Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
CLOSE TO THREE in ten people who are “severely limited by a health problem” are at risk of poverty.
That compares to a figure of one in 10 for those “not limited” by a health problem.
That’s according to data published today by the Central Statistics Office on poverty indicators by health status.
It’s part of the CSO’s “Survey on Income and Living Conditions” (SILC) for 2022.
The SILC is a household survey that covers a broad range of topics related to income and living conditions.
As part of the SILC survey, respondents aged 16 and over were asked if they were “limited because of a health problem in activities people usually do”.
Those who said they were “severely limited” were then asked if they have been limited for “at least the past six months”.
Respondents who said they were severely limited in usual activities for at least six months prior to their interview date are those classified as “severely limited”.
Among the “severely limited” cohort, 27.4% were deemed to be “at risk of poverty”, meaning they have a disposable income that is 40% less than the median disposable income.
More than one in five (22.8%) of those severely limited by a health problem are unable to afford to adequately heat their home, compared to around one in 20 (5.8%) for those not limited.
Close to a quarter (24%) of those severely limited are unable to afford to buy new clothes, compared to 6.8% for those not limited by health problems.
Meanwhile, just under one in five (19.4%) of those severely limited are unable to afford to get together with friends or family once a month for a drink or a meal.
This figure is 7.5% for those not limited by a health problem.
In addition to this, one in five (20.5%) households with a severely limited household member reported at least one occasion over the past year where they failed to pay a utility bill on time due to financial pressures.
This compared to 7.1% of households where no one was described as having their activity limited due to health problems.
The “consistent poverty” rate for people severely limited due to a health problem was also four times higher than the rate for those not limited, at 14.1% compared to 3.5%.
Consistent poverty is described as those who are both “at risk of poverty” and experience two or more “enforced deprivations”.
Enforced deprivation includes going without heating at some stage in the past year, being unable to afford new clothes, being unable to replace worn-out furniture, and being unable to buy presents for friends or family at least once a year.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Great to see – now lets really tackle packaging waste and force business to make the environmentally correct choice when choosing their packaging – We need to get rid of plastic bottles, plastic wrapping and one off coffee cups and lids
@brian boru:
Bring in another tax…..
@P.J. Nolan: not all taxes are bad – some make sense and others are just greedy – if taxes make it cost effective for a business to do the right thing then it is a good tax in my book. Some are greedy and corrupt like the Irish water plan and need to be fought but smart taxation can be beneficial to society.
All the chocolate bar companies have moved to plastic wrapping because it costs less. Like wise the soft drink companies have moved to plastic bottles because they are prettier. Neither are thinking about the environment and need to be forced to rethink their packaging plans. Taxation is the fastest route to getting these huge companies to change their game plan at the speed we need it to happen.
@brian boru: I would be far more comfortable if chocolate bars once again came in paper and foil. I know they wont recycle the foil but i’m sure it does far less than damage to the environment than plastic.
@Darren Byrne: The plastic gives a longer shelf life so the chocolate companies are using it to give them higher margins at the cost of the environment. Regulatory needs to step in and drive a higher cost to the manufacturer for using the plastic due to the environmental cost. Am sure if the right pressure was applied a solution could be arranged that worked for everyone. The only lever I can think of in this situation is taxation as expecting people to make the change will take generations.
@brian boru: I’m sure it does give longer shelf life, but surely chocolate is a fast-selling item with a high turnover rate? And once bought? I’ve often eaten a square or two and put it away for a week or so, okay, I’m odd, but a lot of people seem to eat bars very quickly once they have some in the house – I’ve even heard of people freezing a bar to keep it for later. I honestly don’t see chocolate as being in any danger of going off before it’s consumed.
It’s fantastic the system works, now let’s solve the plastic bottles ( bottle water ) and the coffee cup problem .
Great and more to be done… especially with plastic
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/plasticpledge/?beta=true
Where are all the reusable items stripped out of the WEEE appliances. Is it Ireland, UK, Europe.
Surely it’s not Africa where all that toxic stuff is released in both the air and the soil/water, by burning all that plastic stuff that covers wires and other components by folks trying to scrape a living together ?
Any answers appreciated. Hope I’m wrong.
Is a dildo a small appliance? Just asking
@Seriously stunned: that all depends on the wife’s choice in style
@Seriously stunned: that all depends on the wife’s choice in style
If domestic appliances were designed and built to last longer than the now average 5 to 10 years lifespan then recycling would be greatly reduced.The average lifespan of some appliances twenty or thirty years ago was averaging ten to twenty years .Most appliances now have built in obsolescence.
Great, but after the specials on Aldi and Lidl this Sunday, we’ll need extra capacity!
You are going to have a great bunch of lads moistening their lips when you talk about that much copper
This just demonstrates the amount of junk we buy throw out and replace. Thats not sustainable
have your say