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

Jacks_xxx

3.9 million children live in poverty.

61% of all children living in poverty live in homes where at least one of the adults work.

2 million pensioners live in poverty. Most of them are women who worked part time while bringing up their families and caring for elderly or disabled relatives.

I don't understand why people don't focus on these issues instead?

ruggedtoast

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

It really P's me off that everyone who is unfortunate enough to need help from the government is branded a thief, scrounger or liar:mad: - yes there are some who sponge, but there are a lot more who don't.
If they want to cut benefits stop paying it to European's and other ethnic people who come here and get everything handed to them without having ever paid a penny into the system.:mad::mad::mad:

Oh and yes I am disabled but I worked from the age of 15 for 30 years and have never had to have state help before and I hate that I need to now.
I need new knees but have to wait because the NHS say I'm too young so I have to wait until basically the knees collapse :mad: and I have tried to get jobs and been turned down

I agree, the benefits system should be a safety net, not a career.

My friend went out for a while with a Polish girl who worked in a local factory, mostly staffed by Polish girls. She explained that most of the girls had come out to get pregnant because they were much better off claiming UK benefits than staying in Poland.

ILW

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

3.9 million children live in poverty.

61% of all children living in poverty live in homes where at least one of the adults work.

2 million pensioners live in poverty. Most of them are women who worked part time while bringing up their families and caring for elderly or disabled relatives.

I don't understand why people don't focus on these issues instead?

How do you define children living in poverty?

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

It really is not difficult to stop oneself getting pregnant to a pretty high level of certainty, what is easy is not not be careful. Too many people take no responsibilty and expect others to support them and their children.

Not complete certainty though, eh? Lots of lovely nice middle class people have unexpected babies too.

Rape, rohypnol, child abuse, contraceptive failure, alcohol induced poor judgement, youth related poor judgement, lack of sex education and low self esteem are more relevant than people taking no responsibility and expecting others to support them and their children. Pregnancy is not entirely avoidable without permanent irreversible surgical intervention.

When a boy is talking a girl into having sex with him, children and the support thereof is not likely to be at the forefront of either one's mind.

Once there is a pregnancy which would you prefer? Abortion? Or state support for the child?

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

How do you define children living in poverty?

These are government figures.

ILW

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

It really P's me off that everyone who is unfortunate enough to need help from the government is branded a thief, scrounger or liar:mad: - yes there are some who sponge, but there are a lot more who don't.
If they want to cut benefits stop paying it to European's and other ethnic people who come here and get everything handed to them without having ever paid a penny into the system.:mad::mad::mad:

Oh and yes I am disabled but I worked from the age of 15 for 30 years and have never had to have state help before and I hate that I need to now.
I need new knees but have to wait because the NHS say I'm too young so I have to wait until basically the knees collapse :mad: and I have tried to get jobs and been turned down

That is where I think you are mistaken.
Most people believe that those that cannot work through no fault of their own should be supported to a better level than they currently are. It is a diffenet nmatter though for those that deliberately put themselves in a position of being unable or unwilling to work that Ps people off.

ILW

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

These are government figures.

But what is the definition of poverty, if it is a percentage of average income it is meaningless and can be ignored.

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

How do you define children living in poverty?

Thats if they don't have a PS3 and iPhone.

My arguement of having enough to surive works quite nicely.

So far I have worked so have some nice comforts, if I then end up out of work my TV will still be there and food will be on the table, if I then want a newer TV I need to get back into work.

As for disabled people, I am not against them getting extra to have a more comfortable life if they really can't work. But when I hear "I was a builder and did my back in so I can no longer work" that annoys me, yes you can't be a builder anymore but you could do many jobs which involves sitting down all day, to which they can't claim they can't sit there all day as thats what they are doing right now.

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

But what is the definition of poverty, if it is a percentage of average income it is meaningless and can be ignored.

It wouldn't matter what the definition of poverty was. Those who are inclined to ignore suffering so long as it's not themselves who are doing the suffering would do exactly that: Ignore it.

ILW

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

It wouldn't matter what the definition of poverty was. Those who are inclined to ignore suffering so long as it's not themselves who are doing the suffering would do exactly that: Ignore it.

Of course it matters what the definition of poverty is, it cannot be tackled unless there is a line somewhere. Are you saying that if my neighbour earns £1,000,000pa then I am in poverty because I only earn £300,000pa?