Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

What is poverty nowadays?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

What is poverty nowadays?

Old 19th Jul 2019, 18:14
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 548
Originally Posted by NAROBS View Post
Cracks will open up in the continental crust . . . . the sea will adopt a foaming purple hue, all birds will fly south to Antartica . . . . old record on the turntable, wasn't that the tune played for Equal pay . . . Discrimation . . . Minimum wage . . Health and Safety at Work and on and on.

If the guy was properly supported with affordable child care etc he would have no excuse. But its not there - its being syphoned off to finance the priority economic task of stuffing diamonds into the head linings of Rolls Royce Celestials and other ego puffs.

And in this economically overly commercialised predatory environment can you honestly blame people for playing the system - isn't under provision of support services by right-wing administrations just the right-wing shooting themselves in the foot ?

N
No, it's fraud, its theft and it reduces the funds available to assist those who are genuinely in need, rather like those oxygen thieves clogging up A&E on Friday and Saturday nights who've drunk themselves (or snorted, smoked, injected) into a stupor.
The waste they cause does make me want to walk past on the other side of the road as they drown in their own effluvium.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 18:14
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The problem of the welfare state having inadvertently created a situation where some people might consider themselves to be better off not working seems to be insoluble. Successive governments have tried, and failed, to find a fair system that looks after those in genuine need, yet doesn't allow scroungers to exploit the system.

I'm not sure there is a simple answer to this conundrum, but have long felt that we should consider changing the benefits system to ensure that some benefits are specific, so that element can't be spent on non-essentials. Food and rent seem like things we could tackle, by creating a system by which rent was paid directly to landlords/housing associations, and perhaps considering something like food stamps. Rationing existed when I was small, and some foods could only be purchased with stamps, so it's not an oddball idea or something new.
I can't wait for the resident Commie to read the posts on here.

It has been said many times before. No one on benefits should earn more than someone who is working.
As soon as you can get paid more for for being at home reading the Guardian and complaining about everything, then you breed a new generation of those who are state dependent. They believe it is their right that people should look after all their wants and needs.
The Nip is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 18:20
  #63 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 122
I quite agree VP959, but when I’ve mentioned perhaps a similar system such as food stamps or vouchers, apparently it is totally unPC and stigmatises and shames the poor. However, it would appear that some of those people who need the most control to prevent them abusing their benefits and entitlements, don’t have a problem with what others think of them anyway.
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 18:36
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,974
I would do it on a sliding scale, 1st year xyz percentage of your wage, say 80% to help you seek work, clear debts, year 2 50% year 3 20% year 4 rent paid to landlord, food stamps, meters fitted with set credit limit, no monies
NutLoose is online now  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 19:04
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: all over Europe
Age: 36
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by The Nip View Post

It has been said many times before. No one on benefits should earn more than someone who is working.
As soon as you can get paid more for for being at home reading the Guardian and complaining about everything...
That goes both ways. Why is the gap between minimum wages and benefits always corrected on the benefits side?

As soon as you enable shareholder to pay as little for work as you can get for being at home reading....then you breed artificial business models depending on distortion of bargaining power.
Krautwald is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 19:24
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by BehindBlueEyes View Post
I quite agree VP959, but when Iíve mentioned perhaps a similar system such as food stamps or vouchers, apparently it is totally unPC and stigmatises and shames the poor.
My problem with that approach is that it doesn't treat people as grown-ups capable of making their own decisions.

Like, for example, subsidising pensioners in kind, rather than in cash, by giving them things like free bus rides and free TV licences. What if they'd rather have free gin? Shouldn't that be their choice not ours? Just drop all this nonsense and pay a decent pension FFS.

You do then get into the debate as to how to help people who are not capable of making their own rational decisions in their own interests, and yes, this does have to be addressed, but it shouldn't be the default assumption.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 19:44
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by Krautwald View Post


That goes both ways. Why is the gap between minimum wages and benefits always corrected on the benefits side?

As soon as you enable shareholder to pay as little for work as you can get for being at home reading....then you breed artificial business models depending on distortion of bargaining power.
I don't know the official answer, but I would guess that the Gov't, Lab or Con are too frightened to make the right decision.
Just my opinion, Businesses are using the benefits system to deliberately reduce pay knowing full well the system will top up their employees wages.

The Nip is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 07:37
  #68 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by The Nip View Post


I can't wait for the resident Commie to read the posts on here.

It has been said many times before. No one on benefits should earn more than someone who is working.
As soon as you can get paid more for for being at home reading the Guardian and complaining about everything, then you breed a new generation of those who are state dependent. They believe it is their right that people should look after all their wants and needs.


Ah, would that be a cryptic reference to me then ?...I only ask because possibly, assuming you've been to Shrivers that is, during a lecture on Political Science, the opening words would have been along the lines of "Right, lets get this clear......ALL Guardian readers are, by default, Commies ".....to nodding heads and murmurs of approval from the cognitively development challenged in the class. The irony being, as I may have mentioned before, is that you are as much state dependent as anybody on benefits.....the state has, after all, being paying your wages and will be paying your pension thereafter once you retire.

