# Eddie Hobbs - Show Me The Money - the Belly Dancer



## sherib (1 Jan 2006)

Eddie Hobbs' new series starts tonight on RTE1 at 8.30 pm. A bit of light entertainment to set us straight for 2006!


----------



## RainyDay (1 Jan 2006)

WHat a spender! The 35 year old single mum of a 12 year old was earning €32k nett, spending €54k including her 4 holidays per annum and HP payments on her €28k car and had €45k in other debtj. She was about a week away from a commital hearing from one the 3 credit unions from which she had borrowed.

She did seem to turn around her spending, though I thought that Eddie should have gone even harder on her to ensure she understood that she was blowing her son's future on clothes & holidays.


----------



## mo3art (1 Jan 2006)

I missed the darned thing!  Anybody know if it's going to be repeated during the week?
Thanks


----------



## delgirl (1 Jan 2006)

Shame you missed it Mo, I think it was the best one so far - well it was the one that elicited the most 'I don't believe its' from me anyway.  
......and I'm not talking about the belly dancing either!


----------



## mo3art (1 Jan 2006)

Seriously was her spending that bad?


----------



## Audrey (1 Jan 2006)

mo3art said:
			
		

> Seriously was her spending that bad?


Oh yes, by golly it was.  In one week alone she spent €1300 (in cash ALONE, ie apart from other bills etc).  Eddie asked her how she intended to deal with the little matter of her imminent court appearance and possible commital, and she said her plan was to go to court and cry!  Other than that, she didn't have a plan.  What amazes me is that she knew what her earnings were, she knew what maintenance she received from (presumably) the boy's father, and she knew what she was spending (earning circa 32k and spending circa 52k per annum), so how come it all came as such a surprise??  Also, she knew she had to attend court soon, and that the creditor was asking for her to be imprisoned, and yet she had no plan of action.  She owed that creditor €2,300 and had clearly regularly defaulted on her repayments, yet she had over €4,000 in an account and it never occurred to her to pay off the €2,300 in order to avoid going to prison!!  Lord help us ... was she for real?  Am I naive?  Are there really many people like that out there, or was she just the one in a million??


----------



## Lauren (2 Jan 2006)

She was pretty flippant about the whole thing...I'd be at my wits end...Perhaps it was nervousness though at being on tv...not sure...Thing I found a bit misleading was that Hobbs seemed to be optimistic about her future and the possibility of her buying her own home in the near future (although he didn't directly say that)...I'm assuming that with a credit history like hers, that would be in doubt for a few years...


----------



## sherib (2 Jan 2006)

She worked as an Addiction Counsellor for the Health Services Executive earning ~ €40,000 gross. Seems it took Eddie Hobbs to show her she had 'a problem' if not an addiction herself! Still, she's probably far from the only one given the encitement to borrow money. If there weren't people spending money they haven't got, what would be the effect on our economy? Can't help wondering..... Of course that would never apply to AAM-ers


----------



## IsleOfMan (2 Jan 2006)

Her son had a flat screen T.V. attached to the wall for his computer games. She spent 3k/4k per annum redecorating her rented council house. She went on 4 holidays per year, presumably at the credit union's expense. She washed her car in the garage forecourt rather than at home. 
I think most of us will wait until the old T.V. gives up the ghost or use the old T.V. for the computer games in the kids bedroom. We would redecorate our homes as the need arises. We would go on holidays with money saved not on 100% borrowings. Washing the car at home occassionally would do her no harm. This lady is still spending €450 per week....on what?


----------



## SpatenMan (2 Jan 2006)

Was the E32k net per annum inclusive of maintenance? I missed that. Its a decent cashflow coming into a house!

Can tenants remain in council houses indefinitely? Is there an incentive scheme in place to encourage clients to move along up the ladder? 

I did not hear anything mentioned about cutting up the cards but maybe I am mistaken. Too much emphasis was placed on loan consolidation.


----------



## D8Lady (2 Jan 2006)

Hi IsleOfMan, 

She spent money on the 'must have' items of clothing. Once bought & put in the wardrobe,  were never worn again. 

Have to admit, was gobsmacked looking at it.

D8L


----------



## Audrey (2 Jan 2006)

SpatenMan - yes the 32,000 net per annum was inclusive of maintenance.  Not a bad little sum (net) per annum at all at all.  Cannot believe she's an Addiction Counsellor - she cannot be serious!!


