The "Poverty Trap" budget

Status
Not open for further replies.

A bit heavy on the generalisations there, no? Some schools are full, some are undersubscribed. Demographic trends change, and the schools that were jammers 5 years ago may well be undersubscribed. I haven't seen those reports of parents queueing overnight for a while now - does that nonsense still go on?
 

As it was pointed out by somebody else, it is unfair for tax paying parents who educate their children privately to be paying for the service they don't avail of. To me, the same should apply to healthcare if proper two-tier system existed. I personally wouldn't want to be paying somebody else's education or medical expenses if an opt-out was possible.


So because there is always a different case scenario, no personal responsibility or accountability should exist? My example was to differentiate between a treatment given to basically a common criminal and a hard working, tax paying citizen who just got unlucky.


What kind of protection are you expecting?
Click to expand...

A link was provided to me to report somebody anonymously, which I did. I wasn't aware that you didn't have to provide any of your own deatails and that you wouldn't have to testify should the fraudster be brought to court. For a start, I wouldn't want my windows broken or my family terrorised.



You can call it an accident but to me it's a rather basic calculation. At least that's how it went in my family. You have as many children as you can feed, clothe, educate and generally provide for comfortably. Having five children while you live in a two bed house and on one minimum wage income is not an accident but selfishness and stupidity.
 
What is unfair is for the State to continue subsidising a two-tier system, whereby some people use the State subsidy to continue and deepen the considerable inequalities in education and healthcare.

I didn't suggest that there was no place for personal responsibility. I simply pointed out some of the very practical difficulties of going down that road. Was the roofer unlucky, or careless? Is the doctor supposed to make that judgement before he provides treatment?

There is a good reason for having a universal emergency care system.


I understand your concern, and I'd share it to some degree. However, I'd imagine that (like in most aspects of life) an anonymous report is given a lot less weight than an attributable report. It's just too easy for anyone to use the anonymous report for a grudge.

There should be no scenario where the person reporting the fraud would end up testifying in court. The evidence of fraud would be gathered by the SW inspector.

You miss the point. The children concern didn't make the judgement that you describe. Yet they get to benefit from the better education or better healthcare of whatever. That's the accident of birth. For two kids born in the same ward in Holles St on the same day, one gets better education and better healthcare, and gets to live longer, and has a better chance of providing better education and better healthcare for their own children. What kind of system penalises one child for their accident of birth?
 
Such a system would work on an after the fact assessment. Treat them first - then bill them if a certain threshold of culpability was reached. There would have to be some sort of fair procedures element to it also - which would mean it could only be used where the costs of the fair procedure process were less than the gains of seeking to recoup costs.
 

No, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.
 

+1.
 

You seem to be assuming that if you don't sent your child to a private schol or attend the Blackrock clinic when ill the reason is because you are a feckless waster who prefers to spend the money on fags, booze and holidays. That is not the case!

Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.

People choose private health insurance to jump ahead of people with public health access. At least with that money is the only consideration.
 
johnd said:
You seem to be assuming that if you don't sent your child to a private schol or attend the Blackrock clinic when ill the reason is because you are a feckless waster who prefers to spend the money on fags, booze and holidays. That is not the case!
Click to expand...
The assume a lot, all of it incorrect. I am simply saying people make choices.

You’ve got a major chip on your shoulder. We moved our special needs son from the local public school to the local private school because a friend had done the same thing with great results. As it’s such a good school we also moved our other son. Before having direct contact with the school I presumed that standards would be lower, special needs would not be catered for and there would be a snobbish attitude from staff and parents. I was wrong on all counts. My daughters are in the local public school because it’s the best school in the area. We’ve had to make major changes at home to pay for the private school but if we do the groundwork now we may avoid spending a fortune on grinds when they are older. We still pay the full cost of sending our children to school (and then some) since we pay fully through our taxes and then again with fees.

johnd said:
People choose private health insurance to jump ahead of people with public health access. At least with that money is the only consideration.
Click to expand...
People choose private health insurance out of fear and because the people who run the public system do such a bad job.
 

