Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Sept 17, 2008 0:50:59 GMT
An interesting article I came across about poverty in Ireland... one million!!!
Poverty in Ireland
Written by Brian Trench and Pat Brennan
Tuesday, 29 April 1980
One million people in the Republic of Ireland live in poverty. Poverty is endemic to Irish society and extends not just to the unemployed, the travellers, and the slum-dwellers, but reaches right into the middle classes.In Ireland, social inequality is greater than in any other EEC country. The proportion of total income which goes to the poorest 30% is smaller here than elsewhere in the EEC, while the richest 30% here get a higher proportion of total income than the EEC average. The 300,000 at the top of the pile receive six times the income which goes to the 500,000 at the bottom.
Up to one million people living in the 26 Counties face a constant struggle to provide themselves with the basic necessities of food, accommodation and clothing. They llre debarred from many experiences which the majority of the population take for granted: holidays, entertainment and home comforts. Their expectations are low; they can have little hope of escape from their social ghetto, and even less of a chance to participate in political life and begin to do away with the ghetto.
Few recognise these large numbers at the bottom of the social pile as living in poverty. The fairly recent memories of children without shoes, of widespread insanitary housing and of malnutrition define for many what it is to be poor. The last twenty years of accelerated economic development have dulled sensibilities to the inequities which have survived that process. Nearly one million people do not have access to services and resources which most accept as part of their normal life-style and environment. 400,000 depend on state benefits which they only receive after a means test has demonstrated that they need welfare support. A total of nearly 800,000 of whom over one third are children, are exclusively or largely dependent on weekly social welfare or health board payments. The average weekly income of £30 which the social welfare dependants "enjoy" is, in anybody's book, very low. But the state services and official bodies have recognised that poverty and the need for income support stretch to nearly twice that amount for the average household, Le. just below £60 for a couple with two children.
About 40 per cent of the population, or 1 ¼ million, are covered by medical cards for doctors' and chemists' fees. As of January 1980, the income limit for a couple and two children is £57 - before expenses on housing are considered.
The committee reporting to the Minister for Justice on civil legal aid and advice, and chaired by Justice Denis Pringle, reckoned that the same proportion of the population would be able to contribute "very little, if anything at all" towards the costs of such legal services. They suggested a threshold of £45 per week for a couple and two children in 1977, which is equivalent to about £56 per week at today's prices.
Up to that same threshold state benefits and taxes give households more in their hand as spending power than does their initial cash income, usually wages. The redistribution of income effected through taxation and transfers gives people a disposable income which is higher than their direct income when this is two thirds of the average, or less, is below £60.
Above that limit, taxation and transfers tab away from their purchasing power. However, the increase effected by state benefits is marginal - less than 10 per cent on average for households around the poverty line and certainly not enough to take them out of poverty. These calculations do not take account of the impact of state spending on education which tilts the balance of it.
This, then, can be set as a welfare or poverty line: two thirch of the average income. The state recognises it in several formal and informal ways. Applied to household incomes or to personal incomes, that limit shows consistently one third of the population below it. But these are not evenly distributed throughout the country as the slight drop in the proportion of rural households with incomes less than two thirds of the national average is about 40 per cent while that of urban households is below 30 per cent.
Peter Townsend, Britain's leading poverty researcher and author of a recent mammoth work on the subject, has suggested that people with less than half the average income are in poverty and that those between one half and four fifths are on the margins of poverty and likely to move in and out of the lower category. The two-thirds of-average limit which emerges from an analysis of Irish household incomes falls neatly into the middle of Townsend's margin band.
The people who have incomes equivalent to two thirds of the national average or less are a much more sizeable but less easily identified group than the travellers, slum-dwel. lers, old people living alone, or struggling small-farm families on the Western seaboard who are most commonly associated with the notion of poverty. They reach into the new suburbs, even into the middle class.
The one million people whose incomes come comfortably inside the two-thirds-of-average limit don't all have particular problems of old age, unemployment, single parent. hood, although poverty for someone with any or all of those conditions is almost inescapable. Nearly half of the poorest 30 per cent of households are families with dependent children and in just less than half of those, one of the parents is working. The size of the family and the size of the pay-packet weigh very heavily in the balance of circumstances which lead to poverty.
For families with children, the chances of falling into poverty increase as the cost of providing for the children increases, that is, as they get older, but before they bring in another income. For single people, the chances of falling into poverty increase with age above 55.
Single women are much more likely to be poor than single men, whether they are deserted or separated wives struggling to provide for children on state benefits, or unmarried working and suffering the still effective discrimination of unequal pay. Approximately equal numbers of single men and single women were assessed for income tax in the last year for which details are available (1977); the average income of the women was three quarters the average for men. Women outnumber men by a large margin in the one million people who live in poverty. The margin is 3: I in the very poorest 100,000 of those.
Less than half of the total number of people drawing unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance come into the poorest 30 per cent of households as do less than half of those receiving state pensions. But a very slight movement of the income threshold upwards would probably show the bulk of these clustered just over the margin. The additional incomes from supplementary allowances, part· time work, other members of the family, or pensions from former employment put them outside the chosen statistical bracket - but not necessarily outside the ranks of the poor.
