Understanding disparity around us

Albermarle

Ksw3 said:

You have to have a faith that things will be different and that there will be an other side. If you see no hope in your situation improving its very hard to deny yourself some enjoyment now for a future you don't think will ever be within your reach. 

I am thrifty, I don't buy new clothes, I don't drive, I don't holiday abroad, I have a £6 SIM only phone deal. I don't do these things because of financial savvy I do these things out of complete and utter fear of returning to my childhood. Sometimes the only defense mechanism you have against fear is to deny it or avoid it. Is it the most effective strategy? No, is it human? Absolutely. We are all just trying to get through life with whatever coping mechanisms we have, to blame people for the choices they make without an understanding of the internal and societal pressures at play I think is counter productive. 

Going slightly off topic and not wanting to get too personal, maybe you need to address this fear of poverty when it seems very unlikely that you will ever experience it again ( according to your posts you are comfortable/financially secure now)
Thrifty is fine ( this is MSE after all, I also only have a £5 per month SIM deal) but denying yourself any benefit from your money is not good for your long term wellbeing. Anybody who was actually in poverty would think you were stark raving mad, to have money in excess and not spend at least some of it.
As we say on this forum many times ' There's no point being the richest person in the graveyard' 

MisterMotivated

zagfles said:

Personally I don't have a downer on too many benefits, quite the opposite, I'd give everyone benefits in the form a citizen's income!

People say it'll be expensive, but that misses the point. You simply set a flat tax rate (no allowance) at whatever makes it fiscally neutral. It's a zero sum game, you're redistributing. Everyone pays more tax but everyone gets the CI. MDRs are the same for everyone. Everyone has the same incentive to work and improve their situation

I heartily endorse this idea.  As a landlord who currently works full time and lives a fairly frugal life, I look forward to giving up work altogether and living off my rental/other investment income and supplementary citizens' income

Ksw3

It is something I've been working on and continue to work on. I think it's something where you can look at people's actions, spending all their money or sitting on it all, but you need to look at their motivation as well. I'm the other extreme but I think a lot of the same processes result in behaviour from different ends of the spectrum.

I'm comfortable now but I recognise some good fortune that has come my way (yes alongside hard work). I'm fortunate my partner is financially secure and redundancy for us has always come at the least worst time as an example. 

I'm wary I might have derailed the thread so will bow out in case I continue to lead it off topic. I do appreciate everyone's comments.

Altior

People being responsible and accountable for their own lifestyle choices is not the same as blaming them for their own choices.

The welfare system should exist as a last resort, a fall back for a catastrophic event. 

A woman might choose to sleep around and have five kids with five different fathers, never have an official relationship, good for her. Does that mean as a taxpayer I should be expected to fund her lifestyle and contribute to raising all of her children? Absolutely not. Under the current generous system, she could well have access to a big house, relatively comfortable income and never have do five minutes paid for work in her life.

No doubt when the kids are all grown up and she can't have any more, she'll go on the sick (depression or whatever) until she is entitled to pension credit and all the add ons that particular status provides.

As Zagfles alludes to, the system encourages people to adapt their circumstances to whatever creates the most beneficial giveaways from the taxpayer. The obvious example is working for a couple of days a week to be able to claim working tax credit. But, alas there are many. 

zagfles

MisterMotivated said:

zagfles said:

Personally I don't have a downer on too many benefits, quite the opposite, I'd give everyone benefits in the form a citizen's income!

People say it'll be expensive, but that misses the point. You simply set a flat tax rate (no allowance) at whatever makes it fiscally neutral. It's a zero sum game, you're redistributing. Everyone pays more tax but everyone gets the CI. MDRs are the same for everyone. Everyone has the same incentive to work and improve their situation

I heartily endorse this idea.  As a landlord who currently works full time and lives a fairly frugal life, I look forward to giving up work altogether and living off my rental/other investment income and supplementary citizens' income

You won't necessarily be better off - depending how much tax rates would need to rise and your level of investment income. Also it would incorporate stuff like the state pension (ideally, although there'd need to be transitional arrangements).

But it won't happen, so don't get excited about it

zagfles

Altior said:

People being responsible and accountable for their own lifestyle choices is not the same as blaming them for their own choices.

The welfare system should exist as a last resort, a fall back for a catastrophic event. 