And where are you going to set that threshold of culpability? Are smokers culpable? Are obese people culpable? Are speeding drivers culpable? Are unsafe workers culpable? Are parents who both carry the CF gene culpable for reproducing? Where are you going to draw the line?

And what happens where (as is the case with most families) there is no real money available to be recouped?
 
If I were introducing such a system, I'd apply the existing Tort based negligence test. In fact one could probably tie the entire thing into the existing PIAB system. Lines are already drawn and use a reasonableness standard.

Applying to your examples above:
Smokers are culpable;
Obese people may or may not be culpable based on the cause of obesity;
Speeding drivers are culpable;
Unsafe workers are culpable (depending on their level of awareness of the risks they are running) - as well as their employers;
Parents' carrying the CF gene would be exempt on constitutional and human rights grounds - as they would under the current tort system.

And what happens where (as is the case with most families) there is no real money available to be recouped?
Click to expand...
Same thing that happens when a Court Judgement is given and the family is unable to recoup. I'd point out that there may be an issue of misuse of process by any body seeking to recoup costs from someone with no ability to pay.


BTW:
I am merely pointing out that such a system does not have major practical difficulties with its setup - whether people would like such a system or not is a different question.
 

To sum up how you think, you believe that those who choose a private school for their kids,do so for the following reasons;

1) Parents don't want their kids to mix with the "average joe soap".
WRONG; Most of the kids in private schools are the kids of very average people.

2) They don't want their kids hanging around with council estates kids.

WRONG; Their kids would spend 8 years of primary school with kids from all areas and still hang out with them,and there are parents from council estates who have their kids in private schools,the only person that suffers is the kid,who has to put up with the slagging and isolation of the people who seem to think that the parents who do this, think they are better than the rest.

3) They don't want their kids to pal with those from "Less affluent areas".
WRONG: All of the kids in private schools are from a variety of areas..

4) They don't want their kids to pal with those who have a "Common accent".
WRONG: In a particular area,most of the kids speak the same way.

That has to be the biggest load of rubbish I have read in a very long time.
While I dont particulary wish to comment on such utter tripe,( Because to read it says it all), I will say the following.

I would send my kids to any school that didnt have parents who thought like the poster,private,public,RC,Church of Ireland ,educate together,anywhere to keep them away from this horrific/ignorant attitude.

I have had my kids in Private school, Public schools,grind schools, RC schools and Church of Ireland schools..
I also live in an area which has a lot of private schools,and the kids here,who go to the Public schools don't have what the poster calls Common accents,so that is utter rubbish!

The primary schools where I live,have the butcher the baker and the candle stick maker,so lets look at what happens to those kids when they leave 6th class..

They all live in the same area,They have spent 8 years together,some are from council estates some are not,the parents of those kids have all kinds of jobs,some have no work,so what is the deciding factor on which secondary school to send their kids too?

Having known the parents for the best part of the 8 years in primary school and having discussed the various schools and options available,here is the reality..

Some of the parents send their kids to the Public schools,reason is that most of the kids they pal with are going to the same school,and sometimes their brothers/sisters are also in that school and are doing very well.

Some send them to the more "Arty " type schools,reason..because that is the environment they want their kids to be in.They are usually Arty types themselves.

Some go to the Irish schools,(Public ) reason; they usually have a love of the language and want to pass it on.

Some send kids to the private schools, reason,mainly because their friends are also going,they may have brothers/sisters at that school who are doing well.
Some have the money to send their kids to a private school,but choose a public school that they believe better suits their childs needs..
Some dont have the money to send their kids to private schools,so they saved for years,or will sacrifice something to get their kids into the school which best suits their needs.

I do not believe that any parent would send their kids to a school that didn't suit them or that they would be unhappy in..

If the poster thinks that parents who send their kids to private school do so on the basis of the other kids accents,where they live etc ,then it is an incorrect assumption.

Now interestingly,all the kids that spent 8 years in primary school,who then went on to various different types of secondary school, all still keep in contact,and meet up,and go to the local disco and play on the same sports teams etc.

