Fantastic comment piece from the Times on the giveaway to mortgage holders

Guy_Montag

It strikes me that if HM. Govt. wish to move families with kids & pensioners out of relative poverty the only way to do this is to:
a) move more working-age non-parents into poverty
b) reduce the gap between the richest & the poor

To do a) would mean increasing the taxes on anyone without a family who is of working age
To do b) would be to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest, i.e. increase taxes on the richest x% of the population, either to drive them out of the country or to reduce their incomes to the point where they no longer push people into relative poverty.

The former is quite obviously ridiculous, the latter is politically difficult & probably not very good for the country.

Better to come up with an absolute measure of poverty (similar to Anne3333's), though that would be open to debate (see above).

I have a friend who works with deprived children, she was telling me that all to often she will visit them to find a large lcd/plasma tv on, with the lights off (to save on the leccy bill). These families are quite obviously impoverished, but some of it must be self-inflicted after all a large tv on HP will cost far more than a more modest one bought second hand (or even a large tv bought cash).

SingleSue

Could somebody tell me what the qualification is to be deemed an impoverished or deprived family?

My thinking of it may be different to others but it would be interesting to see what others feel it is.

Guy_Montag

SingleSue wrote: »

Could somebody tell me what the qualification is to be deemed an impoverished or deprived family?

My thinking of it may be different to others but it would be interesting to see what others feel it is.

Generational unemployment, generational poor education, health problems due to a lack of nutrition (though not necessarily lack of food).

We're not talking single mums here; we're talking kids on the "at risk" register. Think Sharon Matthews.

SingleSue

Ok thanks....your thinking is generally about the same as mine as I don't think of myself as living in a deprived family despite being on benefits.

moggylover

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My Dad (define his class as you like - brought up in a working-class family in Merseyside, now a QC) went to the GP a couple of weeks ago. It was his first visit since 1996, and they had to rummage around in the basement to find his paper notes, as his file hasn't been computerised.

And he did get referred to a specialist, as he did in 1996, so 100% of his visits since 1990 have resulted in referrals.

That doesn't mean he "milks the system", it means he is pretty healthy and only goes to the GP when he's really ill.

I imagine GPs love patients like him, as he doesn't clog up their surgery!

But, by the same token - my mother also had never known ill health until she reached 68 and she worked in the low paid sector for all of her life and we were council tennants throughout all my growing years. My father had a bad spell with his health post war - with repeated Malaria attacks, but very little other health problems (other than occasional kidney stones) until his hip needed replacing in his mid 50's - but it took nearly 8 years for him to get the op - and it really only happened when I had a go at the doctors and suggested that I would pay for the op and go to the press about the need to do so. Again, a lad who grew up in a charity orphanage and worked in a factory all his life - but not a particularly unhealthy man.

I don't think the middle classes are "cheating" the system, but I do think that they may well get better treatment and more respect because they are more able to argue their case. I also think they may well get listened to more because they will be perceived to be more intelligent, and also get better detailed explanations for the same reason.

I'm not actually against people getting short term help with large mortgages (they have worked to get to where they are after all) but can see that this may well be open to quite hefty abuse, and do not think the assistance should be there to help them with keeping a mansion long term. They have the option of sizing down (although not easy at the mo) and also should be more likely to be able to get back into work fairly quickly.

I also do not entirely disagree with the Government move to get people into/back into work - although I think the timing is totally ridiculous which makes me agree that it is more a vote catcher for the middle classes and doomed to failure. I also think it has little to do with reality for some areas of the Country - so I will watch with interest.

moggylover

Lotus-eater wrote: »

They wouldn't at my doctors, I could guarantee it. My area has its fair share of working class areas, but it generally is better than most.
Probably down to the doctors in certain areas not being up to scratch. If not that, then why, or how, can this be happening?

Because for the most part the "best doctors" as with the "best teachers" are going to fight tooth and nail to work in better areas and better practices. I don't entirely blame them: but it creates a situation where those actually in greatest need get the least effective service.

DirectDebacle

Guy_Montag wrote: »

It strikes me that if HM. Govt. wish to move families with kids & pensioners out of relative poverty the only way to do this is to:
a) move more working-age non-parents into poverty
b) reduce the gap between the richest & the poor

To do a) would mean increasing the taxes on anyone without a family who is of working age
To do b) would be to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest, i.e. increase taxes on the richest x% of the population, either to drive them out of the country or to reduce their incomes to the point where they no longer push people into relative poverty.

The former is quite obviously ridiculous, the latter is politically difficult & probably not very good for the country.

In part they have already done a)

To do b) is achievable and does not have to be punitive on the higher earners. With a big fanfare Govt announce sweeping changes to the benefits system in order to get people back into work. These are not sweeping changes but a mere tinkering with it around the edges. The benefits system need a total overhaul. With targeted measures, instead of the universal benefits for all system, there would be better value for the tax payers and recipients alike.

One way of avoiding the 'benefits trap', where the difference between benefits and a low paid job provides no incentive to work, is to raise the minimum wage to a level where there is real incentive to come off benefits. This would be expensive (to business) and would need to be phased in and absorbed over several years.

As you say none of this is going to attract votes. A politicians primary objective is to gain power and the secondary objective is to keep it.

Generali

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I have a friend who works with deprived children, she was telling me that all to often she will visit them to find a large lcd/plasma tv on, with the lights off (to save on the leccy bill). These families are quite obviously impoverished, but some of it must be self-inflicted after all a large tv on HP will cost far more than a more modest one bought second hand (or even a large tv bought cash).

I picked up a 32" Hitachi and 2x21" Sony CRT TVs for free over the period of about 3 months on freecycle pretty easily. Nobody wanted them and they certainly seemed to have no value 2nd hand despite retailing for several hundred pounds each a few years ago.

SingleSue

I regularly see them too Generali....

I DO have a flatscreen television but that is only because I had to claim on my insurance nearly 2 years ago and Sony no longer did the bulky CRT's anymore...the bulky one was purchased when I was married and we were both working I hasten to add although it was the event of a major disagreement between my partner and myself as I thought it was a waste money getting a brand name and he was adament he only wanted a Sony!

The rest of the televisions we have are geriatric (and only portables) with the youngest one being ten years old and most of them were passed along to us when family members upgraded their televisions.

moggylover

Anne3333 wrote: »

Families are classed as being in poverty if they have a level of income below 60 per cent of the median household income. For example a family with two adults and two children needs to have £346 each week in order to be above the poverty line
3.9 million children - one in three - are currently living in poverty in the UK, one of the highest rates in the industrialised world.
The material deprivation indicators used to assess child poverty are;

• Go to a playgroup at least once a week?
• Go on a school trip at least once a term?
• Have friends round for tea or a snack once a fortnight?
• Swimming at least once a month?
• Hobby or leisure activity?
• At least one week’s holiday away from home with family?
• Leisure equipment such as sports equipment or a bicycle?
• Celebrations on special occasions?
• Enough bedrooms for every child 10 years or over and of a different gender?
• Outdoor space/facilities to play?

Thank God for that! Mine are not deprived! Apart from the holidays that is, but that is down to other priorities/problems not deprivation:D . We do need another bedroom though - they hate sharing nowadays:o