Living on £53 a week?

Pollycat

daska wrote: »

And thereby proving my point much more effectively than I could do myself. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I haven't proved your point at all - either effectively or ineffectively.

Pollycat wrote: »

Re who is ineligible for benefits - I mean people who are fraudulantly claiming benefits e.g. people working cash-in-hand but claiming unemployment benefit, those people claiming DLA who clearly do not have the disabilities they say they have etc etc.

The fact is, I used DLA as an example.

I even said 'e.g.'.

The fact that you don't like the idea that people mention DLA (because you are claiming it) when talking about benefit fraud doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
And because it does exist, it was a valid example to use.
Any benefit that gives people the chance to fraudulantly claim would have done as an example.
I chose to use DLA.

Like it or lump it.

daska

Pollycat wrote: »

I haven't proved your point at all - either effectively or ineffectively.



The fact is, I used DLA as an example.

I even said 'e.g.'.

The fact that you don't like the idea that people mention DLA (because you are claiming it) when talking about benefit fraud doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
And because it does exist, it was a valid example to use.
Any benefit that gives people the chance to fraudulantly claim would have done as an example.
I chose to use DLA.

Like it or lump it.

Actually it's just that you are completely missing my point.

If you had been up to speed with the official figures or if equal weight was put on reporting the benefits that have higher rates of fraud you would be more familiar with them and they would have sprung to mind faster than the examples you thought of.

Don't underestimate the power propaganda has to affect the way you think and what you believe.

kafkathecat

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

What is your source for this startling assertion?

There is a chart on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16545898

neverdespairgirl

I've read that. It shows the share of UK income going to the top 1%.

That says nothing about wealth inequality in and of itself.

daska

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I've read that. It shows the share of UK income going to the top 1%.

That says nothing about wealth inequality in and of itself.

You're correct but it would appear logical that a widening gap in income might well be reflected by a widening gap in wealth. Do you have any info to demonstrate that this isn't the case? Not challenging, genuinely interested.

kafkathecat

Or this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267778/London-unequal-city-Western-world-gap-rich-poor-widest-slavery.html
Here's one from the US: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1

neverdespairgirl

daska wrote: »

You're correct but it would appear logical that a widening gap in income might well be reflected by a widening gap in wealth. Do you have any info to demonstrate that this isn't the case? Not challenging, genuinely interested.

The Independent recently published an article on the subject, entitled So you think the wealth gap is growing? Wrong. It starts off with this:

For many people, that is an easy question to answer. Rich Tories look after their rich friends, supported by hypocritical and treacherous Liberal Democrats. After all, “everyone knows” that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, don't they?

Well, this is where it gets interesting, because what “everyone knows” is not what is happening. The gap between rich and poor has not changed significantly for about 20 years, not since the increase in inequality that occurred when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the 1980s. For most of the boom times since then, everyone got richer, at roughly the same rate, and the ratio between rich and poor remained unchanged. And even now, as we all get a bit poorer again as a result of the bust, the losses are spread pretty equally with, if anything, the rich bearing the greater share of the burden.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-you-think-the-wealth-gap-is-growing-wrong-8431460.html

daska

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The Independent recently published an article on the subject, entitled So you think the wealth gap is growing? Wrong. It starts off with this:

For many people, that is an easy question to answer. Rich Tories look after their rich friends, supported by hypocritical and treacherous Liberal Democrats. After all, “everyone knows” that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, don't they?

Well, this is where it gets interesting, because what “everyone knows” is not what is happening. The gap between rich and poor has not changed significantly for about 20 years, not since the increase in inequality that occurred when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the 1980s. For most of the boom times since then, everyone got richer, at roughly the same rate, and the ratio between rich and poor remained unchanged. And even now, as we all get a bit poorer again as a result of the bust, the losses are spread pretty equally with, if anything, the rich bearing the greater share of the burden.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-you-think-the-wealth-gap-is-growing-wrong-8431460.html

Bit like everyone 'knowing' that fraud is rife among those on DLA! Though I have to take issue with some of the implications in what he says such as "This is so at variance with the accepted story of food banks and greedy bankers that it makes no sense to most people." What accepted story? My support worker tells me that she and her colleagues now spend a considerable amount of time helping their clients access the local foodbank because the increases in costs of living have hit so hard - and she despairs of the accusations of them wasting money on fags, booze and sky as she is helping them to budget and can see where every penny goes, usually it's an emergency that has thrown everything out and there just isn't the spare to recover from it. It's not a story, for many it's real life, though I accept that there are probably a good few who could manage their budgets better. I'm a bright cookie and I managed to get myself in a real pickle last year just because my illness combined with having to do loads of paperwork and fight a special needs tribunal for DS2 meant I couldn't get my head around the figures somewhere/somewhen and I while we've managed to get me back on track we still haven't worked out how it all went pearshaped in the first place!

kafkathecat

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The Independent recently published an article on the subject, entitled So you think the wealth gap is growing? Wrong. It starts off with this:

For many people, that is an easy question to answer. Rich Tories look after their rich friends, supported by hypocritical and treacherous Liberal Democrats. After all, “everyone knows” that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, don't they?

Well, this is where it gets interesting, because what “everyone knows” is not what is happening. The gap between rich and poor has not changed significantly for about 20 years, not since the increase in inequality that occurred when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the 1980s. For most of the boom times since then, everyone got richer, at roughly the same rate, and the ratio between rich and poor remained unchanged. And even now, as we all get a bit poorer again as a result of the bust, the losses are spread pretty equally with, if anything, the rich bearing the greater share of the burden.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-you-think-the-wealth-gap-is-growing-wrong-8431460.html

And yet http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/income-inequality-growing-faster-uk
You could play this game all day. At the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe and find the 'facts' to fit. Meanwhile we have foodbanks, workfare, zero hours contracts, benefit sanctions and pawnshops in the 7th richest country in the world. That is the reality of 'we all got a bit poorer' for a large number of people.

Pollycat

daska wrote: »

Actually it's just that you are completely missing my point.

If you had been up to speed with the official figures or if equal weight was put on reporting the benefits that have higher rates of fraud you would be more familiar with them and they would have sprung to mind faster than the examples you thought of.

Don't underestimate the power propaganda has to affect the way you think and what you believe.

Maybe so, but as long as there are people claiming DLA fraudulently, I'll continue to use it as an example - if I wish.