View Full Version : Poverty in Britain?
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 10:57
We often hear politicians speaking about those in poverty, but what does this actually mean in real terms? From my experience, it doesn't mean, for example, living on social security payments, which include housing, heating, rates, food and clothes; not to mention, for some, mobile 'phones, cigarettes and alcohol! Aren't the essentials in life supplied, courtesy of the taxpayer? Compare our situation to the plight of those in the third world and I'm really confused by the definition of poverty, when applied to Britain. Would appreciate any thoughts you may have. :confused
When both of us were at the height of our earning powers, we had an annual income which was very comfortable and generous. My wife worked for the DSS/DWP (Department of Stealth and Total Obscurity.) One day she came home shaking her head. She had received some bad news from the department.
We were official "in poverty".
It turned out that
a) We didn't have a car (neither of us has ever driven)
b) We didn't take foreign holidays (happier at home)
c) We didn't have a dishwasher (well, there was me!)
d) We didn't eat at restaurants (loved home cooking)
e) A lot more guff like the above.
By "poverty" HMG and UK society as a whole seem to mean "comparative poverty". This is an insidious concept, as it can be adjusted and tweaked with the politics of envy.
My Auntie Eve and Uncle Jack lived in a 2 bed cottage with no central heating, single glazing, and outside toilet and no bathroom, as well as a postage stamp kitchen and a tiny lounge/diner. Jack was the only breadwinner, on a driver's salary. They were extremely happy in the 1960s. Would they have been so happy in the same circumstances now?
Wikipedia has a good explanation of the different types of poverty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom
PMCD is right that the definition of Relative poverty is fluid but there is a difference between having the choice to do all of the above and it is easy when you read and hear things like PMCD mentions to dismiss poverty and not take it seriously but it does exist.
Today there are people living in absolute poverty in Britain. Take the story of Mark and Helen Mullins http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-15645206. There are people who have to choose between heating their home and eating, who need food banks to survive, and who live in poor housing or have no home at all.
The Child Poverty Action group says that Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong. Apart from a lack of resources though, addiction, family breakdown and mental health, Old age, caring responsibilities can all contribute to poverty. If you are truly wanting to understand the issues around poverty then I would suggest that you take some time to volunteer with some of the charities that are working to eradicate poverty.
(http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/what-is-poverty#footnote1_2r4egh6)
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 13:50
I'm afraid I consider your post to be extremely presumptuous, Squidge. I thought PMCD wrote a very interesting and "serious" response to my query. He/She wrote of their personal experiences, which I believe to be valid and worthy of consideration. I also happen to agree with many of his/her points, as perhaps others do.
I'd also add, that I am a hospital volunteer; specialising in feeding geriatric patients on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. It's been reported that some elderly folks have starved to death whilst in care and I don't disbelieve it. But, in my experience that wasn't the result of inadequate funds or the availability of food. Poverty played no part, but you can't buy caring no matter how much cash you throw at problems.
I've been very poor in my time, but never in 'poverty,' as I understand the word. I'm currently on a basic state pension and with careful budgeting it's suffice to provide me with my essentials and a few extras. I'm just grateful to the taxpaying workers who provide additional income like the Cold Weather Payments, etc. I'm too busy counting my blessings to sit around complaining about what the world and its' workers owes me. :)
M Swanson I think you presume too. As I said PMCD is RIGHT however with a note of caution that it is easy to dismiss poverty by taking what PMCD says and assumimng that there are not people living in serious deprivation and poverty in Britain today
You asked for a definition of poverty and I gave you several. I also suggested that volunteering with some charities dealing with poverty is a good way to understand the issues. I am not suggesting that people are in poverty who are in care homes but more those who are caring for people who in the home on carers allowances or not.
I too have been poor in my time and I remember not long after my marriage had ended one of my boys asked if we were poor because we had NO money and I was struggling to heat the house and eat. I remember replying - no we are not poor we are skint. There is a difference but because poverty does not affect us does not mean that it doesnt affect anyone.
There is plenty of evidence to show that people ARE living in poverty in Britain today if you look.
On rare occasions, it is the politicians that choose to live in poverty...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20243493
And to square the circle, I do agree with Squidge: there is absolute poverty in the UK. especially amongst the elderly, the young, the physically and mentally ill, and the inevitable ones who through bad luck and lack of care fall through the net. It is all of our jobs to try to alleviate this suffering, as the blight of poverty around us shames us in turn - if only in spirit. Even if it's only the "widow's mite", try to give of your time, your pocket, or your heart - it'll make YOU feel richer, too!
I've been very poor in my time, but never in 'poverty,' as I understand the word. I'm currently on a basic state pension and with careful budgeting it's suffice to provide me with my essentials and a few extras. I'm just grateful to the taxpaying workers who provide additional income like the Cold Weather Payments, etc. I'm too busy counting my blessings to sit around complaining about what the world and its' workers owes me. :)
Would you consider yourself to be in "poverty" if your pension was almost halved & you lost all your additional income like the Cold Weather Payments, etc?
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 20:25
If, or when that day ever arrived, I would answer this question, Alrock. But if you're a gambler, I would put a few bob on me surviving. :D
To be serious, I wonder if anyone can provide a link to the number of Britons who die from starvation, excluding victims of abuse or neglect, please? It's on record that 1 in 11 deaths are linked to obesity, but nothing to give us an idea of how many are as a direct result of poverty.
rich62_uk
15-Nov-12, 21:00
There was an item on the radio recently about a single mother who frequently goes without food to feed your one child. This according to the program was a fairly common thing.
If, or when that day ever arrived, I would answer this question, Alrock. But if you're a gambler, I would put a few bob on me surviving. :D
To be serious, I wonder if anyone can provide a link to the number of Britons who die from starvation, excluding victims of abuse or neglect, please? It's on record that 1 in 11 deaths are linked to obesity, but nothing to give us an idea of how many are as a direct result of poverty.
Obesity is a sign of poverty. Healthy food costs more. Poor people live on cheap junk food, cheap burgers, chips, anything that will give most calories per pound. They eat a lot of cheap carbohydrates and not enough expensive protein.
The incidence of obesity in children is higher in deprived areas than the affluent areas.
If 1 in 11 deaths are linked to obesity then that is how many are linked to poverty.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.short
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 23:40
Really? I find this incredulous Fred. I don't live on junk food and I can make a tasty, nutritious pot of stew, which lasts three days, for less than the cost of one cheeseburger and chips from McD's. I have many different recipes and can adequately feed myself by prudent shopping and using time to make my own meals. I am not overweight and healthy for my age.
It's a fact, that people were never fitter, or healthier than during WW2, despite vast shortages and rationing. Obesity was almost never a problem then, yet many people were poorer than they are these days and still managed to work harder, over longer hours. Maybe they had different priorities on how they spent their income and put more effort into the food they fed their family? This makes much more sense to me than a few reports drawn-up by those with perhaps, a political interest in such conclusions. The wartime facts speak for themselves, imo.
Do you have any evidence that "1 in 11 deaths are linked to obesity," and "poverty," please Fred?
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 23:58
There was an item on the radio recently about a single mother who frequently goes without food to feed your one child. This according to the program was a fairly common thing.
I recently saw a story on the BBC about a young woman who described a similar plight to the one you mention Rich. She looked very healthy to me; was smartly dressed, lived in a tidy, well-equipped flat in London and wore what looked like two gold bangles and a necklace. Any sympathy I may have had evaporated. I wonder how many truly starving people in the Third World would trade places in a heartbeat?
Im a bit confused - are you saying that there is no poverty in the uk today?
Im a bit confused - are you saying that there is no poverty in the uk today?
To whom are you posing this question Squidge?
Really? I find this incredulous Fred. I don't live on junk food and I can make a tasty, nutritious pot of stew, which lasts three days, for less than the cost of one cheeseburger and chips from McD's.....
Bit extravagant that... eating out at McD's... How much tasty stew could you make for £1 (http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=274578789)? (Don't forget to factor in the fuel costs in cooking when comparing, I'm guessing that the burger & chips would use about 700W for 3 or 4 mins)
To whom are you posing this question Squidge?
Anyone who wants to answer it Golach
Really? I find this incredulous Fred.
Well I'll believe the numerous reports and surveys then and you can just carry on believing what you want to believe.
Bit extravagant that... eating out at McD's... How much tasty stew could you make for £1 (http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=274578789)? (Don't forget to factor in the fuel costs in cooking when comparing, I'm guessing that the burger & chips would use about 700W for 3 or 4 mins)
That's not bad, 510 calories for £1, you'd have to eat four bowls of stew to get that.
rob murray
16-Nov-12, 17:37
That's not bad, 510 calories for £1, you'd have to eat four bowls of stew to get that.
Surely you have to break down the term poverty ? The unwaged ( basic pension, sick, unemployed, waged but aged below 18 in unskilled jobs ) are all on subsistence rates,the lowest rung in the ladder, so in relative terms, the worst off in scoiety have to be living on, and just above the basic poverty line, no income whatsoever is absolute poverty ie by third world terms.
M Swanson
16-Nov-12, 19:49
Bit extravagant that... eating out at McD's... How much tasty stew could you make for £1 (http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=274578789)? (Don't forget to factor in the fuel costs in cooking when comparing, I'm guessing that the burger & chips would use about 700W for 3 or 4 mins)
Strange question, Alrock. Why on earth would I want to make a £1'sworth of stew? It's bad economics. :) A 1/4lb cheeseburger and chips costs a few pennies short of £4. I can make 3-4 tasty portions of stew for that much. It's difficult to calculate the cost of the fuel, because I batch cook! I would estimate 25p for the stew, give, or take! It's the way to go for those on a low income, like me! Bon apetite! ;)
M Swanson
16-Nov-12, 19:56
Well I'll believe the numerous reports and surveys then and you can just carry on believing what you want to believe.
