Understanding disparity around us

trickydicky14

Fresh good quality meat or fish is expensive and you can not feed kids just with fresh vegetables.

I only partly agree with you, I have been a vegetarian for 30 years and I have done fine. Admittedly I don’t live just on veg, I have eggs and cheese. You can have a healthy diet without expensive meat and a more sustainable diet.

Albermarle

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

Daliah said:

Isn't it amazing that so many people have plenty of income and/or assets but very little if not no apparent compassion. Sure, there are benefit scroungers, just like there are tax evaders and other criminals. Everyone has the opportunity to report such scoundrels, and we have enough authorities that can deal with them.

Most of the people living in poverty in the UK - even if it's 'merely' relative poverty - find it impossible to get out of it, and it's not for want of trying. Brushing their plight away on the grounds that there are even poorer people in other countries is quite shocking.

I am not sure, though, whether this complex subject is really suitable for the Savings and Investment board.

The OP is talking about understanding the disparity.

People on this board are discussing saving and investing surplus cash. Compare this with people in this country who are struggling to make ends meet.

The word poverty is being used to describe the plight of people in the UK and also people in poorer parts of the world. The word means two different things making it relative.

I agree with the OP. This is absolutely the right place for their post. 

Indeed. I think the main problem is that the "people who struggle to make ends meet" are not necessarily the same people defined as being "in poverty". There's probably not even a vast overlap. There are lots of reasons people struggle to make end meet, and to assume it's all people "in poverty" means you ignore all the other people who struggle, and you provide no solution for them.

Stuff like financial management, understanding loans, interest, credit cards, getting good value on stuff like mobiles, food/clothes shopping etc. Pensions and savings too, save when you can, having a decent emergency fund for a rainy day as we'll probably all have this winter will be a massive cushion.

IME whether you struggle financially or not is far more about spending habits and financial management than income level.

If people are in poverty then by definition they will be struggling to make ends meet.

No they aren't. That's the point. The "in poverty" definition just uses equivalised relative income measures. Not measures of affordability. Sea Shell and her OH (sorry to use you as an example again ) live on well under the poverty line. She doesn't struggle to make end meet.

Sorry @zagfles , I think that we are at cross purposes.

There may be a quantitative definition of poverty in the UK and elsewhere, but I am using the term qualitatively.

My reason for this is that I do not believe that a measurement can accurately describe someone's need. This is aptly demonstrated by your example of someone not in any great need but technically "in poverty". 

My definition is quite simply someone in desperate need due to their dire financial circumstance.

Ah OK, fair enough. I did say that I think the main problem is that the "people who struggle to make ends meet" are not necessarily the same people defined as being "in poverty" (ie defined by the govt or pressure groups who seek to tackle poverty).

The problem is that most solutions proposed always seem to target those meeting the official definition of poverty, or a similar definition, ie an income based definition. Rather than any sort of attempt to look at and tackle other reasons, such as inability to budget, understanding finance, debt etc.

In fact when people do try to propose tackling these other issues, you get people jumping up and down saying we mustn't be "judgemental" about people who struggle, we should just throw money at them. The point isn't to be "judgemental", it's to understand and tackle the underlying cause instead of jumping to the conclusion that it's all down to nasty govts not giving them enough benefits.

Along these lines, The Trussell Trust, offer help with budgeting and general money advice to people visiting some of their food banks.
A drop in the ocean probably, but a good practical initiative all the same.
Additional support - The Trussell Trust

zagfles

Kim1965 said:

zagfles said:

Kim1965 said:

I think disparity in the uk is huge and getting bigger. It seems the uk is no longer a land of opportunity or equal opportunity. 
 Take a child from a family on means tested benefits who wants to get on in life.. They go to uni and get saddled with a huge debt, there is no parental financial safety net. From the midlands  to the south of the country, trying to get on the property ladder without family help is a huge hurdle. They will never inherit money. 
 There will always be disparity in society, i am not sure that some contributers to this thread can grasp how difficult it could be to escape poverty. I dont think its entirely down to not being able to budget or being bothered to work, 
 Using Sea Shell as an example of someone who can live on 15/20k is amusing. She owns her own home for a start and for all I know probably has a roof full of pv panels to get her leccy bill down.
  Perhaps moving this thread to the benefits board will give a more balanced sample of opinions. 

