking there have been major advancements in science, research and technology, behavioural economics etc that say to me that new thinking on this matter is clearly an option.
Instead, we appear stuck in the 20th century thinking of putting an age limit on alcohol consumption and...well, thats it, really.


----------



## Firefly (23 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And while the welfare system does paper over a lot of those gaps, I would add that those supports do provide a security base for a lot of honest hard-working people who through no fault of their own may have got a bum deal somewhere along the way, illness, death in the family, job loss, alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, assaulted or raped or robbed...even to have been broken-hearted can set off a chain of events that lead to wrong decisions being made and ultimately to poverty and dependency.



I think what you are describing above is what welfare should be..a safety net to help people in times of trouble. Sadly, for whatever reason, too many people are staying in the net and thereby remaining in poverty. Also, as more and more people are staying in this net, there is less and less money & resources for those who need it most.


----------



## Firefly (23 Feb 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> Don't usually agree with much of what you say but banning the sale of alcohol (I'd add cigarettes) to underage people via their debit cards is a great idea.



There might be a few details to work out, but I think the idea is very good too.


----------



## Firefly (23 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I am advocating that more efforts are made to instill responsibilty and to educate more about the consumption of alcohol.



I would like to see a campaign along the lines of "Drinking x pints of beer has the same effect on your brain cells as getting a dig in the head" 

Another one I heard recently (and I found great) was...

"Alcohol....stealing happiness from tomorrow"


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It's not ridiculous. It's not crazy. What's wrong with drinking at home??? I think you are the one with the puritan problem, the fear that someone somwehere is having a good time - not the person picking up a bottle of wine to go with dinner. Which I do often. So if you are demonising those people you are insulting me.


I don't know where you're getting the offence from tbh odyssey, I certainly wasn't demonising anyone. I was simply pointing out that, imho, there is far too much access to alcohol these days, it is readily available in a number of places. This isn't aimed at those who drink responsibly but those who do not. I don't think it would be a hardship to have to go to an off licence to purchase wine tbh.
Whilst I'm not at all equating the two things as being the same, in terms of how we view the cause of the issue there is quite a difference between how we view the cheap and plentiful availability of alcohol here and how we view the cheap and plentiful availability of guns in the US.


----------



## odyssey06 (23 Feb 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> I don't know where you're getting the offence from tbh odyssey, I certainly wasn't demonising anyone. I was simply pointing out that, imho, there is far too much access to alcohol these days, it is readily available in a number of places. This isn't aimed at those who drink responsibly but those who do not. I don't think it would be a hardship to have to go to an off licence to purchase wine tbh.
> Whilst I'm not at all equating the two things as being the same, in terms of how we view the cause of the issue there is quite a difference between how we view the cheap and plentiful availability of alcohol here and how we view the cheap and plentiful availability of guns in the US.



I'll assume it wasn't intended so, but certainly some of your comments could have been interpreted that way e.g. especially about drinking at home - and eh I am one to get the rebuttal in first before waiting for the translation... But let's move on...

If it's not a hardship to have to go to an off licence to purchase wine, how will it prevent alcoholics from getting access to alcohol? It won't.
It is an inconvenience and those most inconvenienced are the responsible ones e.g. no one is being protected by denying me the ability to buy a bottle of wine at 11am on Sunday in a supermarket if that happens to be the handiest time for me to do the big shop.
Why should my choice of wine purchases be limited to those available in an off licence, at off licence prices? If LIDL have a good variety of wines at reasonable prices, why shouldn't I have that choice? Is an alcoholic really going to care about whether LIDL's Chianti is nicer than the one in the local off licence? No, but I do.

If you're an alcoholic and you can't pass a bottle of wine in a supermarket... then what next? You shouldn't have to pass by a pub or off licence in case you are tempted???
Where does it end? You can only buy meat from a butcher's shop because it is high in saturated fat and poor people shouldn't be buying meat as their money would go further on potatoes?

For a restriction on liberty to be justified, it must be proportionate and serve the purpose of protecting society. I see these measures as trying to protect individuals from themselves and we can't afford a government big enough to do that 100%, nor would one be desirable.

I'll come back again to France. They have drinkable bottles of wine in supermarkets for 2 euros and I can buy it at 9am on a Saturday or Sunday.
How is their war on poverty going? Better than ours?
Is Ireland's war on poverty aided by having the cheapest bottle of drinkable wine here being 10 euros and only available in an off licence with restricted opening hours? I haven't read a solid answer as to why Ireland's war on poverty justifies those restrictions.