Think I'll stick with the indisputable WW2 facts, Fred. Rationing lasted 14 years and the health of the nation was never better; including the poor. Sorted! However, I never have a problem agreeing to disagree! :)
billmoseley
16-Nov-12, 20:05
I think a lot of pensioners live in poverty but would never admit it and i think some young families do. But what worries me more are the one who claim to live in poverty yet still have a smoke and drink computers sky tv etc all of which are luxuries. And before anyone has a dig at me yes i have been there and yes i did give up all the above. i was lucky i managed to climb back out of poverty.
Seems there are some here who only see poverty when it's in the form of a Band Aid video with plenty of flies and distended bellies. I suppose that makes it easier to turn a blind eye to the homeless on our streets or the children who rely on school lunches for basic nutrition because they just don't get it at home.
Think I'll stick with the indisputable WW2 facts, Fred. Rationing lasted 14 years and the health of the nation was never better; including the poor. Sorted! However, I never have a problem agreeing to disagree! :)
Totally irrelevant.
Now if you go back to Alrock's post you will see the "£1" is a different colour to the rest of the text. If you click on it you will see it links to an advert for Tesco cheesburger and chips for £1. I looked them up and they have 520 calories.
You say you can make 3 or 4 portions of stew for £4, four times the price and less calories.
The poor just can't afford to eat stew at over four times the price per calorie.
M Swanson
16-Nov-12, 23:48
:lol: I can't believe you're being serious Fred. How anyone can place the value of a £1 cheeseburger as comparable to a meat and five veg stew, is beyond me, but whatever floats your boat. :)
The only thing that is "totally irrelevant," is that you should link my post about WW2 facts, to your response about Tesco's. Hmmmmm!
I posed the question, "what is the definition of poverty," because I honestly didn't know the answer. Well, I still don't, but I must say, that to use the classification of "absolute poverty," is to completely devalue the word, imo. I care passionately about people starving in the world and am very mindful that a child dies, every four seconds in Africa, from malnutrition and it doesn't get more "absolute" than that. I'm aware that some people die in Britain, because of abuse, or neglect and have asked for the figures for starvation, but there has been no response. Google couldn't help either. Prior to posting I had not seriously considered that politics could muddy the issue, but I begin to wonder now if that might be so. After all, the word "poverty," quite rightly imo, evokes strong feelings and it can also provide a lethal weapon for those who use it as a stick to beat a Government, not of their choosing. I do hope I'm wrong, because to place any political ideology over the truth and best interests of people is despicable. What say you, Fred. :(
:lol: I can't believe you're being serious Fred.
Well you had better start believing it. I am quoting hard facts and academic research and they trump your silly beliefs and anecdotal evidence every time.
The £1 cheeseburger meal is a great example. Its not simply about buying ingredients though - there is the cost of cooking them. If you are on a limited income you may have to choose between a quick meal like the tesco cheeseburger and cooking a stew which will take a couple of hours and use more electricity if you need your fiver on your key card to last for more than a few days. Then there is the cost of getting to the shops - many people on limited income dont run a car, they often cant afford a bus to the supermarkets which are generally out of towns and so they cant access the deals or the choice. They often have to rely on local shops which dont have a good selection of veg or meat but plenty of cheap ready meals. housing can also be a contributing factor too - poor housing with poor heating and insulation or storage heaters which EAT electricity and therefore your credit on a card meter are scarily good at eating up your weekly budget. A bag of coal is £15 these days.
I can make a meal out of a bag of tatties and half a pound of mince and many many times I have had to. But thats only ok if you have the electricity to cook the damn meal first - if you dont then its pot noodles or microwave cheap . or nothing!
I dont understand the point of view that says "look at me I manage" and thinks that is all there is. Anyone watch the Ross Kemp programme on Glasgow? Anyone read the link I gave at the start of this? Anyone check out Child Poverty Action Group? OR look at the Joseph Rowntree foundation or Barnardos or the help the aged pages or carers support group pages? Anyone watch children in need tonight? These organisations have existed for many years - the CPAG since 1965, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation since 1904, Barnardos since 1866. These organisations have "beaten successive governments - not simply the ones that they dont agree with for years and years... And I hope they continue to do so. As long as poverty exists then we SHOULD be beating those with the purse strings to work really hard to change things.
If you have looked at all the infomation available and you think poverty isnt blighting lives right here in the UK, Right here in Scotland day after day after day then you are CHOOSING not to see. Rather than congratulating ourselves on how well we manage we need to be talking about what to do about it. I think you all know where I would start!
M Swanson
17-Nov-12, 09:44
Well you had better start believing it. I am quoting hard facts and academic research and they trump your silly beliefs and anecdotal evidence every time.
Steady Freddie! :) A little more positive thinking may be the order of the day. We haven't even touched on education, responsible behaviour, good home management and bartering, etc., to offer some hope to the poor for a brighter future. I do find it a tad ironic, that I've declared my low income, (am I in poverty? Heavens forfend! :)) and yet my "beliefs" are trashed by the few. Funny that! Nae matter. Each to their own, I say.
I can make a meal out of a bag of tatties and half a pound of mince and many many times I have had to. But thats only ok if you have the electricity to cook the damn meal first - if you dont then its pot noodles or microwave cheap . or nothing!
The average price of standard minced beef is £4.61 kg now. That half pound of mince will cost over a pound. Or should I say £1.15 for 250g
Days are gone when you could buy a bit of cheap neck of lamb for a stew, you can't get cheap ox liver any more, there isn't a surplus of cheap cuts to get rid of because the people who butcher the meat for the supermarkets sell it off to the people who make the convenience foods.
The average price of standard minced beef is £4.61 kg now. That half pound of mince will cost over a pound. Or should I say £1.15 for 250g
Days are gone when you could buy a bit of cheap neck of lamb for a stew, you can't get cheap ox liver any more, there isn't a surplus of cheap cuts to get rid of because the people who butcher the meat for the supermarkets sell it off to the people who make the convenience foods.
But there are loads of cheap fat filled rubbish quality convenience fooods which you have no choice to buy if as I read recently you are trying to feed a family on £30 per week.
Steady Freddie! :) A little more positive thinking may be the order of the day. We haven't even touched on education, responsible behaviour, good home management and bartering, etc., to offer some hope to the poor for a brighter future. I do find it a tad ironic, that I've declared my low income, (am I in poverty? Heavens forfend! :)) and yet my "beliefs" are trashed by the few. Funny that! Nae matter. Each to their own, I say.
Average life expectancy has risen by 10 years since 1960, people weren't healthier during the war.
However the life expectancy in Glasgow is around 70 years, while the life expectancy in Chelsea is 85.
But there are loads of cheap fat filled rubbish quality convenience fooods which you have no choice to buy if as I read recently you are trying to feed a family on £30 per week.
It's not just the fats that are the problem. Cheap foods tend to use a cheap and nasty artificial sweetener called high fructose corn syrup. Research has shown that this is a likely culprit for the rise in obesity levels among the poor.
https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
M Swanson
17-Nov-12, 11:33
Average life expectancy has risen by 10 years since 1960, people weren't healthier during the war.
However the life expectancy in Glasgow is around 70 years, while the life expectancy in Chelsea is 85.
The rise in life expectancy, I would think had much more to do with advances in medicine and technology, Fred. The progress that has been made is phenomenal, since the 50's. People who lived during the War years, were healthier and fitter, than they had ever been. As far as nutrition is concerned, we can still learn from their experiences.
I'm off to do the weekly shop! Morrison's are offering 520g of British ox liver for 88p. Such affordable, quality meat is a boon to those like me, who live in poverty, but manage to survive and remain grateful! ;)
The rise in life expectancy, I would think had much more to do with advances in medicine and technology, Fred. The progress that has been made is phenomenal, since the 50's. People who lived during the War years, were healthier and fitter, than they had ever been. As far as nutrition is concerned, we can still learn from their experiences.
Those advances in medicine and technology don't seem to have reached as far as Glasgow yet.
Any ideas why that might be?
Steady Freddie! :) A little more positive thinking may be the order of the day. We haven't even touched on education, responsible behaviour, good home management and bartering, etc., to offer some hope to the poor for a brighter future. I do find it a tad ironic, that I've declared my low income, (am I in poverty? Heavens forfend! :)) and yet my "beliefs" are trashed by the few. Funny that! Nae matter. Each to their own, I say.
Low income???? Maybe compared to some but (as I pointed out earlier which you just brushed of without really answering) try living on JSA, I can't wait for the day I collect my basic state pension (plus extra benefits), I'll feel like I'm loaded.
Think I'll stick with the indisputable WW2 facts, Fred. Rationing lasted 14 years and the health of the nation was never better; including the poor. Sorted! However, I never have a problem agreeing to disagree! :)
Should we bring back rationing then? Divide all the healthy food available up so that everybody gets their fare share of it?
Should we bring back rationing then? Divide all the healthy food available up so that everybody gets their fare share of it?
That would be a great idea. Imagine the savings to the health service alone.
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 13:43
Right well here is my tuppence worth, is its even worth a tuppence!
I dont think there is really any absolute poverty in this country, at least not a forced absolute poverty. When I was a child I would often not get a dinner mostly due to my mother being a drunk, and we either had no money or she was in no position to cook. I can even mind once around xmas 93 going nearly a week without electricity, if I mind right no new incomine support book had arrived or something of that elk, although the odd day without leccy was common it never last more than that. This continued until I was old enough to work myself at 16/17m around the turn of the century.
No I would only consider that relative poverty. First off, I would have been unable to starve to death as I was fed at school once a day and if i deterioted too much the school would have stepped in. Secondly, I had a roof over my head paid for by the state that wasnt going to put me on the streets. Thirdly, These were frequent but temporary incidents. Absolute poverty would involve all of the problems I had and then more besides, with a lack of a support system to ensute nobody fell between the cracks, and it would be an ongoing problem, not in spells.