I spent many years on the benefits board and in real life helping people with tax credits and benefits. That's why I have a reasonably good understanding of issues faced by those on low incomes. Maybe some others here who say they have compassion for those on low incomes should try doing that instead of getting sanctimonious with those who point out that there are other issues than just purely income levels, or arguing against strawmen (has anyone said it's "easy to escape poverty"?).

But SS is a good example as her spending is around or below the AHC "poverty line" for a pensioner couple, and not through necessity. So the mortgage being paid off is accounted for.

But yes the cost of buying a house is a massive issue, something I've frequently ranted on about here, and something successive govt policies have made worse. Student finance isn't an issue. If you don't get a well paid job, you'll never pay it back. If you do, it was a good investment. While at uni, the people who struggle are those from higher income households where the "hidden parental contribution", as Martin puts it, isn't being paid. Those from low income household get the full loan plus bursaries on top.

Anyway, if anyone wants to respond to points actually made rather than sanctimonious side swipes against strawmen, feel free. I'll let those arguing against strawmen continue to argue against them, I'll respond to arguments against points I raise.

Talking in riddles? 

What's confused you?

AHC - after housing costs. It's a fairly standard term for some measures used for stuff like poverty/income inequality, most poverty charities like the JRF, CPAG etc favour AHC measures because housing costs vary massively across the country and across tenure types. If you want to discuss poverty etc it's a term you really should know.

Strawman? Arguing against a point nobody's actually made, imposing a skewed or vastly exaggerated view on others in a discussion because it's easier to argue against something you pretend they've said than what they actually said.

Anything else?

arnoldy

zagfles said:

 The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

 This is a scandal, all paid for by the grafters who get on with it. And they are often soldering on in their 50s and 60s. You only have to read the disability posts to see how out of control this spending is, where seemingly the holy grail is to get a "label" to get more money and unlock other freebies, avoid bedroom tax etc. and all the handouts do is generate more helplessness , institutionalisation and dependency. I dont think when the welfare state was set up it was not for people who were anxious, alcoholics, obese,  it was for soldiers who were horrifically wounded in war, polio victims, industrial accidents etc

If the criteria were tightened up then fewer more seriously disabled people could get more, which is probably what they do in the Nordics and France.

Sea_Shell

I've offered budgeting help to family in the past and been declined.

I think they're worried I'd go through their spending with a red pen !!! 

In the meantime, they live in their overdraft!!   Sometimes you just can't help people who aren't prepared to help themselves ☹️

zagfles

Sea_Shell said:

Well, I'm not sure whether to be embarrassed or proud!!

I seem to have set myself up to be either a pillar of financial virtue, or to be shot down as living on another planet!!


Infamy, infamy they've all got it in for me!!


It's true, we haven't had a mortgage for over 15 years, but we don't have a roof full of solar panels 😉.  We drive a Vauxhall.

I'm not a "shopper" and we don't particularly enjoy eating out (tend to only eat out whilst on holiday) and have probably 5 takeaways a year!!

But then I didn't blink, dropping £150 for my new Garmin. 😎

The former, definitely! Your thread is an inspiration to many, a real life live case study! The embodiment of MSE values, I think a lot of people forget what MSE stands for, saving money should be what we mainly talk about here!

theoretica

zagfles said:

Yes you're right about the economically inactive. The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

Some of that is of course how easy it is for people to work. Are employers willing, able and supported to employ people who might otherwise need to look to disability benefits? I know people who started out their career full of hope and promise and were worn down and driven onto benefits by the employment market. 

zagfles

theoretica said:

zagfles said:

Yes you're right about the economically inactive. The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

Some of that is of course how easy it is for people to work. Are employers willing, able and supported to employ people who might otherwise need to look to disability benefits? I know people who started out their career full of hope and promise and were worn down and driven onto benefits by the employment market. 

Indeed and that's a good point (AIRI the report had a section on employment). Also the inflexibility of the benefits system (I mean out of work benefits) - I remember I was involved in a heavily technical IT project at work and I discussed it with a friend's son at a party, turns out he was a whizz in the area and I'd have employed him in a heartbeat (if I could) because he had the exact skills we needed for this project. Problem was he was on out of work benefits, suffered from paranoia and couldn't guarantee he'd be able to work in a 9-5 environment, and the stress of coming off and going back onto benefits was too much for him.

So people like him who could provide a valuable contribution, even if intermittant, end up not doing anything and just get chucked on the scrapheap of lifelong benefits dependancy.

