The "Poverty Trap" budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
orka said:
Yes that's true. If all children were educated publicly, the state would have to pay all costs (building upkeep etc.) rather than just the teachers's salaries.
Click to expand...
The State has paid the capital costs for new buildings in many private schools in recent years, particularly those in the last Minister of Education's constituency of Dun Laoghaire. So we all pay out, but only a privileged few get to use.
 
shnaek said:
Who believes the ESRI? Just look at some of their reports over the last 5 years. Monkeys would have done a better job.
Click to expand...

Which reports were they? Were they by the same researcher as this one? Which aspects of the analysis in this report do you disagree with?
 
The state paid for the capital costs for all Public schools, therefore we all pay for them,however we don't all use them..so complainer what's your point?
 
thedaras said:
The state paid for the capital costs for all Public schools, therefore we all pay for them,however we don't all use them..so complainer what's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that no-one is excluded from using these state-funded facilities in public schools due to lack of money.

Many people are excluded from using the state-funded facilities in private schools due to lack of money.

The State should not be funding private schools.
 
Firefly said:
How about something even more radical....let's slash public spending and taxes?
Click to expand...

Yes radical indeed, but wouldn't that mean politicians admitting that they are the ones responsible for holding back the economy and society? It is certainly a case of where doing less will do more good.
 

11,000 euro for a child in a private school and 17,000 for a child in a non fee paying school.
(open to correction on that)

Complainer,In life there are many things which we cannot avail of ,due to the fact that we cant pay for it.

Examples would/could be Golf clubs/Tennis clubs/private gym membership/After school activity's..of which there are private and public ones.

The state funds a lot of the above,there are community gyms/tennis clubs etc.however they may not have the facilities you want.If you want those facilities, they are available to you ,but you have to pay a fee.. that's life.

Those who earn the money and choose to pay for extra facilities are entitled to do so,as they may argue that they also pay for many things which they dont avail of, like Free GP service, free medical card /rent allowance / back to school allowance..I don't hear them moaning about the fact that they cant use a service or facility which they cant avail of..

The mentality is one of ,if I cant afford to pay for a facility then no one should have it..oh waitaminute.. that's communism..

Both the public and the private schools are state funded,the parents pay fees for the extra facilities .I dont see the logic in your argument..as those who send their kids to private schools not only pay towards both the public and the private schools but also pay fees..

Oh and by the way there are many private schools which I couldn't afford,they have amazing facilities,however I wont be moaning because I cant afford the fees..Im excluded from using those facilities because of money,oh Im also" excluded" from the private golf club and the private tennis club due to lack of money,but I can go to the public court or the public parks..
 
Last edited:

Sure they do. But they also guarantee smaller class sizes for their children.

Glenstal Abbey as an example:



The 30 students in the class scenario will more than likely be found in your average public-funded school.

I am aware of some public funded schools who have had 35 students in some of their senior-cycle classes (specifically science) - madness - not to mention health and safety issues!


Marion
 

Where has the state funded golf clubs? And please don't compare the very modest charges applied in public tennis clubs or gyms to private school fees. It is a different world all together.

This isn't about banning private schools, or stopping people who want to pay for private schools from paying for them. This is about moving the situation that applies in the UK or Germany, where those who want private schooling pay the full economic cost (which is about 4-5 times the cost currently paid in Ireland).
 
Ok,have I got this right;
You want those who can afford to pay for a private school,lets say its 4k, to pay 4 or 5 times more.Lets say that amounts to 20k a year,instead of 4k.

You believe if this happened, the state would no longer have to pay the teachers salaries and the costs of the building fund for private schools.

But now the private school no longer needs this amount of teachers nor do they need the size of building..

If I had to pay 20k a year I and many others couldn't afford it,but perhaps there are those who could .

This in effect would mean I would have to take my child out of private school and send him to a public school,therby increasing the numbers of pupils and the drain on the facilities even more.

But perhaps you also mean that the teachers that the private school would have to let go,should then move to the public schools,(Can they let them go?) but yet the maths doesn't work.. I would have 4k in my pocket each year for 6 years,a gain to me of 24k or 48k before tax..looking good..

Someone would have to make up the shortfall of 6k difference between the public and private school pupils..

Those who remain in the private school paying 20k a year,would have less pupils in their class and the public schools would have more..the tax payer would need to build bigger schools or perhaps more new schools ..Am I missing something?
 
Yes, you're missing quite a lot.

You're missing the fundamental inequity of a state-subsidised two-tier system, whereby some students get the benefit of smaller classes and better equipment, and others don't - simply due to an accident of birth.

You're missing the economies of scale and significant capacity that exists in many public schools.

You're missing the capital costs invested by the State in private schools for the benefit of the few.

You're missing the substantial numbers who will miraculously find the money to pay for the full economic cost of private education once the State subsidy is removed.
 
But perhaps you also mean that the teachers that the private school would have to let go,should then move to the public schools,(Can they let them go?)
Click to expand...

Of course they can.

I have friends and family who have worked as teachers in public funded schools for a number of years. One friend had worked for 3 years in her latest school. She Had worked during lunch hours, spare classes, took on courses that necessitated hours and hours of study - gave far more than was required of her. She was, I would believe, an excellent teacher If over zealous in her giving of time to her students. Her results were excellent.

Her reward this year: - your contact has expired! Bye Bye!

My niece has a first in her degree. She also works in a public school and gives willingly of her time on extra-curricular school stuff. Her results are also excellent.

Her reward: After 4 years her hours were reduced. She now has a CID on less hours and is paid accordingly.

Such is life in the public sector school. Most new teachers are not permanent staff. They are contract workers.

