1 in 4 households are struggling

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why don't the poor just accept that they are poor and that they can't afford to have everything they want?

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why do the poor always insist that being poor isn't their fault?

It's like having George Orwell on the board. Only not as good of course.

Actually, I agree with you. Those pesky poor. I met one just the other day who was blaming me (me!) for his poorness. I didn't even dignify him with a response and just kicked his face off. Shameless.

Sir_Humphrey

Cleaver wrote: »

It's like having George Orwell on the board. Only not as good of course.

I suspect White Horse is what he is on, not what he is if his posting is anything to go by.

The_White_Horse

if you're gonna ride, ride the white horse.

look, some people will be poor and some rich. you will NEVER have it any other way.

just go with it. i think the best thing for most of the neerdowells in council estates would be to be assigned to a real family as a slave. they will have a better life and feel better about themselves. they can always buy themselves out of it if they want.

come on dazza, where are my clean shirts?

they is coming innit my master

what? do speak english darren

sorry master, your shirts will be ready shortly.

thank you darren. I will now give you a beating

thank you sir, i deserve it for being a cretin

Fire_Fox

wolvoman wrote: »

Are you being deliberately stupid?

Council tax has nothing to do with running costs. It is a tax based on taking from the better off and giving to the poor.

If you are in Band A or in Band G, you get exactly the same services.

(although in practice the Band A dwellers probably use more of the welfare and education services than the average Band G dweller).

Band A properties tend to be small, thus I would suggest they are largely flats occupied by single and couple households and not families using schools. Even here in Bradford the two bedroom flats tend to be banded B and C. I can't say for sure about use of welfare services, but the ACORN profile of my postcode is young professional and foreign students. Everyone I know in this building is gainfully employed, be they white British or immigrant.

A lot of us flat dwellers don't run cars so we don't wear out the roads: here we don't have access to basic services such as doorstep recycling collection, neighbourhood forums or ward councillor surgeries. Our landfill waste is deposited in communal bins in an area used by three blocks of apartments, so a lot less time consuming to collect than on your street. Despite being in Bradford the crime stats for my area are very low, so we don't even even get much use out of what we pay towards policing.

StevieJ

Cleaver wrote: »

It's like having George Orwell on the board. Only not as good of course.

Actually, I agree with you. Those pesky poor. I met one just the other day who was blaming me (me!) for his poorness. I didn't even dignify him with a response and just kicked his face off. Shameless.

Down and out in Salford and Cheetham Hill :eek:

Sir_Humphrey

StevieJ wrote: »

Down and out in Salford and Cheetham Hill :eek:

Homage to Catatonia springs to mind with White Horse's posts.

The_White_Horse

i never liked that band.

carefullycautious

i had a conversation with a friend who saved up the money whilst working and brought their home outright. Retired many years ago and has managed to live on 80 pounds a week. Never claimed any benefits and never will. He told me that most people would top themselves if they had to live how he has. Some may say he is poor but if you enjoy living simply and within your means it can be done.

I have also spoke to many people who have no intention of giving up their extravagant lifestyle even if it means ending up on benefits and all that entails. I know who Id rather be.

The_White_Horse

carefullycautious wrote: »

i had a conversation with a friend who saved up the money whilst working and brought their home outright. Retired many years ago and has managed to live on 80 pounds a week. Never claimed any benefits and never will. He told me that most people would top themselves if they had to live how he has. Some may say he is poor but if you enjoy living simply and within your means it can be done.

I have also spoke to many people who have no intention of giving up their extravagant lifestyle even if it means ending up on benefits and all that entails. I know who Id rather be.

sounds like a fun guy.

dopester

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why do the poor always insist that being poor isn't their fault?

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.

Diverting Attention from the Real Problem

The delusion that the rich as a group are to blame for depression deflects attention from the real problem - the fact that American society has indulged in economic profligacy. Both government debt and society have lived beyond their means. Vast sums were wasted. Debt skyrocketed. And so did counterproductive behaviour.

These are intimately connected causes of economic decline. The balance sheet of the United States has been run into the ground, not by the rich, but by politicians catering to constituencies who wanted something for nothing.

As we analyse in detail elsewhere, part of the problem has been the growth of income redistribution - which reflects the deteriorating capacity of governments to maintain order. The political etiquette of this process has served to disguise the degree to which many of the poor contribute to their own plight.

For reasons we have canvassed at length, a major cause of poverty and rising social disorder are the life-style choices of the poor themselves. Chronic failure to take advantage of abundant educational opportunities, for example, assures that incomes among the lower class will not rise in a period when returns from manual work fall.