----------



## delgirl (2 Jan 2006)

Couldn't believe the deal she did with the car - 3 door VW Golf, didn't look like anything special, but might have been a GTI?  Cost new in 2003 was, I think, €27K, she bought on a 5 year hire purchase agreement with a balloon payment of €5,000 due at the end of the five years.  

Total cost of the car €38k - for a 3 door Golf!!!


----------



## Guest127 (2 Jan 2006)

and she was expecting to get 20k for it second hand.  for 20k cash you can usually shop around for newish car.


----------



## RainyDay (2 Jan 2006)

There were a few interesting comments during the show which deserve more attention.

On her return from her latest post-Eddie-belt-tightening holiday in Turkey, she mentioned how there was great value in 'good copies' of branded clothing. I'm kind-of surprised that RTE let this blase comment out on air. If she had made a comment on buying pirate DVD's or knock-off cigarettes, I doubt that it would have gone out on air. But it's OK to pirate clothing apparently?

She mentioned that her family & friends had a generally sympathetic attitude to her spending & debts, and it seemed that Eddie was the first person to tell her to rein back her spending. Maybe this is a feature of the circles she is moving in, but her family and friends are doing her no favours with this sympathetic position. Maybe if one or two of them had given her some hard messages in the past, she wouldn't be quite so badly in debt now.

I had to laugh at her spending of €100+ per week on organic foods, while loading herself up on coffee & fags all day. It's hard to see a cleansing benefit from organic foods while taking in all the poisons contained in cigarettes.

She was a member of both Bray & Greystones Credit Unions, along with the Health Services Credit Union through work. I thought the 'common bond' issue would not allow her to be a member of 2 CU's with 'regional bonds' i.e Bray & Greystones?

I would generally be of left-leaning liberal pinko tendancies. But I have to admit to a rising anger that the taxpayer is paying for her accomodation (council flat) while she (or more accurately her credit unions) are paying for her holidays/clothes/car! While I remain absolutely convinced of the need for social housing, I'm not convinced that the state should pay for her housing for ever.


----------



## Marie (2 Jan 2006)

as both a feminist and someone with close friends and colleagues who are bringing up children alone I hate to say this but some women exploit their gender and the liberal tendencies of the state and their peers by personal irresponsibility on the basis that they won't have to sort out the consequences; others will!


----------



## mo3art (2 Jan 2006)

Hi RainyDay

Whilst I didn't see the program, I wouldn't be surprised with the sentiments expressed by this woman.  It is my experience that in certain circumstances the state providing housing and other benefits to people can be a slippery slope with regards to indebtedness.  I suppose to say that I have seen a number of people in massive debt as they are confident that the state or another body will pull them out of the hole.  I am aware of a number of families who call on the state & St Vincent de Paul for "one off" handouts for assistance at Christmas and other times of the year such as Communions etc as they have not managed their money well due to multiple holidays, cars, spending etc.  Indeed, Mr Mo stopped working with the SVP a number of years back when he was making a christmas hamper delivery to a "needy" family in his local area - he was shocked to see that the family he had been designated weren't destitute by any means and spent a massive amount on Christmas.  On raising his concerns with the SVP he was informed that they had a policy of not refusing those who requested assistance.

It is the actions of these few that leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths, not least our own.  It is such a pity as there are many needy families and individuals out there and the actions of the few lead us to regard them (needy people) with suspicion.  I would agree with your sentiment of anger at the fact that this person manages on such a good salary, has a state rent subsidy and yet still cannot manage their own personal finances.

Yet another persuasive argument for compulsory personal finance to be taught in schools, an invaluable lifeskill if there ever was one!


----------



## SpatenMan (2 Jan 2006)

Why didn't she get her son to wash the fecking car?


----------



## CCOVICH (2 Jan 2006)

Sounds like 'Personal Responsibility' rather than 'Personal Finance' should be on the school curriculum..........


----------



## IsleOfMan (2 Jan 2006)

I would love to see a programme about her husband/partner who is paying her maintenance and see what conditions he is living in? His maintenance payments look as if they are subsidising her lavish lifestyle. I agree with Rainyday about the council house and the taxpayer subsidising her accommodation. She strikes me as all take and no give.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Jan 2006)

Why is our _TV _license money spent by the nation's public broadcaster to purportedly assist people like this who obviously don't give a toss about their spending habits and financial situations? Surely there are more deserving cases? Sounds to me like


----------



## ClubMan (2 Jan 2006)

mo3art said:
			
		

> Yet another persuasive argument for compulsive personal finance to be taught in schools


Is that to counterbalance the compulsive spending habits that some people develop? Or do you actually mean "compulsory"?


