For all the benefit frothers out there

Thrugelmir

ILW wrote: »

Any definition that defines poverty in terms of a percentage of averages is totally flawed and by it's nature creates a situation where poverty cannot be ended. Until a true definition is used the whole thing is an exercise in envy.

The danger is that you are bench marking the issue against your own moral standards and attitudes to life. There needs to be a raising of the lowest bar to at least allow people the opportunity to better themselves. To reduce dependancy on benefits by incentivising people to work and be better off. To give the children some hope for the future. Not to resort to crime, drug abuse and eventually prostitution.

We have become an extremely greedy society. Where hard work seems to have been replaced by quick rich schemes. Which only ever can be at somebody elses expense. Personally I'm all for a fairer society as it'll make the country a better place to live.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

This is what they mean by poverty:



But I assume the reasons that so many people have a household income significantly below average must be inextricably linked with these statistics:

I should imagine a huge chunk of these workless are retired with a pension, so not claiming benefits, statistics eh BTW was it two in four in the 50's (stay at home mums).


More than one in four working-age adults – 10.6 million people – in the UK do not work.

The UK has one of the highest rates of workless households in the EU, with 4.8 million working-age people living in a household in which no one of working-age is in work.

kabayiri

I think we confuse benefit frothers with those of us concerned that the country 'lives within its means'.

I would argue that our 'means' have changed over the last few years, and we should make some adjustment for that.

Personally, I am not bothered whether you spend £100bn on addressing poverty or £500bn. As long as we are confident that we can do so and still maintain a vibrant economically healthy economy.

Deferring hard decisions such as paying for future debts onto our offspring isn't maintaining a healthy economy in my view.

Mrs_Bones

moggylover wrote: »

Only parts I would disagree with is that I felt no guilt or shame in claiming benefits because I had paid into the pot (heftily) before needing help, and was seeking work for along period and unable to secure it. With my qualifications and experience that meant that the job market was stacked against me because of health and family commitment situation and thus I wasn't ashamed of myself, but of a system that allows that kind of "prejudice".

Secondly, poverty, imo, is something rather intangible that actual money (in hand) doesn't cure. For me it means living in an area with poor work prospects, sink estate habitation, poor schooling with often the worst (and worst motivated) teaching staff and an atmosphere of no hope.

We have plenty of people who are out of work in this area, and very few jobs that are not seasonal and poorly paid, however we don't have massive sink estates, we have very good schools that have children from all socio-economic levels (i.e. business owners, farmers, doctors, solicitors, agri workers, cleaners and the unemployed) and the majority of those with money and good jobs do not see a need for their children to be privately educated. The affect of this is that the "ghetto" mentality does not pervade, the children of the poorest rub shoulders with (and even become friends with) children from better circumstances and see and hear about a better life AND (more importantly) how to get a chance of that better life. Considerably fewer kids from unemployed backgrounds fall into the despair that appears prevalent in truly impoverished areas. They are encouraged (often by the parents of their better off friends as well as their peers and the schools) to look for a better future, and because we have more "community" here I believe that for the most part those kids have a much better chance of achieving their potential.

I don't think we will ever solve any of the problems the Mail wails about until everyone is willing to step back and be painfully honest about where the problems START. We need to accept that just because there is plenty of work in OUR area, that doesn't mean there is across the UK. We need to look at what some of that "work" actually is, i.e. the ubiquitous 0 - X hour contracts (basically casual labour) the difficulties of companies who want 25 part-timers (on very short but unreasonably fluid shifts) instead of 5 full timers or even 10 part-timers on fixed hours. We need to address the fact that some wages have (in every kind of terms) actually dropped in the last 25/30 years (i.e. agri, where my ex could earn £4 and hour for as many hours as he could keep going 30 years ago at 18, but that he would today only get minimum wage of £5.80 an hour for the same work).

We need to address the REAL cost of living, i.e. rent costs, council tax, food and basic clothing and transport (whether public or car) and look at how wages actually shape up in comparison to that.

We also need to look at the fact that many of the huge profits that companies show are increased each year by paying increasingly poor wages (below senior management level or IT that is) that the Government has to top up in order for people to survive.