Yet we hear very little overt criticism of the unwillingness among the poor to apply themselves. Quite the opposite. The common response is to exonerate the poor for their part in economic decline, while the more productive and successful are blamed. This makes about as much sense as a farmer beating his most productive milk cows because the rest of his herd has gone dry. The rising tide of resentment against achievement in a negative indicator for the future.

Inequality Not a Hamper to Growth

Inequality of wealth, per se, is not necessarily a negative for economic growth. Where the poor have a low propensity to save, inequality of income is essential for economic growth. As economic historian Carlon Cipolla points out, "a high concentration of wealth is an indispensable condition to the formation of savings" under some circumstances.

A growing disparity of assets is sometimes a sign of rapid progress. It spurs people with little income to adjust their behaviour and values in imitation of those who succeed. Inequality exploded during the takeoff phases of industrialisation. This did not stifle growth. The compound growth rate of some economies in the nineteenth century, when inequality was high, exceeded that during the twentieth century, when inequality of wealth has generally been lower.

Everyone is better off, rich and poor alike, when total wealth rises. Those who have little are worse off when a tumbling stock market wipes out billions of dollars of assets.

The culture of the slums has become an imperial culture. It grows in influence not because of its strengths as a life strategy, but because of its failures. Perverse values have been reinforced by political developments since the 1960s - which in turn were a response by the increasing vulnerability of the nation-state to violence by small groups.

To be a loser, a victim, is now an asset that can be utilised to demand payoffs from the larger society. And is some ways, the more irrational the claims by the victim, the more effective they are. Irrationality makes the implied shakedown more threatening. The breakdown of law enforcement has further compounded the incentive traps of the welfare state by increasing the returns from antisocial behaviour.

As a consequence, the underclass has gone from a tiny subculture in inner cities during the 1960s to become a dominant culture in many urban areas today. The rapid growth of the underclass has meant a dramatic increase in violence, drug addiction, and social disintegration. (continues.. unwed, teenage mothers, crime, escalating costs of supporting dependent populations on the more successful, budget crises, ect ect)

Scapegoating, Conspiracies, and Redistribution

A rational basis for scapegoating from the point of view of the impoverished is that it often provides an excuse for redistributing wealth. This practical feature makes scapegoating a more attractive form of delusion, especially in economies where some individuals are far enough above subsistence to have some wealth to redistribute. It is to be expected that sudden ill fortune will widely be attributed to the magical conniving of scapegoats.

These scapegoats may be practically anyone who seems luckier: wealthier peasant neighbours, foreign devils, international bankers, or Jews. The ugly rioting against foreigners in Germany and the widespread hallucination in Japan that foreign "Jewish investment houses" caused Japanese stocks to crash testify to the universality of scapegoating.

What appears at first approach to be a surprising coincidence in the content of these delusions across time and cultures is, on second thought, exactly what should be expected. The similarities are dictated by the function of the delusion - to exonerate the loser from responsibility. The poor man's pig cannot simply dies. It must have been killed by the village "sorcerer," who usually just happens to be the person in the village who is most successful at fattening his own pigs. It is not incidental that the farmer with pigs is also likely to be most able to bear the burden of redistribution.

For the sorcerer or conspirator to achieve this amazing feat requires that he possess occult knowledge not generally available. It also requires that the inner circle to which the sorcerer belongs have some wicked purpose. This could be devil worship, cannibalism, repugnant sexual practices, a commitment to enslave the world (dopester: hoarding wealth) - or whatever seems likely to disqualify the conspiracy from common sympathy.

The wicked purpose is essential. Otherwise the loser is still subject to the reproach that he failed to obtain the powerful knowledge himself.

Debtors in debtor countries usually blame their woes on their creditors, a pattern that almost guarantees the list of scapegoats from the coming crisis will be extended from Jews, whites, Trilateral Commission, the Queen of England, and the international banks.

[Premodern societies] Some of these actions, like the tortures of witches by the Inquisition, had the not-incidental effect of allowing those who identified the conspiracy to seize the property of their victims. Inquisitors in Germany in the early thirteenth century claimed that leading citizens were in league with the Devil. Allegedly, the were flying to and from orgies where they were said to have kissed the Devil's bottom and carried on in other unmentionable ways. Those who were charged with participating in these devilish conspiracies were tortured mercilessly. If they confessed, as most did, their property was taken.

Usually, though not always, delusional thinking masks an element of theft. The victims of the delusion are usually those with something to steal.