----------



## mo3art (2 Jan 2006)

LMFAO Clubman I didn't realise I posted that!!!!  Talk about a freudian slip 
I did of course mean "compulsory" IYKWIM


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2006)

mo3art said:
			
		

> LMFAO Clubman I didn't realise I posted that!!!!  Talk about a freudian slip
> I did of course mean "compulsory" IYKWIM


Thanks for taking that in the spirit that it was intended. I was actually bracing myself for the first _"AAM versus ClubMan" _episode of 2006 when I posted!


----------



## contemporary (3 Jan 2006)

She was lucky that the health services CU would give her a consolidation loan and deduct it at source, she was highly irresponsible and her friend thought it was a great laugh too "we borrowed 4000 went to NY and spent the lot in a weekend". When a credit union looks for a committal then you know you have trouble


----------



## extopia (3 Jan 2006)

There will always be people who can't live within their means. There will always be sucker lenders who lend to them. And there will always be a media outlet to tell the fascinating story. Eddie needs to pick some more realistic examples if he is to give his show any longevity - especially this year when his profile is sky high after Rip Off Republic...


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2006)

How was she a member/borrower with three _CUs_? I would have assumed that the most one could have the required "common bond" with would be two - i.e. community/neighbourhood and work? If people like her are exploiting multiple _CUs _as a form of easy (albeit not necessarily cheap) credit then it would undermine my already strained faith in the _CU _system even more.


----------



## contemporary (3 Jan 2006)

I suspose she could have lived in bray and joined the CU there, then moved to greystones and joined there, the work CU is obvious

i agree with extopia, it was a poor episode to start the season off with, however they were probably made before ROR


----------



## extopia (3 Jan 2006)

CUs are under severe pressure to lend money at the moment as no one is borrowing from them because of their high rates. Perhaps this is inevitably leading to CUs providing riskier loans.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2006)

contemporary said:
			
		

> I suspose she could have lived in bray and joined the CU there, then moved to greystones and joined there, the work CU is obvious


Fair point. I'm actually still a member of the _CU _in my family's original neighbourhood and never transferred/joined my current neighbourhood's one. I keep saying that I'll close my account and put it to better work especially seeing that I have never borrowed from them and probably never will and the money is effectively lying idle where it is. Or maybe I'll just use it to splash out on a nice holiday....


----------



## Bluebean (3 Jan 2006)

I thought it didn't give much detail as to what she was spending the 1300 or even the reduced 450 a week on.  Was she paying any rent at all? I know she was spending a lot on clothes, holidays, food and the car, but surely there was other expenditure outside of that which she could have cut back on?
Son also had a psp, along with the flat screen tv!

I would have preferred if they had gone in to more detail, and shown us exactly what she cut back on, and her new weekly budget.  I suppose 30 minutes just isn't enough time to go in to every aspect.

And the usual 'consolidate your loans' card was played again, I hope we're not in to another series of that being Eddie's answer to everything!


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2006)

Bluebean said:
			
		

> And the usual 'consolidate your loans' card was played again, I hope we're not in to another series of that being Eddie's answer to everything!


 Well at least he didn't attempt to [broken link removed] a _Cape Verde _holiday home!


----------



## Carpenter (3 Jan 2006)

> And the usual 'consolidate your loans' card was played again, I hope we're not in to another series of that being Eddie's answer to everything!


 
Marty Whelan had some guy on the radio this morning advising just that; I can't remember the guys name but he's responsible for some business magazine. The individual in question actually suggested that people fib to lenders to get a mortgage top up and pay off CC debts etc- irresponsible surely? Anybody else hear it?


----------



## Thrifty (3 Jan 2006)

didn't hear the guy on the radio but what made me laugh was the little clip of the woman with her flask in the car....... ye like she's really going to keep doing that ...made for TV. i also agree that there's little point saying she has cut her spending if there is no obvious breakdown - felt that there was little substance in the program - answer to debt problems was just get a consolidated loan. Really feel the program could be a perfect oppurtunity to give budgeting tips, show people how interest rates and other charges make some debts worst than others. Also advise people about saving towards car insurance, Christmas etc.. so that they can tackle the debt without having to add to it each year when these things crop up.


