I agree with all of that.
I agree with all of that.I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.
Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.
What bugs me most about this debate is when poverty industry spokespeople start talking about kids going to school hungry.
No child goes to school hungry because of lack of money. If they do go to school hungry either their parents have spent the money on something else (their choice) or alternatively the parents couldn't be ar$ed giving them breakfast. Again, their choice. Nothing to do with "society".
I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.
Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.
What bugs me most about this debate is when poverty industry spokespeople start talking about kids going to school hungry.
No child goes to school hungry because of lack of money. If they do go to school hungry either their parents have spent the money on something else (their choice) or alternatively the parents couldn't be ar$ed giving them breakfast. Again, their choice. Nothing to do with "society".
How do you know? They use a social issue, bad parenting, and misrepresent it as an economic issue; the child is going to school hungry because they are poor. That's a lie so therefore I have to take from that the poverty industry is more interested in getting more funding than actually helping the child who doesn't get breakfast.The 'poverty lobby', as you call them, are simply interested in the welfare of the child.
Exactly; the issue isn't child poverty, the issue is bad parenting. There is no causal link between income and not getting breakfast. There may be commonality but there is no causality.This may be relayed in the form of calling for additional supports to child welfare officers, schools etc in an effort to intervene in child poverty.
So let me see if I can understand your view.
If you work say, 30yrs+, paying taxes, contributing PRSI etc - it's "your money". But if you are unfortunate to then lose your job and avail of welfare, it then becomes not your money? Is that correct?
It is when it is given to you. You can argue that it shouldn't be given or that it should be given differently but once it is given ownership is transfers with it.Yes, correct. If I become beholden to society, unless ringfenced social insurance funds are introduced, it is not my money.
It is when it is given to you. You can argue that it shouldn't be given or that it should be given differently but once it is given ownership is transfers with it.
From a legal perspective, yes.
It's not their money; it's ours.
How do you know? They use a social issue, bad parenting, and misrepresent it as an economic issue; the child is going to school hungry because they are poor. That's a lie so therefore I have to take from that the poverty industry is more interested in getting more funding than actually helping the child who doesn't get breakfast.
Incidentally my teenage daughter often goes to school without breakfast because she won't get out of bed in the morning and because my ex-wife doesn't "do" cooking. Would an increase in child benefit fix that?
Exactly; the issue isn't child poverty, the issue is bad parenting. There is no causal link between income and not getting breakfast. There may be commonality but there is no causality.
In my opinion the problem is not poverty so the solution is not the targeting of poverty.I think the point would be that despite all the resources available, it is insufficient to deal with the issue of child poverty. That is reflected in instances where some children are still going to school hungry.
I agree. The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school. Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly. Thereofre the problem is not financial.We are not talking about skipping breakfast, we are talking about a hunger derived from an overall bad diet, adversely affecting the child's potential at school.
I've no problem with more resources as long as we first ensure that the resources currently allocated are being spent in the right way.If a child is being neglected, intervention is required. If there aren't enough resources then expect calls for increased expenditure.
Take the money off the parent and give it to the school to fund the breakfast.The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school.
The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school. Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they
I've no problem with more resources as long as we first ensure that the resources currently allocated are being spent in the right way.
Either do I. What point are you making?I don't know of any charity or state agency that is involved with the protection of children that is advocating for more money for parents that neglect their children.
Either do I. What point are you making?
Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly
if you spend your money on fags, and have no money left over to give your kids breakfast before they leave for school, that's YOUR responsibility. Not the governments, not "society's" - YOURS.
But social justice Ireland and their fellow travellers in the poverty industry will never accept that.
I didn't suggest there was. I simply said that doing so achieved nothing.That there is no 'poverty lobby' advocating increased monies to be given to parents who neglect their children, as implied here;
I didn't suggest there was. I simply said that doing so achieved nothing.
I think you are arguing against points that nobody is making.
Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly.
It was indeed, but it wasn't advocated.It was mentioned;
Either am I. Why do you keep bringing it up?I'm not sure who is advocating for giving the parent more money?
Really? Use your imagination.At this point, perhaps you should define who are the 'poverty lobby' as I am not familiar with them.
Either am I. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly.
I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I'm stupid.You stated
Using my imagination, upon your request, I am trying to figure out who, where or when anyone advocated to give parents who neglect their children more money.
I am only doing this because you seem to be suggesting that someone or something did advocate this in the comment above (otherwise why mention it)?.
On the other hand, you seem pretty clear that no-one has actually advocated giving parents who neglect their children more money, so I'm confused now about this 'poverty lobby'.
If no-one is advocating giving extra money to parents who neglect their children, then how can they be labeled the 'poverty lobby'?
I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I'm stupid.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?