Hope that makes sense.
billmoseley
17-Nov-12, 13:53
Right well here is my tuppence worth, is its even worth a tuppence!
I dont think there is really any absolute poverty in this country, at least not a forced absolute poverty. When I was a child I would often not get a dinner mostly due to my mother being a drunk, and we either had no money or she was in no position to cook. I can even mind once around xmas 93 going nearly a week without electricity, if I mind right no new incomine support book had arrived or something of that elk, although the odd day without leccy was common it never last more than that. This continued until I was old enough to work myself at 16/17m around the turn of the century.
No I would only consider that relative poverty. First off, I would have been unable to starve to death as I was fed at school once a day and if i deterioted too much the school would have stepped in. Secondly, I had a roof over my head paid for by the state that wasnt going to put me on the streets. Thirdly, These were frequent but temporary incidents. Absolute poverty would involve all of the problems I had and then more besides, with a lack of a support system to ensute nobody fell between the cracks, and it would be an ongoing problem, not in spells.
Hope that makes sense. i reckon this post just about hits the nail on the head for this post covers just about everything well said Weezer
....I had a roof over my head paid for by the state that wasnt going to put me on the streets....
Not sure how much longer that is going to last for with this Tory Government & their Bedroom Tax, will have to wait until next year when it comes in to see what the fallout from that will be.
Not sure how much longer that is going to last for with this Tory Government & their Bedroom Tax, will have to wait until next year when it comes in to see what the fallout from that will be.
They have plans to take housing benefit away from under 25s as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/12/housing-benefit-cut-under-25s
They have plans to take housing benefit away from under 25s as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/12/housing-benefit-cut-under-25s
I forgot about that one....
Children leave home.... Parents get hit by bedroom tax... Parents downsize (if they can due to the shortage of one bedroom houses).... Children lose their housing benefit, told to move back in with parents.... Parents have no room due to being made to downsize their house... Children end up homeless.
Does this Tory Government ever think through the consequences of their half baked ideas before implementing them?
Does this Tory Government ever think through the consequences of their half baked ideas before implementing them?
Erm .........No
I forgot about that one....
Children leave home.... Parents get hit by bedroom tax... Parents downsize (if they can due to the shortage of one bedroom houses).... Children lose their housing benefit, told to move back in with parents.... Parents have no room due to being made to downsize their house... Children end up homeless.
Does this Tory Government ever think through the consequences of their half baked ideas before implementing them?
Oh yes, they know exactly what they are doing.
But the money to pay for their second homes has to come from somewhere.
Secondly, I had a roof over my head paid for by the state that wasnt going to put me on the streets.
These tories have solved that with their housing benefit cap. Already it is driving the poor and low-paid out of London. People are becoming unemployed because they cannot afford to live near their jobs, and cannot afford the cost of commuting into London. Entire communities are being uprooted and dumped outside London by councils that cannot afford to house them within their own boroughs.
http://rt.com/news/uk-homeless-families-london-067/
I forgot about that one....
Children leave home.... Parents get hit by bedroom tax... Parents downsize (if they can due to the shortage of one bedroom houses).... Children lose their housing benefit, told to move back in with parents.... Parents have no room due to being made to downsize their house... Children end up homeless.
Does this Tory Government ever think through the consequences of their half baked ideas before implementing them?
There's more, how do children move elsewhere in search of work?
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 22:35
Christ! Sense from Oddaquine! Shoot me now!
To all you lot up there (I cant be bothered quoting) you would be whinging if dozens of single people were in 3 beddroom houses on their own. You cant have it both ways. the govt needs to make a decision, does it not?
I recently saw a story on the BBC about a young woman who described a similar plight to the one you mention Rich. She looked very healthy to me; was smartly dressed, lived in a tidy, well-equipped flat in London and wore what looked like two gold bangles and a necklace. Any sympathy I may have had evaporated. I wonder how many truly starving people in the Third World would trade places in a heartbeat?
So you can recognise gold as opposed to gold plate or something cheaper from the telly? And you assume that a healthy, smartly dressed person in a tidy well equipped flat has spent the whole of their lives on benefits and should by rights be living in what you would would recognise as poverty, which doesn't seem to include having enough self-respect to put a brave face on things...and you have had the temerity to call others presumptuous! Sheesh!
Out of interest, what do YOU mean by poverty, rather than demanding others define it for you?
Given you appeared to have appreciated pcmd's personal experiences.....here is mine.
I'm a pensioner, like you.....but I don't get cold weather payments etc, but am just slightly by a few pence, below the grab everything you are "entitled to" level...but I don't grab...because I can manage to live reasonably well enough without doing that...and I can smoke, have the odd drink and maintain a relatively expensive forced dietary regime, though I don't run a car, have holidays, eat out etc....and would be embarrassed to claim what I can just because I can, if I can get by without it.
Really, you are not living on the basic state pension, you are living on the basic state pension plus pension credit and all the perks that brings with it. Given you have a Morrison's handy, sure as hell you don't live in Caithness, in a village with one grocer's shop....so even have the benefit of relatively cheap groceries...so how is that anything equating remotely to "living in poverty"?
I, personally, think pensioners are featherbedded to the detriment of pretty much every single person (as in unmarried). or couples (as in without children), under 25s and disabled on benefits..and really should stop whining. Pensioners are only poor if they think their incomes should allow them to live in the way they think they should be living....which is pretty much the definition of relative poverty, is it not?
M Swanson
18-Nov-12, 00:56
Pleased to meet you OQ. I must say I needed to read this rant twice to decide whether you were being serious, or having a laugh! I'm not sure I should be dignifying your temerity in presuming to know anything about me, apart from what I have already offered, but, although it's none of your business, I'm in a mellow mood tonight and will set the record straight on a few of your uninformed presumptions! ;)
Firstly, I didn't state that the jewellery was made of gold; my words were "looked like gold." There is a difference. Of course, I never mentioned anything about her benefit status for "the whole of her life." Why ever would I? In the programme she declared herself a single mother; living on benefits which often resulted in her going without food in order that her son ate. I described her appearance and living conditions because I thought they painted a much wider picture. I witnessed poverty as a child and didn't recognise it in this woman. So shoot me! :roll:
Secondly, I have not "demanded," anything from anybody. I requested opinions and thoughts on the definition of poverty, in a polite manner. It's what I do! As you're interested, I'm still collecting information on the definitions thus far and the only category I have decided about, is absolute poverty. I have found little evidence to support this, but my mind is open to other arguments! :) Seems fair and reasonable to me.
Congratulations on not being a grabber. Neither am I. In fact, my sister has had lung cancer and subsequently a lung removed and I am her carer. Her social worker has asked me several times to apply for an Attendance Allowance, but as I don't need it, I haven't applied for it. Should the time come when I do, I will submit my application. Meanwhile, I'd much rather the money was given to those who need it much more than I do.
Why do you presume to know anything about my income, over and above what I have freely declared on the forum? I repeat, I live on a basic State pension and have never applied for pension credit and thus none of the "perks," you maintain I have. Such nonsense and more than a tad "presumptuous." Please rest assured, that I will never have the temerity to probe your income, or anyone elses. It's such bad form and none of my business. If you'd care to check on my details, I've already declared that I live in Southsea, so it should come as no surprise that I don't "live in Caithness," although my ancestors did.
As I said, I'm a pensioner, on a low income, but I count my blessings. One thing's for sure, I hopefully shan't be starving any time soon; or dying from the cold, or, I hope, be unable to do my charitable and caring duties. Relatively, I'm rich! No complaints here.
One thing's for sure, I hopefully shan't be starving any time soon; or dying from the cold, or, I hope, be unable to do my charitable and caring duties. Relatively, I'm rich! No complaints here.
Then you are lucky M Swanson because there ARE old people who die from the cold and there ARE people who cant go out and there ARE people who are starving and homeless and live in the UK. There are people living on £57 per week which offers them little chance to afford much - in many of the organisations I have referenced and linked to their pages where it says that many families have £30 per week to feed their families on.
I am really glad that you manage - I truly am - and oddquine too. The less people we have who are struggling the better but I am sad that the poverty of others and the inability to cope is seen as a weakness in THEM - we seem to have returned to Victorian days where there is the "undeserving poor". God forbid that they should have a telly, or a satellite dish ( which may only receive freeview programmes) or jewellery or smoke or buy a bottle of wine. Its not a huge step from this to saying that there are only three in the family so why do they need four chairs or a three piece suite or cant they all sleep in the same bed and sell one. And there we are back to the time of the family means test http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/1930s-means-test.html
Many people seem to think that there cant be poor people unless they are crawling along the floor and begging at the feet of the prosperous and well off. Or staring out of the telly with huge eyes and distended stomachs. Thats fine when we are sitting in our warm house. Weezer talks about the struggles of his own family and I thank him for sharing that with us.
I dont think there is really any absolute poverty in this country, at least not a forced absolute poverty. When I was a child I would often not get a dinner mostly due to my mother being a drunk, and we either had no money or she was in no position to cook. I can even mind once around xmas 93 going nearly a week without electricity, if I mind right no new incomine support book had arrived or something of that elk, although the odd day without leccy was common it never last more than that. This continued until I was old enough to work myself at 16/17m around the turn of the century.
No I would only consider that relative poverty. First off, I would have been unable to starve to death as I was fed at school once a day and if i deterioted too much the school would have stepped in. Secondly, I had a roof over my head paid for by the state that wasnt going to put me on the streets. Thirdly, These were frequent but temporary incidents. Absolute poverty would involve all of the problems I had and then more besides, with a lack of a support system to ensute nobody fell between the cracks, and it would be an ongoing problem, not in spells.
Hope that makes sense.