Back to the perennial JB clichť riddled, stereotype, ( with acknowledgment to the Mail and Excess here for their sources of inspiration ) perennial "benefit scroungers !...no such thing as poverty in the UK ! " etc ad not a clue about reality away from Wisteria Avenue" ( on second thoughts, some of you have albeit only a few )

There are, should you care to do even a basic search, innumerable links to confirm the harsh reality for many in the UK...however, as this may occupy your valuable time planning the weekly shop and leisure time planning the soopah hols ( " we simply can't do another cruise this year dahling, what on earth will the neighbours think if we do this two years in succession ! ") please have a read of the link...................... and then tell me that poverty isn't only too prevalent in the UK.

https://www.bigissue.com/latest/chil...-high-in-2019/

However, deprivation of life's essentials is not, it seems, exclusive to those who are subjected to Tory punitive austerity....so spare a thought for this poor lady.....a suitable outpouring of JB sympathy would surely be relevant here.....and the trauma she must be facing......there again, as we know, Waitrose has been going into decline by not subjecting the clientele to positive vetting and proof of occupation before allowing them into the store....

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ct-to-closures

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 20th Jul 2019 at 08:03.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 11:57
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,640
Robert Trussell wrote about real poverty. A read of the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist should be mandatory.
Everything else is just relative affluence in the UK.

Some parts of some parts of the world - India and Africa, for instance, are rather different.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 15:45
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Last 40 years in the UK has been rammed full of proponents giving their views on how state assets could be better used, how taxes should be lower and how benefits claimants need to desist, and, that if they did, UK economic growth would improve. And, hey-ho, HMG have implemented some of the changes "Demanded". However, in outcome, the UK economy's growth rate, (The ultimate arbiter of success) is still the same as it has been since the 1960s i.e. 2%.

But, interestingly the wealth and income gap between the top and bottom participants in the UK economy has widened substantially since 1979, more so than in the countries of our European compatriots/competitors/whatever.

IMHO, even achieving and maintaining that is a miracle given the massive economic (Once in 200 years) transition, from an industrial to a retail economy, that the UK has gone through in the last 40 years.

So you then must ask, if all the undercutting of social provision in the UK is so effective in promoting economic growth, why hasn't the growth rate gone-up ?

Obviously any funds from previous social security savings over the last, rather than having been "Ploughed-Back in" to the UK economy have been given away as tax savings to higher tax payers and have gone out of the UK National economy to offshore accounts as investment abroad or treasure war chests in offshore tax havens. Such was the confidence in the UK economy that these "Benefit" recipients had.

And, further, changes in economic growth in the UK's steady state are largely beyond the effective control of governments, big firms and even the ranters on forums such as this and because the total annual expenditure on state benefits connected with employment are now piddling iro £5 billion compared with the nations total annual output (The GNP) of $2.2 trillion. The ranters would be better-off chasing the missing tax-receipts for the last 40 years, with the Tax gap (The difference between what's estimated to be available for collection as Taxes and what's actually collected) currently standing at £35 billion pa, of which Tax evasion is £4.4 billion and Tax avoidance £2.7 billion i.e. a total equivalent to the annual budget of the Ministry of Defence. Not bad eh ?

The things that do effect growth are productivity and corporate and infrastructure investment. We've fallen well behind the best in Europe on both counts.
Low confidence in the prospects for economic prosperity are the cause of low investment. Ultimately, government gives the lead and industry follows.
The major thing undermining investment in this country is not the "Drag" of social security claimants but the fact that the rest of the World economy is developing and that there are more attractive investment opportunities abroad with a higher rate of return. The European economic focus is moving to central Europe and the World economic focus is moving to the far East.

And why are there higher rates of return, because productivity is low, partly due to under-investment and partly due to the fact that we are already a developed economy (Believe it or not) with a higher cost base (Because we live better than some parts of the World) .

What hasn't helped is that the application of old-fashion economic policy conditioned by the middle-class at ballot box which sees the only way to deal with these World Economic Changes and preserve its own historically derived life style and economic privilege is by running the economy as a low-skill labour "Sweat-shop" with, more recently, support from "Revolving-door " European Labour.

And now, in order to preserve the historically based economic over-privilege of the remaining 160,000 Conservative Association members, the other camp followers and "Bears of little brain", we're now going to cut ourselves off from the supply of European cheap labour. Brilliant.

I suppose in those circumstances you do need some good distractions to offer the less than comprehending general public and a 1 in 1000 Social Security abuser will fit the editor's bill.

N.

Last edited by NAROBS; 20th Jul 2019 at 15:56.
NAROBS is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 16:14
  #71 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,680
Nabob, there is no legal or moral sanction against tax avoidance. If the Chancellor believes I am entitled to a specific relief there is no reason not to claim it. I avoid paying for a TV licence, bus travel, travel in London, some of my heating bill and a free turkey at Christmas. I also get free hearing aids, batteries and eye tests thank you.

