#Commodore. The threads getting messed up and getting confusing, so Ill start again. I dont want exact equality of wealth. I want equality of opportunity. Im not as wealthy as I could be, but that was my choice. Im happy with the choices I made. I realise the importance of education, and Ive made sure my children have gone to schools which reflect the importance I put on education. I've positively encouraged them to remain in school until they do their leaving certs. Ive told them that I dont mind if they go on to 3rd level education, get a job which provides job specific training and a career path, or do an apprenticeship. What Ive told them Im not doing is paying for their food while they lie on my sofa at the age of 25. Some children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and dont get this encouragement at home. And certainly dont get it from their peer group. As a country it seems we just conveniently forget these lads. And thats not equality of opportunity as far as I see it. As regards what the state can do, more money needs to be spent on parent education in disadvantaged areas, and contacts with youth and social workers pointing out the different life choices that can be made. Im 100% certain that most of the people in those areas are entirely unaware of the grants you speak of. Maybe this obscuring of information is, as you say, motivated by a perceived need to be careful with taxpayers money. But thats a shortsighted and false economy. If you reduced the "cant work, wont work" section of society by 50% say for talks sake, you will save far more on DSP payments than the cost of 3rd level grants and increased numbers of social and youth workers. And thats before taking into account the increase in tax revenue from the 50% that will then be working. You will also save a fortune in other types of social services to do with rehabilitation, from crime and drug and alcohol misuse, law and order expenses, court expenses, and prison expenses.