It does make sense Weezer but I think that even "only relative poverty" is poverty too far. There ARE people who fall between the cracks and the couple I mentioned at the start of this thread are an example. The fact that you could be left for a week with no electricity because of a benefit error is shocking enough and that continues today. It is taking so long to sort benefits out that people have no choice but to use food banks and struggle in a way that no one should in the rich and developed country we live in.
Alcohol and addiction are tied to poverty but poor housing, poor health and poor education are all contributors and results of poverty. Many of those living in poverty are vulnerable because they are addicted to alcohol, drugs, have been abused, have mental health problems or poor physical health. How in the 21st century do we prevent the weak and the vulnerable being so poor.
In a recent programme on the television with Ross Kemp there was a woman, a drug addict and prostitute living underneath an overpass thing on a mattress. It had been set on fire and destroyed because someone was looking for someone else who owed them money. Her own fault I can hear many folks jumping to say she got herself addicted to drugs. Well actually her uncle i think injected her with heroin when she was eight - telling her she was diabetic and it was her medecine so that he could abuse her. Absolute poverty? Her own fault? I think not. A report by the telegraph following the murders in Ipswich says that most prostitutes have been abused as children, and 95% are addicted to drugs many having been introduced by their abusers or pimps. The age at which a girl is put out for street walking is 14.
There was a bloke on the programme ex forces - slept on a beam under the motorway I think - but he drank two bottles of vodka a day ( he begged for the money) and then he climbed up to sleep on this beam. His own fault he is an alcoholic..... but is it? He was an ex soldier like Mark Mullins who I referenced in an earlier post - There is a significant number of ex soldiers who cant cope with life in civvy street. Reports suggest that between 25 and 30 percent of homeless people are ex servicemen.
There was a man with mental health problems, alcohol problems and he had a flat - it was disgusting, he was physically frail and to Ross Kemps surprise - and mine I have to say - he had pulled off his own blackened and dead toes he was younger than me and didnt expect to live to the end of the year. his own fault? I found statistics that suggest that people in the poorest fifth of incomes are far more likely to be at risk of a mental health problem than those in the richest fifth (22% – 7% for men, 24% – 12% for women).
I cant find it in me to blame any of these people for their poverty or their situation or indeed for their inability to get themselves out of it. If the mark of a civilised society is how it treats the weak and the vulnerable - those struggling with life then What sort of a country do we live in?
Surely abuse, neglect and addictions etc are a seperate issue to poverty though?
Not completely unrelated, eg the statistic you give near the end, but these aren't people starving because they are not given enough in benefits etc which seemed to be where the thread started. This is not having the right support in place for these issues. Which is something altogether different.
You cant seperate the two Serenity - sometimes abuse neglect and addiction mental health CAUSE poverty but often they are a result of poverty. It is about vulnerability maybe. We perhaps dont have people dying of starvation - there are food banks and as Weezer pointed out - there are school dinners but we DO have people relying on foodbanks for a whole range of reasons. just because these people arent staarving does not mean there is no poverty. If you have a young person who is abused at home and tuns away - they are homeless, they struggle to have their basic needs met, they are poor. therefore the abuse is the cause of the poverty of the young person. If you have a person who has their benefits cut and cant make ends meet, as is happening everywhere today - like the couple mentioned at the start. They exhaust any savings and have to decide Electricity or food and then begins to suffer with depression and become suicidal then then their poor mental health is a result of their poverty.
You are right that there is not the support in place to address many of these issues and that in itself is a contributory factor to the existence of poverty in our society today. The gap between rich and poor is widening and the poor are often invisible to those of us who are comfortable. The lassie who i mentioned in the previous post who lived under the overpass thing walked out of her hovel and her neighbours were lovely blocks of executive apartments right there. I wonder how many people living there saw her - noticed her or knew she was there.
That isnt a criticism of anyone with money BTW nor of the people living in those lovely apartments - it is just what it is.
The benefit system is rotten. The drive to get people off benefits is causing real hardship and fear, and depression and suicide. Companies like ATOS and A4E are reaping in billions of pounds of our money. They are making profits and paying shareholders and bonuses for chief executives out of the misery and hardship of people like those mentioned in this thread and that shocks and disgusts me. We hear much about the need to reduce the welfare bill and I agree we do need to do that but with compassion and fairness - something missing massively today.
M Swanson
18-Nov-12, 16:31
Surely abuse, neglect and addictions etc are a seperate issue to poverty though?
Not completely unrelated, eg the statistic you give near the end, but these aren't people starving because they are not given enough in benefits etc which seemed to be where the thread started. This is not having the right support in place for these issues. Which is something altogether different.
Well said, Serenity. I couldn't agree more. I must be brief, because I've written two longer posts and they've been whipped off into the ether. Are messages timed-out? Shame! It was all good stuff too. :lol:
linnie612
18-Nov-12, 16:37
Well said, Serenity. I couldn't agree more. I must be brief, because I've written two longer posts and they've been whipped off into the ether. Are messages timed-out? Shame! It was all good stuff too. :lol:
When you log in, tick the 'remember me' box (under your login details) if you intend to be on for a while - otherwise you will 'time-out'.:)
M Swanson
18-Nov-12, 16:44
Many thanks for the advice, Linnie. I was unceremoniously cut-off in my prime. Being a computer illiterate, like me, it happens! :D
Oh yes, they know exactly what they are doing.
But the money to pay for their second homes has to come from somewhere.
Don't be silly. That comes from being independently wealthy and freely giving of there time for a poultry £60k a year, just so you ungrateful plebs can moan about it.
Don't be silly. That comes from being independently wealthy and freely giving of there time for a poultry £60k a year, just so you ungrateful plebs can moan about it.
Do you mean poultry or paltry, ducati? Just so we ungrateful plebs know if we should be moaning about the direct influence of hundreds of chickens (poultry) on the UK economy or the influence of the independently wealthy who are outside the taxation restrictions imposed on those of us who are obliged to pay PAYE and don't have the option of choosing where and to whom we pay our taxes, thanks to our "representatives" who receive a paltry 65K a year to do nothing useful, fair or equitable?
Can you see the difference?
weezer 316
20-Nov-12, 16:12
It does make sense Weezer but I think that even "only relative poverty" is poverty too far. There ARE people who fall between the cracks and the couple I mentioned at the start of this thread are an example. The fact that you could be left for a week with no electricity because of a benefit error is shocking enough and that continues today. It is taking so long to sort benefits out that people have no choice but to use food banks and struggle in a way that no one should in the rich and developed country we live in.
Alcohol and addiction are tied to poverty but poor housing, poor health and poor education are all contributors and results of poverty. Many of those living in poverty are vulnerable because they are addicted to alcohol, drugs, have been abused, have mental health problems or poor physical health. How in the 21st century do we prevent the weak and the vulnerable being so poor.
In a recent programme on the television with Ross Kemp there was a woman, a drug addict and prostitute living underneath an overpass thing on a mattress. It had been set on fire and destroyed because someone was looking for someone else who owed them money. Her own fault I can hear many folks jumping to say she got herself addicted to drugs. Well actually her uncle i think injected her with heroin when she was eight - telling her she was diabetic and it was her medecine so that he could abuse her. Absolute poverty? Her own fault? I think not. A report by the telegraph following the murders in Ipswich says that most prostitutes have been abused as children, and 95% are addicted to drugs many having been introduced by their abusers or pimps. The age at which a girl is put out for street walking is 14.
Squidge,
I can appreciate your point. However it wasnt so much a benefit error more the fact my mother drank, willingly, all our money. There were regularly days when we had no electricity, which could have been avoided but not buying alcohol.
Im constantly chastised as being some tory nutjob on these forums, when in reality I support, above all else, helping people in such a situation. My main issue is the people who make up the vast bulk of society, this working class I am a member of, refuse to pay for their own services and support they cant afford, never mind other peoples who are less fortunate, yet will moan incessantly about people like prostitutes being abandoned by society and that money should be provided for them, but not by them.
this working class I am a member of, refuse to pay for their own services and support they cant afford, never mind other peoples who are less fortunate, yet will moan incessantly about people like prostitutes being abandoned by society and that money should be provided for them, but not by them.
Wio exactly is refusing to pay? You me and everyone else i know pay their taxes - their tax is deducted at source through PAYE. The"working class" have no choice but to pay and mostly we do it without grumbling. It seems to me that the only people who succeed in avoiding taxes to any significant degree are the wealthy - individuals and multinational companies. The avoidance of millions of pounds of corporation tax - the Jimmy Carr type tax avoidance schemes and the lack of interest from the politicians in tackling these people stealing from the state whilst blaming those that are getting the least for the situation the economy is in is immoral.
Do you mean poultry or paltry, ducati? Just so we ungrateful plebs know if we should be moaning about the direct influence of hundreds of chickens (poultry) on the UK economy or the influence of the independently wealthy who are outside the taxation restrictions imposed on those of us who are obliged to pay PAYE and don't have the option of choosing where and to whom we pay our taxes, thanks to our "representatives" who receive a paltry 65K a year to do nothing useful, fair or equitable?
Can you see the difference?
You got something against chickens? :mad:
Do you mean poultry or paltry, ducati? Just so we ungrateful plebs know if we should be moaning about the direct influence of hundreds of chickens (poultry) on the UK economy or the influence of the independently wealthy who are outside the taxation restrictions imposed on those of us who are obliged to pay PAYE and don't have the option of choosing where and to whom we pay our taxes, thanks to our "representatives" who receive a paltry 65K a year to do nothing useful, fair or equitable?
Can you see the difference?
Why not have a shot yourself if you think they do nothing useful. We can all be armchair refs.
weezer 316
22-Nov-12, 10:02
Wio exactly is refusing to pay? You me and everyone else i know pay their taxes - their tax is deducted at source through PAYE. The"working class" have no choice but to pay and mostly we do it without grumbling. It seems to me that the only people who succeed in avoiding taxes to any significant degree are the wealthy - individuals and multinational companies. The avoidance of millions of pounds of corporation tax - the Jimmy Carr type tax avoidance schemes and the lack of interest from the politicians in tackling these people stealing from the state whilst blaming those that are getting the least for the situation the economy is in is immoral.
