1 in 4 households are struggling

jcj

The_White_Horse wrote: »

can we all agree on one thing at least, that poor people are scum.

there was some stupid lefty on a programme on sunday morning (the big question?) and he was trying to blame all the crime we see today on thacher. It was laughable. anyway, this lefty said that 80% of crime was committed by poor people.

i think all the lefty has done is highlight what scum these poor people really are.

Out of curiosity what do you consider to be poor?

dopester

jcj wrote: »

There are plenty of large families living in three bed houses paying less council tax than a single person living in a small 1 bed flat.

This is the problem.

Are you calling for a new Poll Tax ?

mardatha

So will poor people still be scum when he is one ?
If you win the lottery do you cease instantly to be scum ?
Does this mean all rich people (like bankers) are honourable & upright ?
My god. I sometimes wonder about this forum ! :D:D

SingleSue

Not the only one mardatha... White Horse, being poor does not make you scum, your actions (whether you are poor or rich), makes you scum.

And how I hate the word scum!

Oh, and I am not a lefty..well apart from being left handed.

pipkin71

SingleSue wrote: »

And how I hate the word scum!

I'm with you there, Sue.

Such a horrible way to describe someone because of their circumstances.

silvercar

I thought scum described how people behave not how much money they have.

lostinrates

pipkin71 wrote: »

I'm with you there, Sue.

Such a horrible way to describe someone because of their circumstances.

I agree. Some might almost say a scummy way to behave and talk about people.

jennihen

I'd rather be poor than IGNORANT!!

fc123

dopester wrote: »

In previous posts I've made on other threads over time.. I've tried to float alternatives to Sir Humphrey's "solutions".

All his solutions are totally flawed imo - and a major part of the reason why we are in the trouble we are in. He calls for:

"1 & 2 ) Allow another debt bubble or alter the distribution of wealth so that it becomes more equal. The latter involves redistibuting excess savings from the rich (either through taxation or heavy wage regulation) to the poor (who would spend the money.) The money of course would circulate back up to the rich via company profits.

3) The third way is for much higher public spending to fill the demand gap."

Some snippets below.. which I think are of interest and some points worth noting.

Those quotes are a bit scary DS. All humans are different, just like animals.
Lazy ones, industrious ones, energetic ones. I have owned/rescued many cats over 25 years and each was just a cat, then differences between male/female (in cats, females seem to be more busy and self sufficient, catching mice etc. more so than the males, but the males are more affectionate and 'giving', they like lap more).

Eugenics as a 'solution' (but to what, I never worked out?) crops up in every generation....horrendous outcome when someone can actually play at it (like Hitler).
You will always have wasters in society and then society can choose whether to support their wasting lifestyle or not.

Supporting it is the easiest option as then they can waste away without causing too much grief to anyone else...except, it can then become a lifestyle that attracts the semi industrious. I have know plenty of them. Quite able to innovate and create an income but it's much easier when the basics are paid for by benefits....and then the fruits of their innovation and hard work are for themselves.