Marion
 
I think the travel pass scheme needs reforming

People with the pass should pay something, even a small fee of fifty cent for a city bus

There are days on my bus where there are more passengers with passes then paying fares. I wonder if this is the new business model....

And suprise suprise, these are mainly the ones who go to the backseats smoking, drinking and hassling people.
I think people with issues with drugs qualify through disability.

People don't respect what they get for free.
Should pay something
And some of those passes look extremly dodgy, little more then battered pieces of cardboard.
Prime Time did a show a few years ago and showed they are fake passes all over the place

This could be introduced overnight
More revenue and hopefully less messers on my bus
And when we sort out the passes issue we can link up with Translink up North, they refuse to deal with us now due to all the fake passes and nobody knows what's out there
Can't fail
 

I think that's the crux of the problem....contract workers in the public schools getting let go / their hours reduced as the permanent staff get their increments for turning up. As there is no proper performance management in the public system, the permanent staff have no incentive to be the best, nor the fear of being the worst.

The simple fact is that if the public schools were better, then, excluding those who send their kids to private schools for vanity reasons, there would be very little demand for private schools in the first place.
 

You're missing the contrary point that Church of Ireland schools in rural areas must charge fees in order to be viable as they do not have sufficient population numbers. Withdrawing all state support from such schools would be an absolute scandal, in my view.
 

The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.
 
Complainer said:
The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.
Click to expand...

I think for that to be fair, then all involvement in public schools by the Catholic Church should end immediately. If you then wanted your child to be educated in a Catholic Church you should then have to pay as per other religions.
 
Complainer said:
The State should not be subsidising any minority religion. If people want to educate their children in a particular religion, any additional costs should be covered by the families concerned, not by the State.
Click to expand...
Isn't state treatment of minorities one of the yardsticks of how civilised that state is?
 
Husker said:
Which reports were they? Were they by the same researcher as this one? Which aspects of the analysis in this report do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Have a look at this article by McWilliams:

[broken link removed]

Here's a sample:

"Even by 2008, when fellas in pubs could feel the heat, you would expect the dozens of well-paid economists in the ESRI to be twigging that something was going pear-shaped, but no, the ESRI released a forecast for the Irish economy, predicting that for the next seven years Ireland would “grow by 3.75pc on average per annum

The point here is not to have a go at the ESRI — we all make mistakes — but to show that trusting an institution like that, which hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, might not be the cleverest thing to do.”

It went on to say that, after a blip in 2009, “the economy would continue to outperform its EU neighbours”. Consistently since 2005, it said that a “soft landing” in the property market was the most likely outcome, with a collapse a “possibility” . . . but just that.

The point here is not to have a go at the ESRI — we all make mistakes — but to show that trusting an institution like that, which hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, might not be the cleverest thing to do."
 
Complainer said:
You're missing the substantial numbers who will miraculously find the money to pay for the full economic cost of private education once the State subsidy is removed.
Click to expand...

This is unrealistic. There are plenty of people who could afford €5k p.a. per child but not so many who could afford €20k p.a. per child. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.

I think it's no stretch to admit making people pay the full economic cost would be the equivalent of banning private education for all those except the very wealthiest.

In any case the issue is that the average citizen already pays for education, old age pensions and healthcare (amongst other things) that they might universally hope to benefit from.

"Two tier system" has been used as a toxic term by successive socialist commentators, but how far do we go with a one-tier system?

Education - Should no parent be able to direct their means to provide their child with a better education without kissing goodbye to the already substantial amount they contribute towards general education costs through taxation?

Healthcare - Should no individual be able to direct their means towards providing better healthcare for their families.

Retirement provision - Should no individual be able to prudently provide for a better standard of living for themselves in retirement without losing entitlement to what are currently universal retirement benefits?

If your answer to any/all of the above is yes, you are telling individuals that they have no right to direct their means as they see appropriate. Rather they must rely on the state to decide on an appropriate distribution of resources towards education, health, social protection, etc and accept that whatever the state cannot provide them with (based on the government's or even the EU/IMFs views on what the priorities are), they cannot have.
 

Very much agree here. Key word in about post being infinite. I was criticised before for giving out about the 'career' long term unemployed. I think that there should be a level of personal responsibility included when making decisions about somebody's entitlements. For example: I don't think that a boy racer who stole a car and wrapped it around the lamp post and killed somebody in the process should receive the same level of disability and benefits as a roofer who fell off the roof in his line of work.

Unfortunately, the social welfare policies of Ireland have created a whole culture which have already spread from one generation on to the other thus creating a poverty trap for a portion of the society. There are 16 year olds who genuinely believe that the way forward is to get pregnant, get a council house, benefits, etc. because that's what their mothers did.

I would be inclined to belive that those rapidly heading towards the poverty trap are families where jobs were lost in recent years yer every effort is made to keep on top of bills, mortgages, etc. out of social welfare. Most of those would also be desperately trying to get back into workforce and I don['t think they should be affected by the upcoming budget.

I am not saying that unemployed, disabled and elderly should be given nothing but I think that there should be caps introduced and that the policing of the benefits recepients should be very strong and continuous in order to minimise abuse. I also think that the state should somehow incentivise reports of genuine abuse. We can all play dumb and pretend that people over-claiming benefits or claiming while working for cast are purely fictional and only an excuse or the rest to complain but I can supply at least five names of abusers at a drop of a hat. However, there is not protection offered (as far as I am aware) for doing so, so I keep my mouth shut and rage internally.

It really saddens me that there is no grasp that all this benefits money needs to be borrowed and the longer we keep borrowing, the longer it is going to take us to collectively get back on our feet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register