Squidge,
Almost everyone refuses to pay more. My point is we dont pay enough tax for what we get. Labour in 2005 openly said they would spend over £300bn in he next parliment we didnt have and outlined no way to pay it back. The man and woman in the street, you and I, who voted for that situation, is responsible for paying it back. Stop moaning about what the rich do or dont pay when the govt deficit has been build up openly and with the consent of the very same people who now bemoan cuts, and in almost all cases to provide services for these very same people.
And mind, the social safety net aint really designed for someone who is a millionaire. Its for you and I becuase we have precious little room for manouvere. And as such we should pay for it, where as at present we dont.
M Swanson
22-Nov-12, 10:27
I've just received a 'phone call from a friend, who has pointed me in the direction of an article which appeared in today's Mail. I'm not a fan of this particular paper and would never purchase it, but as I've been conducting a small, short straw poll, with family, friends, nurses and carers on the issue of poverty, I thought it worth reading. My first impressions were, what a clever ploy from Tesco's, that should set the tills ablaze on the Christmas run-up. What are the credentials of the charitable group? Why wasn't one example given of someone allegedly in 'poverty,' together with income and outgoings to prove the need to go hungry and why were there no figures given? Sloppy, scaremongering journalism, as usual, imo, but the comments are interesting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236633/Parents-skipping-meals-children-dont-hungry-families-struggle-longest-cost-living-squeeze-60-years.html
And mind, the social safety net aint really designed for someone who is a millionaire.
Well, first off social welfare isn't the be-all and end-all of our taxation system. A road network fit for a Bentley. A police force to save the rich from burglars. Paramedics to rush to the scene of a foie gras induced coronary. All these things and many more are paid for through taxation and are available to all.
Even just taking social welfare, of course it's designed for millionaires.
My 'left' brain would point out that it's there as a safety net for anybody who needs it and whilst it's less likely that a millionaire will find themselves in a position where JSA and housing benefit is the difference between a meal and going hungry it's not unheard of. Since you never know what the future holds it's only right that everybody pays their share.
My 'right' brain would point out that the living wage in the UK is £7.45/hr (£8.55/hr in London) whilst the average wage of a Starbucks barista is £6.23/hr, just 4p above the minimum wage. It is the welfare state which bridges this gap and without it profits would be down and, in some cases, businesses simply wouldn't be viable... Now I think about it, without the welfare state to prop up their business models I would think there are some millionaires who'd find themselves dependant on the state themselves (see my 'left' brain's argument).
However you cut it, millionaires benefit from social welfare just like the rest of us do.
I've just received a 'phone call from a friend, who has pointed me in the direction of an article which appeared in today's Mail. [...] Why wasn't one example given of someone allegedly in 'poverty,' together with income and outgoings to prove the need to go hungry and why were there no figures given? Sloppy, scaremongering journalism, as usual
It's pretty clear that you're never going to be persuaded that there is poverty in the UK unless you witness it yourself. I'm glad for you that you haven't yet and I hope that continues to be the case. I do think it's unfortunate though that because you personally haven't come face-to-face with poverty you feel the need to belittle those who aren't as fortunate as you are.
You seem like a fairly bright chap and I imagine that ten minutes of research online could have cleared up your 'confusion' about the definition of poverty. Not having a pop at those less fortunate than you? I really don't know why else you started this thread.
weezer 316
22-Nov-12, 11:37
Indeed. But again, Wayne rooney pays for this and umtpeen ore beside via his tax. I am not arguing people dont receive something for their tax.
My mates little boy was flown from Wick to Inverness and then kept in for about 10 days. Now forgetting any other instances of governemtn assistance he received in his ENTRIE LIFTETIME, knowing what earns I can honestly say that his entire NI controbution since the day he started working was gone, and he was in debt to the state to the tune of thousands. Now its important that his little boy should receive that treatment is it not? As there is no way he could meet the cost of such a service himself, surely you agree that any shortfall in the funding for such services should be met by the people who couldnt afford it otherwise.
surely you agree that any shortfall in the funding for such services should be met by the people who couldnt afford it otherwise.
No, not at all.
I'm not suggesting that taxes should be increased for the rich to close the gap but when we have companies like Vodafone, Starbucks and Amazon legally 'avoiding' £billions in tax whilst individuals like Sir Philip Green can put their personal wealth (estimated at £4bn) in offshore tax havens then surely, surely something needs to be done? Even our chancellor, George Osborne, benefits from an offshore trust for his £4m.
I agree that there is a shortfall in the taxation system but long before we start to look towards those who can afford it the least we must surely look to those who can afford it first?
I agree that there is a shortfall in the taxation system but long before we start to look towards those who can afford it the least we must surely look to those who can afford it first?
Bingo. And if you add to that statement .... Especially those who are doing their level best to avoid paying what they SHOULD be paying. Close those loopholes and lets see where we are. Weezer you say we REFUSE to pay taxes. I have never been able to refuse to pay tax in my life. Have you? I pay what I am asked to pay and if they said I had to pay more I would be paying more. All I am saying is that we should START with making sure those people who are wriggling out of their tax responsibilities should be paying what they are supposed to be paying. Just like you me and everyone else that is on PAYE. If I worked as a Barista for Starbucks I couldnt go to them and say "please would you pay me through my company"so that I can avoid paying Income Tax on my earnings and keep more of the £6.23 per hour and yet they are happily avoiding paying corporation tax. It is not on.
Weezer I dont understand you saying that those on lowest incomes should pay more whilst those who earn massive amounts of money either individuals or corporations should be allowed to please themselves whether they pay or not and that is ok. IT suggests that we have no responsibility to each other at all. That the rich should just sit and ignore their responsibilities because "Im alright Jack".
weezer 316
22-Nov-12, 13:39
No, not at all.
I'm not suggesting that taxes should be increased for the rich to close the gap but when we have companies like Vodafone, Starbucks and Amazon legally 'avoiding' £billions in tax whilst individuals like Sir Philip Green can put their personal wealth (estimated at £4bn) in offshore tax havens then surely, surely something needs to be done? Even our chancellor, George Osborne, benefits from an offshore trust for his £4m.
I agree that there is a shortfall in the taxation system but long before we start to look towards those who can afford it the least we must surely look to those who can afford it first?
Your not following the point. The govt deficit was willingly caused and voted for in successive elections. That deficit was used to finance things like huge incerases in spending in the welfare budget and the NHS. It willingly did this, and people voted for it. Its spent money it NEVER had. Who is responsible for paying that? I say you and I as it was money spent on your and I and voted for by you and I.
Squidge my point is exactly this, people refuse to pay their way in this country. The rich should pay the taxes they are due, but our deficit is casued by the above huge, unfunded sprees that the govt has openly said it was going to do. Those who voted for it are the very same ones now greeting their services ae being cut. I say you want them, pay for them.
IN one line, the shortfall between tax take and expenditure should be met by the people who approved the spree and who the debt was built up to service......us.
Or do you support running up debts and asking others to pay them?? If you do I will go and get myself a credit card to get myself out of poverty and send you the bill....
Your not following the point. The govt deficit was willingly caused and voted for in successive elections. That deficit was used to finance things like huge incerases in spending in the welfare budget and the NHS. It willingly did this, and people voted for it. Its spent money it NEVER had. Who is responsible for paying that? I say you and I as it was money spent on your and I and voted for by you and I.
Squidge my point is exactly this, people refuse to pay their way in this country. The rich should pay the taxes they are due, but our deficit is casued by the above huge, unfunded sprees that the govt has openly said it was going to do. Those who voted for it are the very same ones now greeting their services ae being cut. I say you want them, pay for them.
IN one line, the shortfall between tax take and expenditure should be met by the people who approved the spree and who the debt was built up to service......us.
Or do you support running up debts and asking others to pay them?? If you do I will go and get myself a credit card to get myself out of poverty and send you the bill....
Those people on welfare benefits or low incomes did not cause the financial crisis. It wasnt their fault that the government had to spend a huge amount of money bailing out the banks.
These however at the people facing the worst of the austerity measures.
Those people - you and I if you like Weezer - who are on low or middle incomes pay our way. Full Stop. No question. The government asks us to pay tax at a certain level and we pay it. We have to - we cant avoid it. It is taken out of our wages at source. Thats is. If we were asked to pay more we would have to pay more.
The greeting - the resentment if you like is because WE are doing exactly what is asked of us and yet those at the top of the heap are not. They are ducking and diving and avoiding to pay what they owe - They also voted, they also contributed to the defecit and the financial crisis and yet they get away without paying THEIR dues.
How is that fair? How is that equitable?
See the wee boy who needed the air ambulance? Well if he was a millionaire banker he would have still got the air ambulance. No one would have said you cant have it cos you are rich. If he was found bleeding and unconscious in the street he would get an ambulance to an NHS hospital and if he lost his memory he would be treated in an NHS hospital until he remembered he was rich. He could then choose to go private or not - no one would say to him - you cant have this treatment here cos you are rich. All the services, ALL of them are for the wealthy as well as the poor. All the services are there for those who need them.
Taxes should be collected. from EVERYONE according to the law and loopholes and the like should be closed. Tax cuts for the rich should never have been passed. If we are as they say in this together then thats exactly what that should mean - today in Britain that is not the case.
As you said - In one line the shortfall between tax take and expenditure should be met by the people who approved the spree and who the debt was set up to service - ALL of us. Rich and poor alike.
Your not following the point. The govt deficit was willingly caused and voted for in successive elections. That deficit was used to finance things like huge incerases in spending in the welfare budget and the NHS. It willingly did this, and people voted for it. Its spent money it NEVER had. Who is responsible for paying that? I say you and I as it was money spent on your and I and voted for by you and I.