Poverty in Ireland
Written by Brian Trench and Pat Brennan
Tuesday, 29 April 1980
One million people in the Republic of Ireland live in poverty. Poverty is endemic to Irish society and extends not just to the unemployed, the travellers, and the slum-dwellers, but reaches right into the middle classes.In Ireland, social inequality is greater than in any other EEC country. The proportion of total income which goes to the poorest 30% is smaller here than elsewhere in the EEC, while the richest 30% here get a higher proportion of total income than the EEC average. The 300,000 at the top of the pile receive six times the income which goes to the 500,000 at the bottom.
Up to one million people living in the 26 Counties face a constant struggle to provide themselves with the basic necessities of food, accommodation and clothing. They llre debarred from many experiences which the majority of the population take for granted: holidays, entertainment and home comforts. Their expectations are low; they can have little hope of escape from their social ghetto, and even less of a chance to participate in political life and begin to do away with the ghetto.
Few recognise these large numbers at the bottom of the social pile as living in poverty. The fairly recent memories of children without shoes, of widespread insanitary housing and of malnutrition define for many what it is to be poor. The last twenty years of accelerated economic development have dulled sensibilities to the inequities which have survived that process. Nearly one million people do not have access to services and resources which most accept as part of their normal life-style and environment. 400,000 depend on state benefits which they only receive after a means test has demonstrated that they need welfare support. A total of nearly 800,000 of whom over one third are children, are exclusively or largely dependent on weekly social welfare or health board payments. The average weekly income of £30 which the social welfare dependants "enjoy" is, in anybody's book, very low. But the state services and official bodies have recognised that poverty and the need for income support stretch to nearly twice that amount for the average household, Le. just below £60 for a couple with two children.
About 40 per cent of the population, or 1 ¼ million, are covered by medical cards for doctors' and chemists' fees. As of January 1980, the income limit for a couple and two children is £57 - before expenses on housing are considered.
The committee reporting to the Minister for Justice on civil legal aid and advice, and chaired by Justice Denis Pringle, reckoned that the same proportion of the population would be able to contribute "very little, if anything at all" towards the costs of such legal services. They suggested a threshold of £45 per week for a couple and two children in 1977, which is equivalent to about £56 per week at today's prices.
Up to that same threshold state benefits and taxes give households more in their hand as spending power than does their initial cash income, usually wages. The redistribution of income effected through taxation and transfers gives people a disposable income which is higher than their direct income when this is two thirds of the average, or less, is below £60.
Above that limit, taxation and transfers tab away from their purchasing power. However, the increase effected by state benefits is marginal - less than 10 per cent on average for households around the poverty line and certainly not enough to take them out of poverty. These calculations do not take account of the impact of state spending on education which tilts the balance of it.
This, then, can be set as a welfare or poverty line: two thirch of the average income. The state recognises it in several formal and informal ways. Applied to household incomes or to personal incomes, that limit shows consistently one third of the population below it. But these are not evenly distributed throughout the country as the slight drop in the proportion of rural households with incomes less than two thirds of the national average is about 40 per cent while that of urban households is below 30 per cent.
Peter Townsend, Britain's leading poverty researcher and author of a recent mammoth work on the subject, has suggested that people with less than half the average income are in poverty and that those between one half and four fifths are on the margins of poverty and likely to move in and out of the lower category. The two-thirds of-average limit which emerges from an analysis of Irish household incomes falls neatly into the middle of Townsend's margin band.
The people who have incomes equivalent to two thirds of the national average or less are a much more sizeable but less easily identified group than the travellers, slum-dwel. lers, old people living alone, or struggling small-farm families on the Western seaboard who are most commonly associated with the notion of poverty. They reach into the new suburbs, even into the middle class.
The one million people whose incomes come comfortably inside the two-thirds-of-average limit don't all have particular problems of old age, unemployment, single parent. hood, although poverty for someone with any or all of those conditions is almost inescapable. Nearly half of the poorest 30 per cent of households are families with dependent children and in just less than half of those, one of the parents is working. The size of the family and the size of the pay-packet weigh very heavily in the balance of circumstances which lead to poverty.
For families with children, the chances of falling into poverty increase as the cost of providing for the children increases, that is, as they get older, but before they bring in another income. For single people, the chances of falling into poverty increase with age above 55.
Single women are much more likely to be poor than single men, whether they are deserted or separated wives struggling to provide for children on state benefits, or unmarried working and suffering the still effective discrimination of unequal pay. Approximately equal numbers of single men and single women were assessed for income tax in the last year for which details are available (1977); the average income of the women was three quarters the average for men. Women outnumber men by a large margin in the one million people who live in poverty. The margin is 3: I in the very poorest 100,000 of those.
Less than half of the total number of people drawing unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance come into the poorest 30 per cent of households as do less than half of those receiving state pensions. But a very slight movement of the income threshold upwards would probably show the bulk of these clustered just over the margin. The additional incomes from supplementary allowances, part· time work, other members of the family, or pensions from former employment put them outside the chosen statistical bracket - but not necessarily outside the ranks of the poor.