----------



## Vanilla (3 Jan 2006)

I see there is a new programme starting on BBC this Thursday on how to pay off your mortgage within two years. Might be worth a look.


----------



## Delboy (3 Jan 2006)

would this woman be classed in the 7% of the overall population and her son in the 15% of children,that live in consistent 'poverty' in this state every day....a mantra oft heard from one of the great 'thinkers' of our time, Fintan O'Toole, amongst others.....


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2006)

Delboy said:
			
		

> would this woman be classed in the 7% of the overall population and her son in the 15% of children,that live in consistent 'poverty' in this state every day....a mantra oft heard from one of the great 'thinkers' of our time, Fintan O'Toole, amongst others.....


 A bit like the "deprived" areas that I passed through over the Christmas holidays which boasted lighting displays to rival _Las Vegas, _endless supplies of gargle for the adults and toys like _iPods_, _PSPs _and miniature petrol powered motorbikes for the kids...?!


----------



## Conan (3 Jan 2006)

This program is about as close to "financial advice" as Cape Verde is to property investment. The show is just that - a show. This program was merely an opportunity for the viewer to see how stupid some people can be. As a show, it falls a long way short of the Alvin Hall version originally on BBC. It does not take 30 mins to advise even a "belly dancer" to consolidate her loans. 
Hopefully the next few editions will be better (but I would not bet on it).


----------



## CCOVICH (3 Jan 2006)

Conan said:
			
		

> The show is just that - a show. This program was merely an opportunity for the viewer to see how stupid some people can be.


 
Exactly.  Just like You're A Star etc.  People won't be 'entertained' by people who aren't in debt due to unemployment or other hardship.


----------



## LIVERLIPS (3 Jan 2006)

Sure there is a girl in my department in work who works part time and lives with her mam and boyfriend and 2 kids aged 2 & 7 and she spent 2500 euro on christmas presents for them. She says she has to get the 7 year old what he puts on the list as he wants them. The same girl bought a brand new car a few years ago and cannot keep up with the repayments and keeps on missing some. She has no money left now and which means no money for her car and petrol, lunch etc.

There is loads of eejits like this out there who do not save for anything just keep getting loans and a buy a brand new car just so they can boast about it for a few months but end up having no money left for anything else every month as a good percentage of their wages goes on their car


----------



## RainyDay (3 Jan 2006)

Delboy said:
			
		

> would this woman be classed in the 7% of the overall population and her son in the 15% of children,that live in consistent 'poverty' in this state every day....a mantra oft heard from one of the great 'thinkers' of our time, Fintan O'Toole, amongst others.....


OK - I'm back in lefty pinko mood now. No - based on , mother & child would not be considered to be in poverty.


----------



## mo3art (3 Jan 2006)

Should this be moved to LOS?


----------



## Purple (4 Jan 2006)

Thanks for the link RainyDay, very informative.


----------



## TarfHead (4 Jan 2006)

LIVERLIPS said:
			
		

> She says she has to get the 7 year old what he puts on the list as he wants them.


 
As we're in pantomine season, all together now ..

*OH NO SHE DOESN'T !*


----------



## podgerodge (4 Jan 2006)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> I see there is a new programme starting on BBC this Thursday on how to pay off your mortgage within two years. Might be worth a look.




Whats the programme called Vanilla? thanks

Edit - just checked listings - its "Pay off your mortgage in 2 years" !  BBC2 8pm Thurs 5 Jan, 12 Jan and 19 Jan.


----------



## extopia (5 Jan 2006)

BBC3 does an excellent show called "Spendaholics" where they really try to get to the bottom of people's spending problems and try to address them - as well as helping the people get organised and out of debt.


----------



## mo3art (6 Jan 2006)

For those of you interested - here is the spoiler from the rte website for Sunday night - do you have your video's set?
"The 'big day out' in May added to this couple's big pile of debt.

Tom and Tricia got married last May. The big day out added to the couples' big pile of debt. Tricia is a barmaid on a modest wage and Tom is a cabbie with absolutely no idea of his income.

They can't afford to repay their debts and their creditors - no surprise - have lost all patience.