IMO the problem is we regard disabled people as charity cases rather than humans who just have different needs and abilities. Here it's "oh you're disabled, poor you, here have these handouts and keep away from us" rather than the attitude in other countries of "oh you're disabled, well, what can you do, maybe work in a different way, maybe work different hours, or when you're up to it, what support do you need, how can we adjust things so you can fit in". The employment market and the benefits system isn't flexible enough for people who are different. 

zagfles

Albermarle said:

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

zagfles said:

RG2015 said:

Daliah said:

Isn't it amazing that so many people have plenty of income and/or assets but very little if not no apparent compassion. Sure, there are benefit scroungers, just like there are tax evaders and other criminals. Everyone has the opportunity to report such scoundrels, and we have enough authorities that can deal with them.

Most of the people living in poverty in the UK - even if it's 'merely' relative poverty - find it impossible to get out of it, and it's not for want of trying. Brushing their plight away on the grounds that there are even poorer people in other countries is quite shocking.

I am not sure, though, whether this complex subject is really suitable for the Savings and Investment board.

The OP is talking about understanding the disparity.

People on this board are discussing saving and investing surplus cash. Compare this with people in this country who are struggling to make ends meet.

The word poverty is being used to describe the plight of people in the UK and also people in poorer parts of the world. The word means two different things making it relative.

I agree with the OP. This is absolutely the right place for their post. 

Indeed. I think the main problem is that the "people who struggle to make ends meet" are not necessarily the same people defined as being "in poverty". There's probably not even a vast overlap. There are lots of reasons people struggle to make end meet, and to assume it's all people "in poverty" means you ignore all the other people who struggle, and you provide no solution for them.

Stuff like financial management, understanding loans, interest, credit cards, getting good value on stuff like mobiles, food/clothes shopping etc. Pensions and savings too, save when you can, having a decent emergency fund for a rainy day as we'll probably all have this winter will be a massive cushion.

IME whether you struggle financially or not is far more about spending habits and financial management than income level.

If people are in poverty then by definition they will be struggling to make ends meet.

No they aren't. That's the point. The "in poverty" definition just uses equivalised relative income measures. Not measures of affordability. Sea Shell and her OH (sorry to use you as an example again ) live on well under the poverty line. She doesn't struggle to make end meet.

Sorry @zagfles , I think that we are at cross purposes.

There may be a quantitative definition of poverty in the UK and elsewhere, but I am using the term qualitatively.

My reason for this is that I do not believe that a measurement can accurately describe someone's need. This is aptly demonstrated by your example of someone not in any great need but technically "in poverty". 

My definition is quite simply someone in desperate need due to their dire financial circumstance.

Ah OK, fair enough. I did say that I think the main problem is that the "people who struggle to make ends meet" are not necessarily the same people defined as being "in poverty" (ie defined by the govt or pressure groups who seek to tackle poverty).

The problem is that most solutions proposed always seem to target those meeting the official definition of poverty, or a similar definition, ie an income based definition. Rather than any sort of attempt to look at and tackle other reasons, such as inability to budget, understanding finance, debt etc.

In fact when people do try to propose tackling these other issues, you get people jumping up and down saying we mustn't be "judgemental" about people who struggle, we should just throw money at them. The point isn't to be "judgemental", it's to understand and tackle the underlying cause instead of jumping to the conclusion that it's all down to nasty govts not giving them enough benefits.

Along these lines, The Trussell Trust, offer help with budgeting and general money advice to people visiting some of their food banks.
A drop in the ocean probably, but a good practical initiative all the same.
Additional support - The Trussell Trust

The problem is that those with the most serious problems probably wouldn't use it, because they know they have a problem, they're just there for the immediate solution. The foodbank thread had an interesting discussion on this.

zagfles

arnoldy said:

zagfles said:

 The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

 This is a scandal, all paid for by the grafters who get on with it. And they are often soldering on in their 50s and 60s. You only have to read the disability posts to see how out of control this spending is, where seemingly the holy grail is to get a "label" to get more money and unlock other freebies, avoid bedroom tax etc. and all the handouts do is generate more helplessness , institutionalisation and dependency. I dont think when the welfare state was set up it was not for people who were anxious, alcoholics, obese,  it was for soldiers who were horrifically wounded in war, polio victims, industrial accidents etc

If the criteria were tightened up then fewer more seriously disabled people could get more, which is probably what they do in the Nordics and France.

On the offchance anyone is interested, the report is here: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2018/07/foi-18-01623/documents/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/govscot:document/la-commission-des-droits-et-de-l-autonomie-des-personnes-handicapees