I see lots of back slapping in government circles when we see dramatic drops in tobacco purposes in Ireland, some of it is real, but ask them about illegal traders in cigarettes and wait for the coughs and silences... if we push alcohol too far in that same direction, all it will mean is trips to Newry for some, and trips to back alleys for others... 
There comes a point where the price difference after tax becomes so great that smuggling etc becomes profitable. Tobacco has reached that point... is alcohol next?


----------



## Firefly (23 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I'll come back again to France. They have drinkable bottles of wine in supermarkets for 2 euros and I can buy it at 9am on a Saturday or Sunday.
> How is their war on poverty going? Better than ours?



France certainly has its fair share of alcoholics too, but a key difference in France (and mainland Europe) is that getting drunk is by and large, not cool. I  think making "getting drunk" not cool here should be a priority..


----------



## Early Riser (23 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> If it's not a hardship to have to go to an off licence to purchase wine, how will it prevent alcoholics from getting access to alcohol? It won't.
> It is an inconvenience and those most inconvenienced are the responsible ones e.g. no one is being protected by denying me the ability to buy a bottle of wine at 11am on Sunday in a supermarket if that happens to be the handiest time for me to do the big shop.



The above would seem to imply that there are essentially two categories of people who drink - alcoholics and non-alcoholics. And, perhaps, that the latter are so because of some sort of innate disease.Some people seem particularly vulnerable to alcoholism and can become dependent relatively quickly but for the most part people slide into alcoholism over a considerable period of time. For any of us, the more regularly we drink and the more quantity we drink the more at risk we are of alcoholism.

I think the easy availability of alcohol at nearly every corner shop and nearly every filling station is an issue for the process of sliding into alcoholism in the first place - the convenience, the temptation, the impulse buy, the every day-ness of the whole process (the milk, the bread and the bottle of wine on the way home from work). As a person slides further along the road to addiction then easy availability becomes less of an issue - they will go out of their way to make a purchase. Price and availability do seem to impact on drinking patterns and on risk :

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10833208/europe-lower-drinking-age

Having said that, I think we need to consider any specific proposal to tackle these issues very carefully (and maybe all this is straying too far from poverty).

As for France, although I am aware that consumption has declined, they seem to have their issues too, eg:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Protocol (23 Feb 2018)

The main way to reduce the three measures of poverty and social exclusion in Ireland is to boost employment.

Too few people are in employment.

Our employment rate is too low.

If we could increase the employment rate by 5 pp, then all three measures of poverty should fall.


----------



## odyssey06 (23 Feb 2018)

Protocol said:


> The main way to reduce the three measures of poverty and social exclusion in Ireland is to boost employment.
> Too few people are in employment.
> Our employment rate is too low.
> If we could increase the employment rate by 5 pp, then all three measures of poverty should fall.



Yes that is the road out of poverty - but what sticks and carrots to use to get people onto that road is the question...


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2018)

To get into the employment market you have to have some marketable skills. 
That starts with education and attitude.


----------



## PMU (24 Feb 2018)

Protocol said:


> The main way to reduce the three measures of poverty and social exclusion in Ireland is to boost employment. Too few people are in employment. Our employment rate is too low.  If we could increase the employment rate by 5 pp, then all three measures of poverty should fall.


 Considering our economic situation after the crash our unemployment rate is not too bad.   The unemployment rate was down to 6.1% in January last, down from a max of over 16% in 2012. With inflation still at zero that is not a bad result, by any standards. http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/mue/monthlyunemploymentjanuary2018/. And it's expected to fall further to 5.3% next year https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/a...tinued-growth-in-a-changing-policy-context_en.

In relation to the rest of Europe our unemployment rate is also not bad, lower than the EU average of 7.3% http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_December_2017_(%25)_F2.png.  We could of course have done more to reduce youth unemployment, e.g. followed the example of Germany's Hartz plan.


----------



## noproblem (24 Feb 2018)

This goverment has got un-employment figures low with concocted figures.


----------



## Protocol (24 Feb 2018)

While our UNR has fallen to 6-7%, our employment rate isn't great.

Ok, it's not low either, but it could be higher.

2016 data, % of all 15-64 year olds

[broken link removed]

Irl = 66.5

EU28 = 66.7
EU15 = 67.1

DK, DE = 75%


----------



## Protocol (24 Feb 2018)

Our 2020 target for the employment rate is 69%, well below other countries targets.


----------



## Protocol (24 Feb 2018)

*Employment rate age group 20 to 64, by country, 2008 and 2016*


----------



## Protocol (20 Mar 2018)

Seamus Coffey, UCC, responds to an Irish Times article on in-work poverty.

https://twitter.com/seamuscoffey/status/976038946202374144

He points out that we are EU champions in the number of adults living in jobless households.


----------