Eddie arrives in Athlone to solve the mystery of the vanishing cash - Tom and Tricia both work hard so why are they constantly broke?"
Oops, sorry don't know what happened there!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Jan 2006)

> Eddie needs to pick some more realistic examples if he is to give his show any longevity - especially this year when his profile is sky high after Rip Off Republic...




I don't agree. The programme was entertaining  and  infuriating at  the same time. I am sure that  the public  will watch  next week's show as a result.


Unfortunately , a  good personal finance programme would be boring and people would switch off. If RTE wants to help people, they should aim to inform and motivate rather than to entertain.

Brendan


----------



## extopia (6 Jan 2006)

Brendan said:
			
		

> If RTE wants to help people, they should aim to inform and motivate rather than to entertain



That's my whole point. I think they've gone for entertainment value over information and education.


----------



## mo3art (6 Jan 2006)

Well actually while it wasn't very informative it did start an awful lot of discussions about personal finance in my office & home for one.
I think that by highlighting the extremes of financial mismanagement it encourages people to examine their own personal situation & if it's a catalyst for personal change then it can only be a good thing.  Unfortunately this woman's situation is not uncommon, as is the situation next Sunday's feature tackles.  RTE's aim will always be to hold the attention of the viewer for the maximum amount of time possible in order to generate good advertising revenues so you can't blame them for trying to be entertaining about a very serious subject....


----------



## extopia (6 Jan 2006)

I'm a fan of entertainment. I think it's hard to get the balance right between entertainment and education/information. I'm a fan of Eddie's too and perhaps it's time, now that he has gained "traction" in the entertainment side of things, to start to dig a little deeper and give some real advice. Sure - debt consolidation is a good thing, but only if you know the subject won't just run up the credit cards again.


----------



## MOB (7 Jan 2006)

I had a look at the Combat Poverty site.  This agency used to be based in the city centre - and in an area where poverty could readily be observed all around (the building now houses immigrants\refugees).   At the time of the Rainbow Coalition, they moved to plusher, newer offices out in Islandbridge.   I thought this lacked empathy, and I am afraid this has coloured my judgement of them since.  Anyway, leaving aside my bias, it appears that in Ireland we will define someone as experiencing consistent poverty if:

1.   Their household is on 70% or less of median household income AND

2.   They have "debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses" (there are eight indicators, of which this is one, but any one indicator is enough to have you classed as experiencing consistent poverty)

I think that this measure of poverty casts the net too widely. In fairness, their site does set out alternative poverty measurement methodologies, so they are giving a reasonably full and fair picture. It undoubtedly would have the effect of including many people whom I would not regard as experiencing poverty, but rather experiencing the consequences of bad financial management.   This of course feels exactly the same as poverty if you are on the receiving end, but I think it important to differentiate those who consistently author their own misfortune by bad money management.  Their problems cannot in all fairness be blamed mainly on unfair allocation of our society's resources (except of course to the extent that you take the paternalistic view that people should not be allowed to make bad decisions, and that a society which permits this is to blame).

I don't suppose it is in the interest of any state agency to adopt a stance which would justify lowering their budget.   I don't know if poverty has actually increased or decreased in Ireland.   But I am not persuaded by any statements based upon the methodology adopted by the Combat Poverty Agency.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Jan 2006)

MOB said:
			
		

> I had a look at the Combat Poverty site.  This agency used to be based in the city centre - and in an area where poverty could readily be observed all around (the building now houses immigrants\refugees).   At the time of the Rainbow Coalition, they moved to plusher, newer offices out in Islandbridge.   I thought this lacked empathy, and I am afraid this has coloured my judgement of them since.  Anyway, leaving aside my bias


That seems like a pretty petty reason to colour your view (negatively I presume). Maybe the move from the city centre saved them money on rental expenses or the offices did not comply with the necessary health and safety standards for employees (paid or voluntary)?



> it appears that in Ireland we will define someone as experiencing consistent poverty if:


Isn't that consistent *relative *poverty?


----------



## MOB (7 Jan 2006)

Quite possibly a wee bit petty.  But no private business would consider it a good thing to move further away (and I don't just mean distance-wise) from the people it serves.  Anyway, I thought it best to declare a slight bias, rather than feign an objectivity that I probably don't have.

Yes it is relative poverty.  But there are other ways of measuring relative poverty.  To have it hinge on "debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses" casts the net too widely in my view.  

