Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

qwert_yuiop

Arklight wrote: »

You're saying we're sending a billion a month to the EU, while completely ignoring the fact that we are part of the EU.

This whole Brexit charade is a layer cake of ignorance projected by people who seem either incapable or unwilling to understand that we are, soon to be were, about 1/4 of everything that went on that mattered in the EU.

The only thing that Britain will be in 2019 is worse off.

Yes, I agree with you in all but the last line - I believe brexit is not going to happen by then - now at 2/1 at paddy power if you’re a gambler. It was 3/1 a week ago so I’m not alone.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
Is someone not worthy of help because they have a mental illness, disability or lost their job?
How long would you be good for if your main income we just went away?

It is sometimes said that you need a poacher to catch a poacher.

I feel the same about academics in social sciences trying to find solutions for people who see the world with a completely different rationale.

When you have an alcoholic nomadic relative, you soon realize that there is no chance they will adopt a permanent home. There is nothing permanent about their lifestyle.

Nomadic people always cause problems for planners. You have to accept a level of failure with these people, and even the 0.01% of fails are used as a political brick bat.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

The state of social sciences today

This report was a collaborative project between researchers at the University of Oxford, King’s College London, and The Trussell Trust Foodbank Network. It was jointly funded by the ESRC Impact Acceleration Account at the University of Oxford and the Trussell Trust. The research was designed and facilitated by Rachel Loopstra and Doireann Lalor, with support from Trussell Trust staff. A random sample of foodbanks from England, Scotland and Wales was selected to be invited to participate in the study. This report is based on data from the first 18 participating foodbanks, which were trained to implement and facilitate data collection in their own distribution sites. Over 4-week data collection periods, food banks recruited a significant total sample of 413 households. This reflected a response rate of 71% of eligible households asked to participate.


So no control for participant lies
No control for staff biases
Such a low sample rate (less than 1 person surveyed per day per site!)
And no proper statistical analysis of the data at all

What a farce and to top it off CUTTING EDGE RESERCH!! PIONEERING RESEARCH!!

Fire her and rehire her as a dinner lady at a soup kitchen for the poor

Hahahahahaha 400 surveyed vs 850k on food banks? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

ukcarper

mumf wrote: »

Its an observation of mine that folks with loads of dosh,top incomes etc. ( and more often than not were born into that world too),think that is how everyone lives. These sort of folks would have been advocates of the Parish Workhouse no doubt in Victorian times.

Poverty is about money,and what it enables.The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which monitors child poverty in particular defines poverty as," a person being unable to participate in mainstream life."

That can be something as simple as a child not having a pound to join in 'no uniform day' when the school is raising money,or not being able to pay for a school trip,or having clothes too small because there are just not sufficient resources because the rent comers first.Kids with dirty clothes because the washing machine has packed up and there's nothing spare to get it fixed

My wife is a teaching assistant and sees this and far more on a daily basis.

Any family in this situation is not !!!!less,undeserving,dysfunctional, addicted or lazy.The descriptions and dismissal of the poor by some of the above posters are sickening.One child at our village school had shoes hanging off his feet.Wife had a word with mum.Turns out they were waiting for Social Security payment and it was delayed.She could not work as she was looking after her husband who had terminal brain cancer.

There but for the grace of god go I!

I
I’d take JRF’s idea of poverty with a pinch of salt their Minimum income figure for a family of four is £24.5k after rent and childcare costs.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I
I’d take JRF’s idea of poverty with a pinch of salt their Minimum income figure for a family of four is £24.5k after rent and childcare costs.

You really can not make this Up

qwert_yuiop

ukcarper wrote: »

I
I’d take JRF’s idea of poverty with a pinch of salt their Minimum income figure for a family of four is £24.5k after rent and childcare costs.

After? No wonder so many are considered to be in poverty - £500 a week in hand? Is that correct?

kabayiri

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

An extra £330 a year is not a very big fraction of the huge cost of that sort of car. You’d need to be very keen on your car to spend £40,000 and then have to worry about the last £330. How about a fiesta?

It's the good lady's car => not my choice at all.

She can choose a sleigh; a roller skate; or even a fiesta : nowt to do with me. I'm happy enough with my 4 wheel drive shed.

I only relay on the dealer moans. A step change in tax like that is regressive at the margins.

ukcarper

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

After? No wonder so many are considered to be in poverty - £500 a week in hand? Is that correct?

The figure published if £474.57 a week excluding rent and childcare. The way I understand it that’s what you need for a minimum standard of living and anything less does not automatically mean you are in poverty but puts you at risk of poverty.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

The figure published if £474.57 a week excluding rent and childcare. The way I understand it that’s what you need for a minimum standard of living and anything less does not automatically mean you are in poverty but puts you at risk of poverty.

Is that £474 that is left over after rent and childcare is paid for?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

Is that £474 that is left over after rent and childcare is paid for?

That’s the way I read it, unlike you and GreatApe I think there is poverty in UK but I think relative poverty and JRF definition are not good measures and a more meaningful definition would be helpful.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/file/50350/download?token=bAv9AAdC&filetype=findings