A woman might choose to sleep around and have five kids with five different fathers, never have an official relationship, good for her. Does that mean as a taxpayer I should be expected to fund her lifestyle and contribute to raising all of her children? Absolutely not. Under the current generous system, she could well have access to a big house, relatively comfortable income and never have do five minutes paid for work in her life.

No doubt when the kids are all grown up and she can't have any more, she'll go on the sick (depression or whatever) until she is entitled to pension credit and all the add ons that particular status provides.

As Zagfles alludes to, the system encourages people to adapt their circumstances to whatever creates the most beneficial giveaways from the taxpayer. The obvious example is working for a couple of days a week to be able to claim working tax credit. But, alas there are many. 

It's a bit better now because of the 2 child cap on benefits for children born after 2017 IIRC, with some exceptions. Probably the most "environmentally friendly" policy implemented in recent years. Funny nobody ever talks about it in those terms though!

solidpro

I think the point that those in 'true' poverty would find it harder than ever to get out.

"Get a job" - zero hours contracts, pay cuts largely across the board, years upon years in a row in private or public service.
"get an education" - I got offered a subsidised University education in 1997 and I didn't take it. I can't even fathom the debt trying to do that now.
"get a bigger house" (so much 2 teenage children don't share a single bedroom) - house prices practially everywhere are crazy.

Go to the library - a lot of them gone. I guess there is a lot of free skills learning on the internet but as a hobbyist myself, raw materials have sky-rocketed.

And then a random neighbour's dad (who lived in a nice house in Godalming) dies and they're a millionaire...coining on here and saying they have £100,000 to invest but don't want to put any work into investing it - and they're not ultra concerned about the risks.... weird.

I think my conclusion so far is that it's far too complicated to get my head around the main takeaways.  Oh and I wonder what the cold sping of 2023 will look like.

solidpro

zagfles said:

I think you're living on a different planet sometimes. Have you analysed how "well paid jobs" have changed over the last few decades? Do you think pay has gone up or down in real terms? Have you looked at how spending on the NHS has changed over the last few decades? NHS spending is massively higher now than a few decades ago, in real terms. Maybe look at some figures instead of reading doommongers on twitter etc.

And people with lung cancer in the 1970s just died. And people with a severed leg in the 1980s just sat in a chair. And people with brain cancer in the 1970s couldn't be treated. Isn't the increase in spending because things 'exist' which can now help people - and they cost money? You seem to be suggesting that spending more is just all being wasted and we should go back to refusing treatment like it didn't exist.

Altior

solidpro said:

I think the point that those in 'true' poverty would find it harder than ever to get out.

"Get a job" - zero hours contracts, pay cuts largely across the board, years upon years in a row in private or public service.
"get an education" - I got offered a subsidised University education in 1997 and I didn't take it. I can't even fathom the debt trying to do that now.
"get a bigger house" (so much 2 teenage children don't share a single bedroom) - house prices practially everywhere are crazy.

Go to the library - a lot of them gone. I guess there is a lot of free skills learning on the internet but as a hobbyist myself, raw materials have sky-rocketed.

And then a random neighbour's dad (who lived in a nice house in Godalming) dies and they're a millionaire...coining on here and saying they have £100,000 to invest but don't want to put any work into investing it - and they're not ultra concerned about the risks.... weird.

I think my conclusion so far is that it's far too complicated to get my head around the main takeaways.  Oh and I wonder what the cold sping of 2023 will look like.

How do you define 'true' poverty?

Yes if someone has no discernible skills then they may need to do a basic job, close to minimum wage. Why not? 

The Open University offers loads of study support. I'm sure there are other options. It's definitely possible to upskill from home now, one of the benefits of the internet.

With regard to property, in my experience most people aren't flexible on location. They want to live in desirable areas, ie outside of their budget. As the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. 

A lot of people in the UK appear to feel very sorry for themselves. They are probably still in the luckiest 5-10% of the 9 or 10 billion humans alive today. The problem for them is that they have visibility of people who appear to be even better off than they feel. 

Lastonestanding

Altior said:

A woman might choose to sleep around and have five kids with five different fathers, never have an official relationship, good for her. Does that mean as a taxpayer I should be expected to fund her lifestyle and contribute to raising all of her children? Absolutely not.

It's great if the rich can fund those children to ensure that they become valuable members of society. But a percentage of that money is spent by the parent(s) on alcohol, drugs or just wasted.
So similar to benefits for all, there should be free school meals for all and public transport should be excellent and free or cheap etc. Then benefits should be frozen or cut.