Perhaps the definition of "debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses" is itself quite restrictive, but I rather imagine that if in a survey situation you asked people whether they had such problems, an overwhelming majority (in all income classes) would tell you that they do.  Effectively, once you are at 70% or less of median household income, it seems very easy indeed - too easy in my opinion- to classify (using the CPA yardstick) a person as experiencing consistent poverty.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Jan 2006)

MOB said:
			
		

> Quite possibly a wee bit petty.  But no private business would consider it a good thing to move further away (and I don't just mean distance-wise) from the people it serves.


But _Combat Poverty _are not a direct intervention/aid agency so they don't *directly* serve any constituency such as the poor or homeless in the city centre. They are more about framing and advising on policies for dealing with poverty. See their  page for what they do.


> Yes it is relative poverty.  But there are other ways of measuring relative poverty.  To have it hinge on "debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses" casts the net too widely in my view.


I agree with you that such definitions of poverty might not be ideal and might their use to categorise certain classes of people as poor may be questionable.


----------



## sherib (7 Jan 2006)

A quick look at the Combat Povery site provided this -
http://www.combatpoverty.ie/downloads/activities/programmes/LocalGovt/From_National_to_Local.pdf




> …lived on incomes below the 60% *relative* income *poverty* line. For a single person the 60% line was about €147 per week. > 6% of the population (just over 200,000 people) were living in consistent *poverty* in 2000 (the most recent data...


 
and this - http://www.combatpoverty.ie/facts_factsheet_what_is.htm which identifies the causes of poverty.

There seems to be a plethora of definitions, presumably for statistical purposes, but that shouldn't obscure the issue. I think all of us know the meaning of poverty and are thankful that we have never experienced it. 

My personal view is that the key to the elimination of poverty is *education.* This would involve the state investing *substantial* resources for education at every level and age to assist and encourage those at the bottom of the heap. Even with free third level, the numbers enrolling from the so called "deprived areas" are unimpressive in the extreme. The Governor of Mountjoy, a fine man, has been stating for years that the majority of the inmates come from a small number of postal districts. But has he been heard? I don't think so. 

With two to three billion euro sloshing around in the state's coffers (and it doesn't seem to know what to do with _our_ money), isn't it about time our so called "caring" government put its money where its mouth is - in the interest of social cohesion if nothing else. 

_Absolute poverty_ has undoubtedly reduced but not relative poverty and it never will until there is a substantial improvement in educational opportunity for *all our children* and not just those whose parents can afford the grind schools. These parents recognise the importance of education, doesn't everyone? - except those who have the power (and the money) to make things better for those most in need of assistance. But disaffected people don't vote, do they? 

It's OK to move this to LOS!


----------



## ClubMan (7 Jan 2006)

sherib said:
			
		

> I think all of us know the meaning of poverty and are thankful that we have never experienced it.



How do you know that no _AAM _contributor has ever experienced poverty?


> With two to three billion euro sloshing around in the state's coffers (and it doesn't seem to know what to do with _our_ money), isn't it about time our so called "caring" government put its money where its mouth is - in the interest of social cohesion if nothing else.


 What does "social cohesion" mean? What specific projects would you spend the money on in the interest of this?


> _Absolute poverty_ has undoubtedly reduced but not relative poverty and it never will until there is a substantial improvement in educational opportunity for *all our children* and not just those whose parents can afford the grind schools.


 If everybody's lot changes - improves or disimproves - at the same rate then relative poverty will never be reduced. I am quite dubious about "relative poverty" being any sort of meaningful measure of poverty overall.


> But disaffected people don't vote, do they?


 Says who?


----------



## sherib (8 Jan 2006)

> Originally posted by ClubMan
> How do you know that no _AAM _contributor has ever experienced poverty?


I don't, mea culpa. Changing "_never" _to "_is currently experiencing" _would have more accurately described that I meant to convey. It was not and is not my intention to convince anyone that poverty exists in Celtic Tiger Ireland. I need hardly say it is everyone's right to have an opinion and they do not have to agree!