If course none of this is free and I certainly contributed toward these benefits through my working life.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 16:18
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by NAROBS View Post
What hasn't helped is that the application of old-fashion economic policy conditioned by the middle-class at ballot box which sees the only way to deal with these World Economic Changes and preserve its own historically derived life style and economic privilege is by running the economy as a low-skill labour "Sweat-shop" with, more recently, support from "Revolving-door " European Labour.

And now, in order to preserve the historically based economic over-privilege of the remaining 160,000 Conservative Association members, the other camp followers and "Bears of little brain", we're now going to cut ourselves off from the supply of European cheap labour. Brilliant.
So you are against the use of 'revolving door' European labour.

But at the same time you're against cutting the supply of that labour off.

OK, got it.
Andy_S is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 16:48
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by NAROBS View Post
But, interestingly the wealth and income gap between the top and bottom participants in the UK economy has widened substantially since 1979,

.
I suggest that you learn about Gini coefficients.
Interestingly they went up slightly under Blair and Brown.
But then came down sharply under Osborne.
Personally I am happy with an immense income and wealth gap. People such as Gates, Bezos and Musk advance humanity enormously and deserve huge rewards.
Whilst someone with a liberal arts degree from a polytechnic university deserves to be flipping burgers on minimum wage.
In the UK success is massively punished. Which is why more than a million Brits have bailed out to earn their money and pay their taxes elsewhere. It makes complete sense when skills are portable.
We need an economy that brings these people back to create wealth for this country, but whilst politics of envy remain morally acceptable they are not coming.
.

Eclectic is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 19:23
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,528
Say again. Better than it used to be.
Poverty is a condition that can be compared.
IMO, it is much less austere than previously. Rightly so. That is not to say that matters cannot be improved - as ever.
But please! Things are way better than before. Use the word in context - not as political fuel.

jindabyne is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 10:33
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by jindabyne View Post
That is not to say that matters cannot be improved - as ever.
But please! Things are way better than before. Use the word in context - not as political fuel.
Absolutely correct; particularly the last four words. Some of us have lost all sense of perspective.
Andy_S is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 13:37
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Andy_S View Post
So you are against the use of 'revolving door' European labour.

But at the same time you're against cutting the supply of that labour off.

OK, got it.
I was just saying if I was one of the 160K, which I'm not, I wouldn't be shooting myself in the foot - with the loss of all those uninvoiced "Black stuff" front drives ?

In the same way that if I was a privatised worker in the public service I wouldn't be over-joyed with Labour's policy to pull all outsourced services back in-house.

Both measures, by sheer coincidence, I'm sure, attempt to place a cap on labour costs.


N

Last edited by NAROBS; 21st Jul 2019 at 13:49.
NAROBS is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 13:48
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
But, as said previously, we've had 40 years of this philosophy since 1979, and the long-term growth rate is still 2% and the distribution is worse than 1979. Yet the real economy has doubled in size in the last 36 years. "Trickle down", "stakeholder status" and all the rest of the PR crap that we've been fed hasn't materialised in sufficient amount to counter the distribution transfer from poor to rich.

We're now seeing the effects of this policy on the High street and the North of England.

We have customers, but they have no extra disposable income to promote UK growth. In the words of John Cleese, "Don't kill the customers Mungo"

Last edited by NAROBS; 21st Jul 2019 at 14:33.
NAROBS is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 14:18
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
So that's, USA, France, Spain, Germany, Eire, Scandanavia, eastern europe, the beccystans, Egypt, bits of central and east Africa, Indonesia have a lower gini index number i.e. greater income equality than the UK.

As one instance, does Grenfell and 600 odd tower blocks give us a clue why ?

N.
NAROBS is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 14:36
  #79 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by NAROBS View Post
So that's, USA, France, Spain, Germany, Eire, Scandanavia, eastern europe, the beccystans, Egypt, bits of central and east Africa, Indonesia have a lower gini index number i.e. greater income equality than the UK.

As one instance, does Grenfell and 600 odd tower blocks give us a clue why ?

N.
The U.K. standard of living canít be that bad though, thereís enough people wanting wanting get here by any means.
(and Iím the son of economic migrants too)
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 15:49
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by NAROBS View Post
In the same way that if I was a privatised worker in the public service I wouldn't be over-joyed with Labour's policy to pull all outsourced services back in-house.

Both measures, by sheer coincidence, I'm sure, attempt to place a cap on labour costs.
It seems to me after fourteen years of being a councillor under both Labour and non-Labour governments that
  • Labour views the primary purpose of a local authority as providing jobs for unionised Labour voting council employees
  • Tories view the primary purpose of a local authority, when it's grudgingly allowed to do anything at all, as routing public money into profits for private companies.
My lot took a different view, which was that
  • the primary purpose of a local authority is to provide services for its local residents
and that whether any particular service should be in house or contracted out was a pragmatic decision to take on a case by case basis on the facts.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.