Squidge my point is exactly this, people refuse to pay their way in this country. The rich should pay the taxes they are due, but our deficit is casued by the above huge, unfunded sprees that the govt has openly said it was going to do. Those who voted for it are the very same ones now greeting their services ae being cut. I say you want them, pay for them.
IN one line, the shortfall between tax take and expenditure should be met by the people who approved the spree and who the debt was built up to service......us.
Or do you support running up debts and asking others to pay them?? If you do I will go and get myself a credit card to get myself out of poverty and send you the bill....
You highlight a valid point weezer 316. In truth the deficit was created by the grubbiement of the day 'buying' votes. It has happened in other countries with disastrous consequences, Greece is a good example.
Clearly we cannot sustain high levels of service without a stable revenue stream and we aren’t going to get that through raising more tax revenue from the low paid. The solution then has to be to reduce services and for all of us to get use to looking after ourselves.
weezer 316
22-Nov-12, 16:00
Squidge,
Your point is moot. The deficit and det were not casued by bailout of banks. We have ran a deficit since 2000, and bar from 1995 - 2000 we havent had a balanced budget in 40 years. ON each occasion the govt has outlined its spending plans and its gained consent to spend it. As this money was by and large spent on social welfare (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11#graphic for a breakdown of where the govt spends the money) the people who receive the largest fruits of that money should pay for it. And yes, thats you and me. Just look where the govts budget goes. about 85% of it is used to provide support and services people coudlnt afford otherwise.
That is unsustainable, and now we need to cut back, you moan.
I would rather we were like Denmark, not as you suggest with the "I'm alright jack", but it will never happen as you and millions like you wont pay any mroe tax and refuse to pay for the services ou have already consumed.
weezer 316
22-Nov-12, 16:04
You highlight a valid point weezer 316. In truth the deficit was created by the grubbiement of the day 'buying' votes. It has happened in other countries with disastrous consequences, Greece is a good example.
Clearly we cannot sustain high levels of service without a stable revenue stream and we aren’t going to get that through raising more tax revenue from the low paid. The solution then has to be to reduce services and for all of us to get use to looking after ourselves.
No it can be done. denmark is the best example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark
The threshold for tax there is half what it is here. yet the average dane earns more per capita than your average Brit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Explain that? How can the lowest paid danes pay more tax than ours yet be richer?
Your not following the point. The govt deficit was willingly caused and voted for in successive elections. That deficit was used to finance things like huge incerases in spending in the welfare budget and the NHS. It willingly did this, and people voted for it. Its spent money it NEVER had. Who is responsible for paying that? I say you and I as it was money spent on your and I and voted for by you and I.
No, no... I am following the point you're making; I just don't agree with you... ;)
Given my voting record I'm not going to take personal responsibility for the policies of the last two governments... but I get what you're saying about our collective responsibility. But by focussing on the electorate only you're letting an awful lot of people off a very dirty hook:
The 'big 4' accountancy firms (PWC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG) have donated a total £1.9m in money and services to the three main political parties since 2009. These same companies actively lobby for lower corporation taxes and advise their clients how best to avoid paying what tax is asked of them...
Gary Barlow, along with other members of Take That, squirrelled £26m away from HMRC in the Icebreaker 2 scheme and then actively campaigned for the Tories (a little more than just casing a vote I think).
George Robinson gave the Tories £250k in donations (again, more than just casting a vote) whilst using the same tax avoidance scheme as Jimmy Carr.
I don't want to generalise, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the vast majority of people (and organisations) who have donated large amounts (£100k+) to political parties have at some point avoided paying some tax.
Before you tell Joe Bloggs in the street that his tax is going to have to go up a little to cover the extravagancies of our society, how about you level the playing field and close these tax loopholes? Get everybody singing from the same hymn sheet so we are finally "all in it together" and if the books still don't balance we can start looking at what we can afford and how we can all afford it.
The threshold for tax there is half what it is here. yet the average dane earns more per capita than your average Brit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Explain that? How can the lowest paid danes pay more tax than ours yet be richer?
Could be because you linked to a table of GDPs of countries which is not the same thing as average incomes of people.
Explain that? How can the lowest paid danes pay more tax than ours yet be richer?
Unless you're suggesting it's because of their taxation system, I've no clue what your point is...
Bobinovich
22-Nov-12, 16:51
I agree that big businesses, and others avoiding tax through various schemes, must be pulled into line to pay their fair share, but after that (and this may seem over simplistic) what's to stop the Government simply increasing VAT? That way those on higher incomes (thus in theory buying the most / higher priced non-essential consumer items) would be paying the lions share.
Weezer you keep saying that I would not be happy to pay more tax. I would pay more tax - I have said this before on this very board i would pay what I am asked to pay as I have done all my working life but I want to be sure that I was paying MY share and EVERYONE else was paying what they owe.
I personally think the tax rates need to go up for both basic and higher rate tax payers. We also need to abolish the Upper Earnings limit on National Insurance - This is where when you earn over £42,475 (the upper earnings limit, £817 a week) you only pay national Insurance at 2% instead of the 12%( that you pay on the rest of your taxable earnings). Close the loopholes which allow big businesses to get away with avoiding corporation tax. Dont allow high earners who are permanently employed by the public sector ( BBC and others) to be paid through a third party business to avoid tax. Do not allow MPs to rent houses from other MPS whilst they rent out the houses which they COULD live in so that WE pay their rent. Stop the incessant race to waste money on Private companies who fail to do the jobs for which they are paid at a HUGE cost to the taxpayer ( ATOS G4S A4E) when we have public servants and charities who could do the job better at a fraction of the cost.
Then when we are moving towards a level playing field as far as taxation is concerned THEN you can slag off the very people who have no room to manoever and who have no choice but to pay what they are asked to pay.
I agree that big businesses, and others avoiding tax through various schemes, must be pulled into line to pay their fair share, but after that (and this may seem over simplistic) what's to stop the Government simply increasing VAT? That way those on higher incomes (thus in theory buying the most / higher priced non-essential consumer items) would be paying the lions share.
It is interesting that you understand VAT in those terms because increasing VAT has always been a tax which the tories increase because it is thought by them that the lower paid pay proportionally more of their income on VAT rated items and have less to save. Accordingly, VAT is considered to be a non-progressive tax which affects lower income earner the most in the pocket.
Pleased to meet you OQ. I must say I needed to read this rant twice to decide whether you were being serious, or having a laugh! I'm not sure I should be dignifying your temerity in presuming to know anything about me, apart from what I have already offered, but, although it's none of your business, I'm in a mellow mood tonight and will set the record straight on a few of your uninformed presumptions! ;)
Given you said, and I quote...I'm just grateful to the taxpaying workers who provide additional income like the Cold Weather Payments, etc, the obvious assumption would be that you claim Pension Credit, or some other benefit over and above the basic pension which allows you the Cold Weather Payments etc, because if you don't, you get none of those perks, although you will still get winter fuel allowance and free bus travel. If you have written what you did not mean, I apologise for assuming you meant what you said.
Firstly, I didn't state that the jewellery was made of gold; my words were "looked like gold." There is a difference. Of course, I never mentioned anything about her benefit status for "the whole of her life." Why ever would I? In the programme she declared herself a single mother; living on benefits which often resulted in her going without food in order that her son ate. I described her appearance and living conditions because I thought they painted a much wider picture. I witnessed poverty as a child and didn't recognise it in this woman. So shoot me! :roll:
You made an assumption on appearances from a TV programme, You actually said She looked very healthy to me; was smartly dressed, lived in a tidy, well-equipped flat in London and wore what looked like two gold bangles and a necklace. Any sympathy I may have had evaporated. I didn't say you said she had been on benefits for the whole of her life, though.....I simply wondered, as you didn't know if she had or not, how you could come to an assumption regarding her veracity from her appearance and nothing else, without knowing how long she had been on benefits, how long she had been a single mother, or even how heavy she was before being on benefits, for example. Takes a wee while of poverty before people start to "look" poor (however you define that) And then you complain (first quote above) because I made an "uninformed" assumption on what you actually said in print. Can't you see the irony there?
Secondly, I have not "demanded," anything from anybody. I requested opinions and thoughts on the definition of poverty, in a polite manner. It's what I do! As you're interested, I'm still collecting information on the definitions thus far and the only category I have decided about, is absolute poverty. I have found little evidence to support this, but my mind is open to other arguments! :) Seems fair and reasonable to me.
There is no absolute poverty in the UK today as there is in the third world, imo..however, a lot of the third world poverty is down to the incompetence, corruption/self-interest and rank stupidity within governments. Not a lot different to here really, but our poverty due to the sme faults within our Government is more relative, not absolute as at inescapable malnutrition levels. There are however, those homeless who live in cardboard boxes, sleeping bags, bus shelters, park benches etc which do not fall within the description of accommodation and who do not receive benefits....that is as near as we have as to absolute poverty in the UK. It may well be that some of them are where they are by choice, but that would depend on how you defined choice. Many "choices" are the result of stuff which happened which were not choices made by those who later in life found themselves living in cardboard boxes, sleeping bags, bus shelters, park benches etc .
I'm not a bleeding heart by any means. I'd tend to put myself between you and squidge re bleeding-heartism, with you being at around level zero.
There are certainly varying levels of relative poverty..single under 25s on Jobseekers who have to live and meet all living expenses with around half the income of a single pensioner on the full basic rate, and around a third of that received by pensioners claiming Pension Credits, and who are also going to be hit even more when the Housing Benefit restrictions come in, and over 25s who get around £30 weekly less than pensioners, and half of the amount received by those on Pension Credit. Everybody on jobseekers haven't been claiming since they became old enough to sign on...many of them worked their arses off to help pay OUR pensions.