By social cohesion I mean a society which facilities _everyone _to participate fully in, at least, first and second level education. To this end, I would invest substantially in preschool and primary education. It is only when everyone has _an equal_ opportunity to education we can call ourselves a just society. Voluntary agencies working in the third world recognise this - it's better to show people how to help themselves and this means education. 
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/news_archive/smaller_class_size_crucial_to_improve_education_and_literacy_in_ireland


> Commenting on the statement from Mary Hanafin, Minister for Education, that the Government will not be able to fulfil its promise to reduce primary class size to 20 by 2007, “One in seven Irish children leave primary school with literacy problems. Clearly, class sizes need to tackled if this is to be improved,” concluded Deputy Gogarty


[broken link removed]
"Traditionally, a budget was directed at the poor, the sick or income inequality. ... But last week we had an explicit policy tailored to a specific demographic over and above all others. This group is neither poor nor destitute. This generation is the richest of its kind that this country has ever seen." 

With regard to voting patterns, quotable facts are difficult to find. However, there is plenty of evidence that education, social class and social deprivation are significant determinants, including age and rurality. http://www.ucd.ie/dempart/workingpapers/ireland.pdf
"The DED level for the 1997 general election indicates that age, education, rurality, social class and social deprivation are important influences on turnout in general elections."
Without getting bogged down in definitions – relative –v-absolute –v-consistent poverty, these are research facts which I accept as valid.



> From Combat Poverty
> In 2001, more than 862,000 people (almost 22% of the population) lived on less than €164 per single person per week... .. If a household falls below 70% of average or median income and also lacks at least one of the items in the basic deprivation list, it is said to experience *consistent poverty *


*.*


----------



## bellydancer! (16 Jan 2006)

my god.....

i cant believe yee are all so gullible!! dont you realise that 80% of that is all dramatised for TV!!!! HALLO???????
Either that or you are al just damned jealous!!! 
The mind boggles.................


----------



## kazbah (16 Jan 2006)

PMSL is that yyooooooouuuuuuuu?!?! 

The irony of an "addiction counsellor" with such chronic overspending didn't escape me either.

Also I agree with the OP expressing frustration at us, the tax payers, picking up the housing tab because she couldn't manage her own finances.


----------



## pricilla (17 Jan 2006)

mo3art said:
			
		

> Yet another persuasive argument for compulsory personal finance to be taught in schools, an invaluable lifeskill if there ever was one!


 
Spot on!! Can't believe they actually taught us "Bridge" in school as a subject, yet we were given no education about budgeting, mortgages, credit and savings. Not a thing. I agree with you 100%


----------



## CCOVICH (17 Jan 2006)

AFAIR, a household budget was part of the Business Studies syllabus, but I don't recall if Business Studies was comulsory for the Junior Cert.


----------



## pricilla (17 Jan 2006)

There was no business studies in our school. You could do Economics if you really wanted to, but that was more about bigger issues as far as I know.
What I mean is that it need not be an actual subject that you get examined on, more of a couple of classes of financial advice and tips for the individual. I really think there is so much taught that you never use, it might be a good idea to give some good solid advice that may help later on. 
Wish I had been given it, when I went looking for a mortgage, it was like another language to me, (still is!) that's why I logged on here to begin with.


----------



## kazbah (17 Jan 2006)

Economics is a Leaving Cert Subject!

Business Studies is not obligatory for the Junior Cert.  In my school you choose between Home Economics (or whatever it is called now).


----------



## pricilla (17 Jan 2006)

Well I went to school through Irish so maybe I'm mixing up the names sorry!


----------



## ClubMan (17 Jan 2006)

pricilla said:
			
		

> Spot on!! Can't believe they actually taught us "Bridge" in school as a subject


Did you go to finishing school or something?


----------



## Vanilla (17 Jan 2006)

Ha ha, I was wondering if Priscilla and I went to the same school. Our Career Guidance teacher had a nervous breakdown and couldnt handle actual teaching so used to supervise us playing bridge instead...


----------



## Janet (17 Jan 2006)

Business studies is for Junior Cert (as far as I know.  It was still the inter when I did it but I'm sure my sister did business studies from 1st year)

Business organisation, accounting and economics are three separate subjects which you can do for Leaving cert.  Only bus. org. was offered when I was in school (think nuns wanted us all to do just home economics and art!) but by a few years later accounting was also on offer in my school.  Not sure if they ever got around to doing economics.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Jan 2006)

It has been brought to my attention (as a moderator/administrator) that _lancome _has registered but never posted and has been sending _PMs _directly to contributors to this thread. This is arguably bad (n)etiquette since discussions should really be kept in the public domain rather than directed at individual users (other than with their permission/invitation). _lancome _- please keep discussion of the topic here.


----------

