Eddie Hobbs - Show Me The Money - the Belly Dancer

OK - I'm back in lefty pinko mood now. No - based on , mother & child would not be considered to be in poverty.
 
LIVERLIPS said:
She says she has to get the 7 year old what he puts on the list as he wants them.
Click to expand...

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

OH NO SHE DOESN'T !
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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...
Click to expand...


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
 
Brendan said:
If RTE wants to help people, they should aim to inform and motivate rather than to entertain
Click to expand...

That's my whole point. I think they've gone for entertainment value over information and education.
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
Click to expand...
Isn't that consistent relative poverty?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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!
 
sherib said:
I think all of us know the meaning of poverty and are thankful that we have never experienced it.
Click to expand...

How do you know that no AAM contributor has ever experienced poverty?
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
Originally posted by ClubMan
How do you know that no AAM contributor has ever experienced poverty?
Click to expand...
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
[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.
.

 
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.................
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register