The first 13 weeks of ESA for the sick/disabled is the same for both groups as Jobseekers....and after that it kinda depends on the ATOS criteria for profits to be made by them by removing people from the system and stopping their ESA altogether even if they are dying but can still walk and use their hands. The whole system is absolute crap and has become a useful method of buying votes, rather than anything to do with anybody's welfare.
Congratulations on not being a grabber. Neither am I. In fact, my sister has had lung cancer and subsequently a lung removed and I am her carer. Her social worker has asked me several times to apply for an Attendance Allowance, but as I don't need it, I haven't applied for it. Should the time come when I do, I will submit my application. Meanwhile, I'd much rather the money was given to those who need it much more than I do.
Have to say I wasn't aware a carer could apply for the allowances available to the disabled. I thought the disabled person had to be the claimant. I live and learn.
Why do you presume to know anything about my income, over and above what I have freely declared on the forum? I repeat, I live on a basic State pension and have never applied for pension credit and thus none of the "perks," you maintain I have. Such nonsense and more than a tad "presumptuous." Please rest assured, that I will never have the temerity to probe your income, or anyone elses. It's such bad form and none of my business. If you'd care to check on my details, I've already declared that I live in Southsea, so it should come as no surprise that I don't "live in Caithness," although my ancestors did.
Possibly from what you wrote on a specific post, as intimated in my response to your first quote? As I also said in that response If you have written what you did not mean, I apologise for assuming you meant what you said. I don't thank the taxpayer for Cold Weather payments etc, because I don't receive them, though I am happy to thank them for the Winter Fuel Allowance, although I think it should be means tested...and the free bus passes, though I would have no objections to paying a reasonable amount, even if only to cover the cost of producing the pretty passes we get and everyone pays for, over and above the free travel. You could guess pretty accurately what my income is, given I have said that I am a few pence under the Pension Credit claiming criteria. I didn't actually notice you lived in Southsea..though given you mentioned Morrison's. I assumed it was a pretty safe bet you didn't live in Caithness.
As I said, I'm a pensioner, on a low income, but I count my blessings. One thing's for sure, I hopefully shan't be starving any time soon; or dying from the cold, or, I hope, be unable to do my charitable and caring duties. Relatively, I'm rich! No complaints here.
I'm a pensioner on an income adequate enough to give me a reasonable standard of living, and I count my blessings as well, mostly because I have a small works pension (non-taxpayer, btw) which saves me having, currently, to completely live off our reducing number of taxpayers....though I will if I absolutely have to. But that doesn't mean that others don't have problems. You appear to think that because you don't have problems, nobody does...but there are still, for example, old people who won't claim Pension Credit because they think of it as charity and exist solely on basic pension, and not necessarily full basic pension. I know, if I had to exist on what I would receive as basic pension alone, even allowing for the fact that I wear seven layers of clothes, including two fleeces, indoors, and only heat one room, I would be paying at least a quarter of my income on electricity bills alone.
Over my years of paying taxes to help maintain the pensioners of my day at an adequate living level, I have got off very damn lightly, as have all pensioners living today. Over my tax-paying life, the expectations of various groups on welfare, and the demands on the likes of the NHS have increased to a level which the country is now unable to sustain......and to a level where the current taxpayers are not only expected to maintain we pensioners in an adequate life-style, but are also expected to make extra provision for their own pensions, while also paying out to provide IVF to everybody who feels "entitled" to have a child, and cosmetic surgery to everybody who feels "entitled" to have perfect breasts, gastric bands to everybody who feels "entitled" to lose weight without having to exercise or diet , and tummy tucks to everybody who thinks they are "entitled" to waste taxpayer money on an operation to make them look better, rather than forking out the cash themselves to buy a corset to compress that extra flab.
We are where we are because we are turning into America-Lite where money is king, possessions are all, and the relatively poor are people to be trashed, because that is the easy way to save money...and the only way our politicians in the UK Government see anything is down to what they personally will get out of it.
Weezer you keep saying that I would not be happy to pay more tax. I would pay more tax - I have said this before on this very board i would pay what I am asked to pay as I have done all my working life but I want to be sure that I was paying MY share and EVERYONE else was paying what they owe.
I personally think the tax rates need to go up for both basic and higher rate tax payers. We also need to abolish the Upper Earnings limit on National Insurance - This is where when you earn over £42,475 (the upper earnings limit, £817 a week) you only pay national Insurance at 2% instead of the 12%( that you pay on the rest of your taxable earnings). Close the loopholes which allow big businesses to get away with avoiding corporation tax. Dont allow high earners who are permanently employed by the public sector ( BBC and others) to be paid through a third party business to avoid tax. Do not allow MPs to rent houses from other MPS whilst they rent out the houses which they COULD live in so that WE pay their rent. Stop the incessant race to waste money on Private companies who fail to do the jobs for which they are paid at a HUGE cost to the taxpayer ( ATOS G4S A4E) when we have public servants and charities who could do the job better at a fraction of the cost.
Then when we are moving towards a level playing field as far as taxation is concerned THEN you can slag off the very people who have no room to manoever and who have no choice but to pay what they are asked to pay.
I wholeheartedly agree with also need to abolish the Upper Earnings limit on National Insurance.....as I've never understood why there was a limit on it anyway. As I have, in the last few days, due to becoming a day (and thus a year) older, left the tax-paying bracket, I'm not going to make a comment re basic tax levels.....but I agree pretty much with all the rest of your post.
I don't think there can be any doubt that there has been a concerted campaign by the expenses fiddling politicians and their partners in crime newspapers to pit the poor of Britain against the even poorer of Britain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/20/scrounger-stigma-poor-people-benefits
Thus allowing them to give vast amounts of our money to foreign companies like ATOS to persecute the most vulnerable in our society. People like Brian McArdle, a 57 year old Scot who was left paralysed down one side of his body and blind in one eye by a stroke. He died the day after his benefits were stopped because ATOS said he was fit to work. Or Cecilia Burns who was declared fit for work by Atos despite her having cancer, she died just a few weeks after winning her appeal.
Yet when former Labour minister Denis MacShane tries to steal £7,500 from us Parliament won't give police the evidence to bring charges.
rich62_uk
28-Nov-12, 22:23
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/360348/3m-starving-in-the-UK This was pointed out to me today. Wondered what you all make of it.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/360348/3m-starving-in-the-UK This was pointed out to me today. Wondered what you all make of it.
Ah, the nouveau poor, poor things. Pre 2008 they had it all, good jobs, banks begging them to borrow money, offers of platinum credit cards falling through the letter box every day. Then when the crunch came they were worse off than those who had nothing, they have loans to repay, credit cards to pay off, mortgage payments to make all on 16 hours a week work in a supermarket at minimum wage.
So they starve and take charity to feed their children while all their money goes to the Shylocks who got us into this mess in the first place and the government steals from the disabled to give the merchant bankers huge bonuses.
Yes that is Cockney rhyming slang.
M Swanson
01-Dec-12, 11:58
Well, I haven't received too many suggestions of what constitutes 'poverty,' but this newspaper article gives some idea of what I believe, it's not! It's not being unable to afford a £900 a month mortgage; it's not being unable to feed a dog, it's not being unable to care for fish in an expensive tank, it's not having hungry, poorly dressed children, it's not looking thin and wasted through malnutrition, it's not going without expensive white goods. And it can't be to do with not being able to find work, surely. After all, successive governments have granted a couple of million migrants to work here and still 250K p.a, arrive. Can it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241079/Mother-Vickie-Robins-Quedgeley-Gloucestershire-starves-visits-Foodbank-ensure-children-eat.html
Bobinovich
01-Dec-12, 12:57
Surely, from that example, part of what is to blame is people taking on large mortgages & other debt without taking out income protection against sickness / redundancy. The days of the 'job guaranteed for life so long as you keep your nose clean' are long behind us...everyone should be trying to live within their means with, ideally, a few months worth of income saved up for unforeseen circumstances. Also on a separate note, how does a 40-hour and a 30-hour job constitute part-time work?!!
What I took from that article seems slightly different to what you've taken from it... maybe because we approached it differently from the outset?
You scoured the background of every photograph and dissected every sentence for evidence of affluence. You came up with a dishwasher, a fish tank, some dog food and a £900/month mortgage. Based on those items you seem to have decided that the article is wrong and, what, that the woman is simply lying or seeking attention??
What I saw was a family struggling to cope with an unexpected and drastic change in circumstances. Between them they work 70 hours a week and for that they earn a paltry £16,800 per year. For the sake of argument, let's assume they earn roughly the same per hour which means Mr Robins brings home £800 a month and his wife the other £600. Before she lost her previous job she'd have been adding closer to £1500 a month (after tax), bringing them to closer to £2300 a month.
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have looked at their budget at the time and decided a £900/month mortgage was reasonable or that a £200 dishwasher was an affordable luxury.
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have 'splashed out' on a fish tank (it looks like a Juwel to me and won't have cost more than £250 in total to set up). I loved my fish tanks when I was a kid and I'm sure their boys do too.
I don't think it's unreasonable for them, like so many parents do, to think it was okay to get a dog and I've no doubt it quickly became a fifth member of the family.
Then, like a lot of people at the moment, Mrs Robins suddenly found herself out of work. She's been more fortunate than many and found another job but it doesn't pay nearly as much - in fact, it pays a little over 1/3 of her previous job. So what would you suggest they do? Get rid of the fish, take the dog to the pound and sell the house?
Well, the tank and fish are likely paid for. They might save £3 a week on fish food but that's about it. I suspect most parents would rather find that £3 than tell their two sons that they have to flush the fish down the loo.
The dog? I guess you've never had one if you think that's a choice many would take.
So, sell the house then. But what if they're in negative equity (again, like so many are)? They might end up worse off than they are already and have lost a roof over their heads.
Sadly, I doubt any of this occurred to you and if it did, I doubt you care.
