Seven million now live in households where no one works - The DM

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

You still have not been able to say what child poverty actually means. How can you tackle a problem if you do not know what it is?

Rightio, I'll do the googling for you shall I? Websters Dictionary defines poverty as "the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions"

As I said earlier I use the same definition as our government and most agencies that I'm aware of such as Oxfam and Barnardos etc which was defined by Professor Peter Townsend who has been studying poverty in the Uk for over 50 years.

It basically states that those people whose "resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities." are living in poverty.

Interestingly the Joseph Rowntree foundation fond that two thirds of the British public thought that poverty was something that happened to other people and was either just an inevitable part of life that nobody could help them with, or all their own fault due to their own laziness.

The JRF predict that due to the new economic climate that, in any 10-year period, half the population will live in government-defined poverty for at least 12 months.

In a recession, poverty is no longer something only experienced by other people.

I wonder if that will change people's opinions?

Jacks_xxx

Percy1983 wrote: »

The point we are making is the benefits system doesn't leave children in poverty as parents get enough to feed/shelter them, the parents lead to poverty when they choose to spend said benfits on vodka and fags.

In which case they should have the children taken off them.

I think there's more to bringing up children than food and shelter, and I'm not sure why we keep having to talk about vodka and fags. What have they got to do with it?

ILW

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Rightio, I'll do the googling for you shall I? Websters Dictionary defines poverty as "the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions"

As I said earlier I use the same definition as our government and most agencies that I'm aware of such as Oxfam and Barnardos etc which was defined by Professor Peter Townsend who has been studying poverty in the Uk for over 50 years.

It basically states that those people whose "resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities." are living in poverty.


In a recession, poverty is no longer something only experienced by other people.

I wonder if that will change people's opinions?

You have still failed to quantify it, I still have no idea where the poverty line is. From the above definition it appears that if (by whatever means) evereybody was bought down to the level of the poorest, then poverty would cease to exist. Would that solve the problem?

Percy1983

So by definition most children have access to a 360/PS3, so if I child doesn't have one they are living in poverty?

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

You have still failed to quantify it, I still have no idea where the poverty line is. From the above definition it appears that if (by whatever means) evereybody was bought down to the level of the poorest, then poverty would cease to exist. Would that solve the problem?

Actually it would.

Since absolute poverty doesn't exist in our country...

Since we all seem to think that the government will house you and give you enough money to live on...

Since everybody has enough money for the essentials like food and shelter...

and since you can choose to spend your vodka and fags money on something else if you prefer...

...Then yes it would solve the problem. The poorest people in society are having a lovely time - why wouldn't we all want to live like them?

michaels

Really - lets think this through. Suppose the govt takes a tenner of me that I would have saved and gives it to someone who is not working and they spend it on cigarettes.

Yes part of the £10 is taxed, part goes towards a shop-workers wages etc.

But what about the £10 when I had it - not being a smoker I put it in the bank to earn interest rather than leaving it under the mattress. The bank can not just leave it in the vault as in that case how can they afford to pay me interest? they must lend it to someone and that person obviously has to pay interest on the borrowing so must be taking the money to spend - may be on a car or extension, may be it is a business paying for a new machine. Either way the money still gets spent whether it is by the original person on cigarettes or by the business borrower to invest and create jobs.

Is it really better for it to be spent on ciggies? After all taking it from me has reduced my incentive to earn it in the first place so may be I will just sit on my a**e instead and there won't be the £10 in the first place solving the problem of what to do with it...

ninky wrote: »

how does that help the economy though? in fact the fags probably put more back into the pot by way of tax. no one seems to have taken my point / link that wealth concentrated into the hands of the few will not help economic growth. if you have large amounts of disposable income you are more likely to horde large amounts of it. spread that wealth among a few people and they are more likely to spend it.

ILW

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Actually it would.

Since absolute poverty doesn't exist in our country...

Since we all seem to think that the government will house you and give you enough money to live on...

Since everybody has enough money for the essentials like food and shelter...

and since you can choose to spend your vodka and fags money on something else if you prefer...

...Then yes it would solve the problem. The poorest people in society are having a lovely time - why wouldn't we all want to live like them?

That is just a childish rant.
If you could up with a better defintion of poverty than "not having as much as others" then we may get somewhere. What does this figure or 6 million children mean? If it just means they have have less than others, to me that is no definition of poverty.

Percy1983

I see the problem here.

If somebody has less than everybody else they are in poverty, so you say we should give them the same as everybody else. To which in some respects I am not against that.

But that then means than a family who might work hard to have an average life get the same as somebody who does nothing for the same average life.

Ok increase wages so those who work are rewarded more than those who don't work... oh no the average person now has more money leaving people in poverty again...

To me I want to see a clear line between those who work and those who won't work, if that means they live in poverty so be it, but poverty by that definition isn't as harsh as the word sounds. The current living stand in the county is very good, so to live just below it may be classed as poverty by definition, but I do not think they are suffering.

Coeus

I like the balance of opposing views on this forum.

I don't agree with the benefits system as it is. I do not claim to have perfect knowledge of how the system works but generational unemployment is completely intolerable.

Everyone in society is able to contribute in one way or another unless SEVERELY disabled. I do not understand why those with physical disabilities on benefits do not work in basic data processing (call centres for example). Even those who worked in a different industry can be retrained to do basic data entry!

Mental disability I accept and tolerate fully agreeing with benefits to the point of REASONABLE STANDARD OF LIVING. To this I mean basic NEEDS (food, water, heat, light, (basic) shelter etc.) and socially tolerable WANTS (free TV license for basic entertainment). It is more difficult for benefit seekers to prove mentally unfit to work than physically so.

To this point limitations should be placed on those in the benefits system, notably a cap on future support. I use this to address the situation of generational benefit families. Agreement should be made to a maximum family the state will support to avoid purposeful expansion of families to attain further benefits. I expect this to be an unpopular point in the case of human rights. However the rights of society over the rights of individuals must prevail in order to sufficiently protect the rights of the majority of individuals making up said society.

ninky_2

A._Badger wrote: »

That's what Labour were attempting to do for 13 wasted years - 'redistribution'. In other words, take from one set of people and give to another. And when they found it didn't work, they nipped down to see the local loan shark and borrowed.

That's how we got in this mess.

Some say the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

It's not a concept that Labour supporters appear to understand.

i disagree with that. i don't think the labour party successfully redistributed at all. there was quite a bit of confusion going on with some policies. some misplaced. i think it is possible that some attempts at creating fairer wealth distribution fail but that doesn't mean it can't be done - more that the wrong tactics have been used.