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

Jacks_xxx

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

I don't think it does.

What if you've never been able to get a job and due to the recession and high unemployment you can't imagine when or if you're ever going to get one?

What if you've been a pensioner for 20 or 30 years and all your nice comforts that you might have had are gone and your tv is broken or they're making you switch to digital next year.

You can't really hand wash any more because arthritis has made your hands into claws and you're just not strong enough to handle wet washing any more.

And either your washing machine died 15 years ago or you've never had one. Either way you couldn't afford to buy one on subsistence benefits.

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

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?

No, I am not. I am saying that if you prefer not to care about the less fortunate it doesn't matter where the line is.

wherediditallgothen

ILW wrote: »

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?

Relative poverty can exist no matter what. Compared to Steven Gerrard's earnings I'm in relative poverty, but I am in no way near to absolute poverty.

ILW

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

No, I am not. I am saying that if you prefer not to care about the less fortunate it doesn't matter where the line is.

The earlier post stated that there are something like 6 million children living in poverty. Until a fixed fugure can be used to define poverty, it is impossible to tackle. Some would consider poverty not being able to keep a pony, others not being able to afford shoes. You do not seem to know where the line betwwen being OK and being in poverty is, so any refences to it is meaningless.

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

Sorry but I don't buy this. We had a Czech member of staff who returned to the Czech Republic purely because she wanted children and it would be better for her there.

She'd been here long enough to claim benefits too.

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

The earlier post stated that there are something like 6 million children living in poverty. Until a fixed fugure can be used to define poverty, it is impossible to tackle. Some would consider poverty not being able to keep a pony, others not being able to afford shoes. You do not seem to know where the line betwwen being OK and being in poverty is, so any refences to it is meaningless.

I know where our current mainly Conservative government defines it, and all my figures relate to that.

If you think you know better then please, give us your definition.

ILW

My definition would be not being able to feed, clothe and house oneself, plus a nominal figure of say £15.00 per week for luxuries.
By my thinking any parent that spends £150 per month on cigarettes or alcohol and then says their children are living in poverty should be charged with child abuse.

ninky_2

interesting article in the nytimes here. the writer is of the opinion (and i agree) that there can't be sustained economic recovery until the wealth is shared around more equally. capitalism has run out of safety nets. it's all very well blaming the underclass /benefits but there is far more too it than that. what has happened to working class. you can't have pride in something (work) if you are totally powerless in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

THIS promises to be the worst Labor Day in the memory of most Americans. Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force. Members of non-organized labor — most of the rest of us — are unemployed, underemployed or underwater.

.....

Where have all the economic gains gone? Mostly to the top. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty examined tax returns from 1913 to 2008. They discovered an interesting pattern. In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.
It’s no coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. I do not mean to suggest that such astonishing consolidations of income at the top directly cause sharp economic declines. The connection is more subtle.
The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs.

.....

Policies that generate more widely shared prosperity lead to stronger and more sustainable economic growth — and that’s good for everyone. The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving. That’s the Labor Day lesson we learned decades ago; until we remember it again, we’ll be stuck in the Great Recession.

lazer

Absolute poverty does not exist in the UK

The beneifts provided by the Government are enought to live off

The government will but a roof over your head and provide with a minimum income per week - which is enough to supprot yourelf and your family

If your circumstances are such that you are paying off debts etc out of your benefits, then that is of your own making and it is up tio you to negotiate your way out of it so that you can provide for your family

Personal responsibility is what ios now missing from UK society

Jacks_xxx

ILW wrote: »

My definition would be not being able to feed, clothe and house oneself, plus a nominal figure of say £15.00 per week for luxuries.

Luxuries like council tax, water, gas electricity tv licence, home insurance, life insurance, and saving for big purchases such a lawnmower or washing machine etc?