It is no doubt a begrudery ,that would make anyone think otherwise..
I would ask the poster if he has children in private schools? And if not what was the decision to not send them to one?

I would hope like most parents you did what you thought best for your child,sadly you seem to think anyone who doesnt make the same choice as you is doing so just to avoid council estate kids/common accents etc..it is your attitude that needs to be looked at..

Ill finish as I started, if I met parents who sent their kids to school based on the accents of the other kids ,then I wouldn't want my kids to be around such ignorance,and would not send them there.

The logical conclusion is that the parents of kids who have what the poster calls "Common " accents would also be as selective,ie they wouldn't send their kids to a school where the kids are from private estates,or are not "average joe soaps"..
And I don't believe any parent would be so ignorant on either side.

So lets get real here, as someone who has had kids in a variety of schools,public and private, I and most of the parents I know do what is best for the particular child,however if it makes some people feel better to believe that we choose based on the posters assumtions,well good luck to you,thankfully my kids wont be in the same schools!
 
Complainer said:
The current system of legal culpability has its own problems; http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=163435
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the current system does not have problems of the nature you suggest. You do not know the facts surrounding the case in question. If the Defendant involved feels hard done by, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.

If you feel there is something wrong with the current standards, please specify and suggest corrections.
 
Superman said:
If the Defendant involved feels hard done by, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.
Click to expand...

Not true. If the Defendant involved feels hard done by and they have considerable financial resources at their disposal, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.
 

Some do, I have no doubt. These are the vanity brigade. Most don't...these parents want the best start for their children and forego things that they could enjoy for themselves.
 
The country school would still exist as the voucher has to be handed in to a public school as well. However, if some teachers figured out a way to set up a school that would compete for those 14 kids then that would be a good thing; the kids and pat rents would not lose out, they simply have additional choices.

Complainer said:
If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid fully unionised teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.
Click to expand...
Irish teachers are already among the highest paid in Europe. Are you suggesting that Irish teachers are not fully unionized? By those argumentations Ireland should have one of the best systems.

Complainer said:
What is unfair is for the State to continue subsidising a two-tier system, whereby some people use the State subsidy to continue and deepen the considerable inequalities in education and healthcare.
Click to expand...
And how is supporting a two tier system negative for education in general?

Well said!!!
 

Chris, the problem I have with this is that the likelyhood of the teachers setting up a school to attract some or even all of the 14 pupils is remote. It simply would not pay. If the existing school had to rely on vouchers (the same cash value per child) they too would close their doors. The effect I imagine would be fewer, larger schools in urban areas. I could see that working well in countries predominately based on large cities, but apart from Dublin and to a much lesser extent Cork and Limerick, we have a largely dispersed rural population. How would they be educated? Don't get me wrong...I am all in favour of privatisation where possible, but perhaps in this case the voucher system may not be ideal?

Interestingly I suspect the same would apply if bus routes were privatised - the outer locations might not even be served.

Perhaps in both cases, the education / bus routes of entire counties should be put out to tender. ie existing schools/buses services retained and the best provider selected on an annual basis.
 
Private education is no different to private health insurance. The problem in this country is we do everything arseways trying to please everyone. There should not be a two tier system in primary or secondary level education. Wealth or place of birth should not dictate the type of education a child gets. The problem I have is the amount of money the state pours into third level education. This money would be better spent on younger children getting a top quality second level education. If you want to go to third level, you or your parents should pay for it. And let the third level colleges compete against each other. Good luck to them.
 
Firefly said:
Interestingly I suspect the same would apply if bus routes were privatised - the outer locations might not even be served.
Click to expand...

The quality of bus services on the Cavan-Dublin route has plummeted since the law was used to push private coach operators off the route and give Bus Eireann a monopoly. Although the M3 motorway has been built in the meantime, it now takes longer for buses to travel to and from Cavan and Dublin than it did 25 years ago when three or four competitors plied the route.
 

I was thinking more of once-a-day type routes up the Dublin mountains and such. I would imagine the Cavan route is quite busy, yet even here, you have shown how the removal of competition that was in place has adversely affected commuters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register