I'm quite willing to admit there are scroungers out there. There were even 50 years ago when I was a child growing up in Slough (where there really wasn't any reason to be out of work at all in those days) when the benefits system was far less generous than it is now. I don't believe that screaming and ranting about it will solve it and nor will failing to address the basic problems that those at the bottom face in merely surviving, let alone having a life that gives them hope and purpose.

Thats one of the best posts I've ever read on here, pity I don't think any of the people who love to bash benefits will read it and think about it. Some people are just too set in their ways and would sooner believe newspaper stories and apply them to everyone on benefits then read facts.

I am on IB benefit, before this I have always worked full time and was in my last job for 22 years before I had to finish on ill health. It was just a normal full time 42 hour min wage job, nothing special but I enjoyed it and anyone who thinks I gave it up as a lifestyle choice to live on £5000. a year is in the realms of fantasy. I would not say I was in poverty but I do struggle. I'd love to work again instead of feeling like a second class citizen in my own country. At this stage I'd be happy if I could just make the same amount I get on benefits so that I could held my head up again and not feel such a loser or have the stress of all the medicals and forms to fill in. I've been thinking what I could do to work from home, but at the moment my health isn't even stable enough to do that. I may not have a degree but don't think I'm un intelligent and on my better days I do believe I could do maybe a couple of hours a day at something but I don't know when them better days will fall and no employer is going to take me on not knowing when or if I'll be in, hell even I wouldn't employ anyone like me and my best friends have said that neither would they or be happy working with someone like me who could not be reliable.

As someone stuck in the system I can say the benefit system is in a mess, it does need sorting but how I've no idea what the answers are, but it won't be solved by people who think you can just wave a magic wand, get well and go find a job the next day. As it stands I'd be better off dead at least then I wouldn't be a burden to anyone.

ILW

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The danger is that you are bench marking the issue against your own moral standards and attitudes to life. There needs to be a raising of the lowest bar to at least allow people the opportunity to better themselves. To reduce dependancy on benefits by incentivising people to work and be better off. To give the children some hope for the future. Not to resort to crime, drug abuse and eventually prostitution.

We have become an extremely greedy society. Where hard work seems to have been replaced by quick rich schemes. Which only ever can be at somebody elses expense. Personally I'm all for a fairer society as it'll make the country a better place to live.

I was not judging against my own moral standards, just trying to get a defintion of poverty that did not move as soon as any success in reducing it is achieved.

I would suggest though that anyone who can afford 20 cigarettes and 6 cans of stella daily along with a Sky Sports subcription is NOT living in poverty.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

I should imagine a huge chunk of these workless are retired with a pension...stay at home mums

But that doesn't apply to the statistic that "4.8 million working-age people live in a household in which no one of working-age is in work". I'm not sure how that compares to other countries or the situation in the UK decades ago, but it sounds like a problematically high number.

princeofpounds

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4070112.stm

Interesting article on definitions of poverty changing over time here, especially because it take a long-term viewpoint.

It's a few years old now, but basically Labour pushed very firmly the idea that poverty was an income below a certain percentage of the median income. That's a relative rather than an absolute definition of policy, and it's one that I am somewhat suspect of.

Yes inequalities can be undesirable in themselves, but it is quite a different concept to not being able to support oneself which most people think of as poverty.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

had we earned nothing, and been given our housing/CT, and benefits to cover bills, we would actually have had more disposable income!

.

i'm interested to know what disposable income you think those on benefits have? (by which i mean those genuinely on benefits, not those working cash in hand etc). i really doubt that those on benefits can afford luxuries that you couldn't.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

i'm interested to know what disposable income you think those on benefits have? (by which i mean those genuinely on benefits, not those working cash in hand etc). i really doubt that those on benefits can afford luxuries that you couldn't.

As before, Fags, Beer, Sky Sports, £100 trainers for the kids.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

But that doesn't apply to the statistic that "4.8 million working-age people live in a household in which no one of working-age is in work". I'm not sure how that compares to other countries or the situation in the UK decades ago, but it sounds like a problematically high number.

Why? plenty of husband and wife retirees in their 50's and kids flown the coop.