M Swanson
01-Dec-12, 15:38
Well Joe, I'd say the "difference", between my observations and yours is remarkable. Whilst I posted presented the facts as they were given, you seem to have arrived at conclusions about my criticisms of this this article. If you actually read my initial post, I merely stated what I thought 'poverty,' wasn't and of course, never mentioned, selling the house, because, like you I have no idea if there was an option to do so. Likewise, I have no idea if the "fish tank" was paid for, but having one myself I do know how costly it can be to take good care of fish, over and above the cost of food. Not that I suggested flushing anything, anywhere! Too silly! And no, I don't own one dog, I have two! :) So, I know how much they cost and getting rid of them would not be an option for me and I wouldn't dream of suggesting it for anyone else. Guess, I "care" too much. But, I could pass on some really good areas for cost-cutting. I live on a low income and it's what I do and enjoy the challenge, without griping or pleading 'poverty.' I also never commented on any additional income in the form of Family Tax Credit, or Child Allowance, because unlike some, I know absolutely nothing about who gets what. So wouldn't dream of presuming anything. Not a bad idea, I think.
Most of us have experienced, "drastic changes in circumstances" I would imagine. I most certainly have and learned a very good lesson from them too. I have no doubt, that the next time we enjoy a boom, we'll know that bust is never far away and we can all save for a rainy day and pay more heed to tomorrow. Old-fashioned I know, but what a difference to lives it could, and for some, does make.
The thing is Joe, I stated, quite reasonably what I didn't think poverty was. My problem is more, what it is! But if you have nothing to offer on that one, then you haven't! Meanwhile, everything else is like water of the proverbial! ;)
M Swanson
01-Dec-12, 15:46
Surely, from that example, part of what is to blame is people taking on large mortgages & other debt without taking out income protection against sickness / redundancy. The days of the 'job guaranteed for life so long as you keep your nose clean' are long behind us...everyone should be trying to live within their means with, ideally, a few months worth of income saved up for unforeseen circumstances. Also on a separate note, how does a 40-hour and a 30-hour job constitute part-time work?!!
Yes, I think you're right Bob. These are the facts and realities of life and I'm sure invaluable lessons will be learned. It would have been easy for most of us to run-up a huge amount of debt, which we had no chance of repaying if our circumstances changed.
Yes, I noticed that there was something amiss with the working hours of this couple, but then again, like so many commentators I also thought there was perhaps, more to this story than met the eye. I'm not sure that too many realists bought the hardship that was portrayed. Hopefully, others may wish to share their thoughts.
Whilst I posted presented the facts as they were given, you seem to have arrived at conclusions about my criticisms of this this article. [...] The thing is Joe, I stated, quite reasonably what I didn't think poverty was. My problem is more, what it is!
Yes. I have drawn conclusions about... well, about you to be honest.
From your posts in this thread it's clear to see that you aren't, as you keep claiming, simply confused about the meaning of the word 'poverty' as it relates to our society. I think we both know that you are fully aware of its meaning as used by the media and in government reports and targets. Even if you were not, as I've already mentioned, it would take only a few minutes of research for you to find the definition.
Squidge even provided you a link to the definition in the third post, five pages back... you completely ignored it in your rush to tell her why you thought she was being presumptuous.
Truth be told, you don't seem at all interested in the answer to your own question... but the (repeated) asking of it has allowed you to alternate between telling us all how you 'enjoy the challenge' of getting by on your own low income without complaint (but heaven forbid anybody should ask you about your own circumstances) and telling us all how somebody who is struggling with poverty can't possibly actually be in poverty because they don't meet your vague definition of how poverty 'looks'.
So yes; I've drawn conclusions about what you meant when you said that poverty is "not being unable to afford a £900 a month mortgage".
M Swanson
01-Dec-12, 19:30
Yes indeed, you have drawn your own conclusions about me and to be honest, I have found little to none of them relevant to the thread topic and few, if any, presumptions you have made to be accurate, to be honest! :lol: Your second to last post illustrates this beautifully, but whatever floats your boat.
Mind you, I do find your reference, "but heaven forbid anybody should ask you about your own circumstances," unbelievable, Mr Soap. After all, my User ID is my real name, (no non-de-plume to hide behind for me), and I have volunteered more information about myself, both in my profile and during the course of posting, than some. Ahem! BTW, I'm not vague about absolute poverty and am on record for stating so. How about you? I do not recognise the article as proving poverty, either. Do you? I'm still waiting for others to share their opinions, but I can quite understand they may choose not to pick up the gauntlett. Shame! Everyone's entitled to hold an opinion, surely and to be respected.
I wonder how many of us could afford a £900 a month mortgage? Not me, for sure. I could never take on such a debt, let alone hope to finance it for the next 2 1/2 decades. But then, I wouldn't mind betting the Governments and political opportunists would regard me as being in poverty. Darn cheek! ;)
how true, prams, houses, mobile phones, i pads, eating out, ages 16 -20years and of course the boyfriend and daddy having separate house with the courtesy of the taxpayer There again no jobs for them so full time mummies appear to be the thriving business so where is the poverty?
I'm afraid I consider your post to be extremely presumptuous, Squidge. I thought PMCD wrote a very interesting and "serious" response to my query. He/She wrote of their personal experiences, which I believe to be valid and worthy of consideration. I also happen to agree with many of his/her points, as perhaps others do.
I'd also add, that I am a hospital volunteer; specialising in feeding geriatric patients on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. It's been reported that some elderly folks have starved to death whilst in care and I don't disbelieve it. But, in my experience that wasn't the result of inadequate funds or the availability of food. Poverty played no part, but you can't buy caring no matter how much cash you throw at problems.
I've been very poor in my time, but never in 'poverty,' as I understand the word. I'm currently on a basic state pension and with careful budgeting it's suffice to provide me with my essentials and a few extras. I'm just grateful to the taxpaying workers who provide additional income like the Cold Weather Payments, etc. I'm too busy counting my blessings to sit around complaining about what the world and its' workers owes me. :)
We often hear politicians speaking about those in poverty, but what does this actually mean in real terms? From my experience, it doesn't mean, for example, living on social security payments, which include housing, heating, rates, food and clothes; not to mention, for some, mobile 'phones, cigarettes and alcohol! Aren't the essentials in life supplied, courtesy of the taxpayer? Compare our situation to the plight of those in the third world and I'm really confused by the definition of poverty, when applied to Britain. Would appreciate any thoughts you may have. :confused
What do you hope to conclude from your question here?
You appear to be arguing against the opinions of the folk you've chosen to engage with.
M Swanson
02-Dec-12, 00:39
how true, prams, houses, mobile phones, i pads, eating out, ages 16 -20years and of course the boyfriend and daddy having separate house with the courtesy of the taxpayer There again no jobs for them so full time mummies appear to be the thriving business so where is the poverty?
I'm sure that many people would agree with you Catran. Until there's some agreement as to the definition of 'poverty,' I guess it will remain so. The term "relative" is too imprecise to be accepted, I think. People tend to believe what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. It's difficult to accept the notion that there are those in poverty, when the bleaters are often seen to enjoy a better standard of living than those who are working, or quietly cutting their cloth according to their means.
M Swanson
02-Dec-12, 00:53
What do you hope to conclude from your question here?
You appear to be arguing against the opinions of the folk you've chosen to engage with.
I'm hoping that as many people as possible will share their thoughts regarding what poverty means to them in real terms. If we are to recognise and accept this poverty, then we would do better to understand what it really means, shouldn't we? The more opinions, the better! And, as I've already stated, I can agree to disagree amicably with anyone. :)
There is a difference between "arguing," and defending oneself. So far, I've been accused of stating opinions that I never have; being in denial about the existence of poverty, which I've never claimed and begrudged the fact that although I'm on a basic pension I'm surviving very nicely, thank you. BTW. Just to return to the topic, may I ask what your thoughts on the definition of poverty in Britain are, please?
Bobinovich
02-Dec-12, 01:21
I knew something similar had been discussed fairly recently on the Org (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?156004-Child-Poverty-in-Scotland), and Rheghead #22 pinned it down to...
"Broadly there are two types of poverty
Absolute poverty which is the starving and homeless type and which nobody should be experiencing.
And Relative poverty which takes lots of social indicators into consideration and the arbitrary percentage which don't meet those indicators are in poverty. So in effect you can't get rid of relative poverty and in contrast to other poor communities or populations some will be quite well off than others."
M Swanson
02-Dec-12, 16:31
Thank you Bob, for the link. My apologies to everyone. I didn't realise this subject had been discussed recently.
I must say, I enjoyed reading the comments of others, which has helped me to decide my own definition of poverty. Based on this, extensive research on Google and my straw poll, I believe that we do not have poverty in Britain, but we do have unacceptable levels of inequality. It seems to me, that many folks are not interested in the official definition of relative poverty, but are more inclined to believe what they experience in their everyday life. It's very hard to believe in poverty, when there is no evidence to suggest that anyone actually dies from starvation, (abuse and negligence notwithstanding), but do have an income which finances many luxury items. I guess, for me, poverty's definition is absolute, whilst luxury's definition is relative and as much use as a chocolate teapot. No wonder the argument rages and people become increasingly confused by the term poverty. I'm not expecting that to change any time soon. :roll:
I knew something similar had been discussed fairly recently on the Org (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?156004-Child-Poverty-in-Scotland), and Rheghead #22 pinned it down to...
"Broadly there are two types of poverty
Absolute poverty which is the starving and homeless type and which nobody should be experiencing.
And Relative poverty which takes lots of social indicators into consideration and the arbitrary percentage which don't meet those indicators are in poverty. So in effect you can't get rid of relative poverty and in contrast to other poor communities or populations some will be quite well off than others."
So which sort of poverty does this count as then?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/dec/02/families-ration-fuel-energy-prices
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.