1 in 4 households are struggling

Sir_Humphrey

dopester wrote: »

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

A poster on another forum kept putting up unattributed quotes. These quotes turned out (surprise surprise) to be from the ultra right-wing, American Confederacy-loving nut-house/cult ranch, the Mises "Institute".

Yee-hah! :rolleyes:

The_White_Horse

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.

bendix

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

A poster on another forum kept putting up unattributed quotes. These quotes turned out (surprise surprise) to be from the ultra right-wing, American Confederacy-loving nut-house/cult ranch, the Mises "Institute".

Yee-hah! :rolleyes:

I guess it's preferable to posting unsupported truisms such as 'the gap between rich and poor is getting wider' and then ignoring requests for some evidence to back this up when asked.

Only a died-in-the-wood civil servant could seriously argue that increased public spending is needed right now.

As I said before, thank God you don't have a real job. You'd be dangerous.

kennyboy66_2

dopester wrote: »

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

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.

Interesting points, although to use the industrial revolution as an example, which in parts was funded by the profits of slavery & often relied on indentured and child labour, doesn't seem particulalrly helpful to predict the future.

bo_drinker

phil1873football wrote: »

Have you seen the cost to purhcase a cup of coffe in a coffee shop these days, maybe if these establishments sold their products at a reasonable cost, they might just get more customers.

These places will die a death in many areas over the next year or 2 there are too many, even here ,they are a fad

Many people are struggling as they were living for now and not saving for a rainy day or never had a plan B when it all went t1ts up, they are in shock now as it hits the fan

carefullycautious

Why are poor people scum?

Not everyone has the same life chances/education/nurture etc. Not every poor person is on benefits. THere are many middle class people who are just over the threshold for receiving help/benefits and have to pay for everything themselves thus making them 'poor' are these educated people scum.

I dont understand how you can make such a sweeping statement

PasturesNew

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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

Thanks ... but it's hard to make as much money as some get on benefits by just working ... so I'll have to stay as scum.

dopester

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

A poster on another forum kept putting up unattributed quotes. These quotes turned out (surprise surprise) to be from the ultra right-wing, American Confederacy-loving nut-house/cult ranch, the Mises "Institute".

Actually, what I've floated (which may have flaws) was to ask what really is important to individuals in life. Is that ultra right-wing?

Focusing on basics here...not expecting the state to pay for £25K+ in invalidity/jsa/motability/housing benefits and whatever else many people feel they deserve from a rich country. That is a huge burden on those contributing tax to pay for it all. We are approaching a collapse point of the welfare state imo.

Encourage another debt bubble? It doesn't happen like that. It isn't that easy. You certainly are not getting my FTB money to spend away.

Otherwise we may be heading to a time of significant social disorder and a great deal misery - terrifying times maybe. In no particular order... my basics would include: law and order (security against violence to the individual), shelter, food, heat/energy, basic healthcare.

A few times I've looked at that Pyramid City model (which atm can't be built as it would require a leap in carbon-tube technology for strength)... and I realise many people would think it whack..... but there is no economic payoff in supporting quite a few declining areas of the UK. Building roads to x-location, maintaining infrastructure, to areas where there is little work, which are not positively paying it's contributing, does not make sense. There will be more areas like that in the months and years to come.

Densification in an efficient housing model, with much lower costs, for those who are unemployed and without good prospects. Where more people can try and switch into the knowledge economy. This is economic transition. Not all, but a lot of the jobs you currently know have only been sustainable or created with the credit boom, and in many areas, have global overcapacity meaning it is harder to compete and profit.

Perhaps like a Logan's Run housing structure but without the 30 year-old death thingy. There would be growth in building/organising it all - sustainable living - lower cost to government - and opportunity for those living in each densification community.

Whereas I see you positioning yourself for a job as Chief Inquisitor. Black-caped... dealing out your justice to those who are wrongfully "hoarding wealth". Wealth you want spent by poor people I notice.. not saved, but spent. Spend spend spend with you lot.

movingforward2010

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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

you come across as such a nice person :rolleyes:

jcj

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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.

Lower banded properties are cheaper than higher banded properties but not necessarily smaller.

Surely it should be the size of the property and not the price that determines the band.

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.