14 million in poverty

[TIGHTCHOKE]

My what an interesting thread.

 

[Jaymo]

5 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

My what an interesting thread.

 

Just what I was thinking?

My bet is closure by 5?

[Gordon R]

Quote

Which ones Gordon? 

Read through the thread, as Retsdon has - it's not rocket science.

[KB1]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I don't accept the original stats and their definition of poverty.

That said - the thread has descended into the gutter - team tractor - you have my sympathy - some of the posts are a disgrace.

Arbitration seems to be your thing on this forum. So, as Lloyd90 has asked you which posts are a disgrace, why don't you just get to the point?

Having read the thread with interest, it does seem that Team Tractor took someones opinion too emotively and escalated it himself.  I myself have had a few too many kids and at times in my life it has proved to be somewhat difficult, and I can tell myself that I have maybe been a tad irresponsible for letting it happen.  BUT, I wouldnt dream of laying that on a forum poster having an generic opinion on the matter.

'Sticks and Stones'

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Jaymo said:

Just what I was thinking?

My bet is closure by 5?

I hope not, there have been some very interesting points made and KB1 sums it up very well.

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, Hamster said:

Two assumptions made, one that I (or leftist/Corbynists/Marxists/communists/whatever) think we should target the "rich", secondly that poverty is always the fault of the victim and it's because they're lazy. 

Incorrect! I said that for SOME of the people on the unemployment register (NOT ALL), it,s a way of life, that they have no desire to change! And if you lived near me, you would see that for yourself!

7 hours ago, Lord Geordie said:

Credit card debt through borrowing , and lending from other creditors is one area causing misery! They live beyond their means! Then can’t afford to pay it back! 

I see loads of people outside food banks waiting to get in with an iPhone X pressed to their head and their fingers adorned with around £3k of sleeper rings etc!

 

then they blame others for the fact their kids are going hungry? Pawn or sell your jewellery for crying out loud? Your kids are worth more than a handful of gold surely?

 

and more recently the News saying doctors and nurses are having to rely on food banks because they can’t afford to live? What?

I earn NLW and pay a mortgage, run a car, have a holiday once a year and have what I would class as a very comfortable lifestyle. 

I really don’t understand this piffle about poverty! 

 

In in my view poverty is to have NOTHING but the clothes on your back, no regular food, no income of ANY kind. Maybe the government can pay oxfam to help? if they can help foreign people out of poverty for £5 a month I am sure the government could fund that

✔️

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Actually , regarding Hamilton, I agree with you.
But there are so many that do it, and the law lets them.
But how do you force rich people to contribute more , change the law ?

Make them more taxable , they will just become tax exiles, then we get nothing.
Make the UK less enticing for rich people , and they will leave, same with the big businesses that pay little tax, hit them harder and they will ship out and take the money and the jobs elsewhere, its already happening to an extent, but the more draconian we get , the exodus will increase per se.
Do you think there are 14 million in poverty Henry ?

Correct!

[pinfireman]

2 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

This 100%

 

As i said, that report could be fudged to make the figures show what they want to show... 

But only an opinion, im not official or a report, i use a car, train and bus to get to work, my phone is just that, i could probably go back to using a non smart phone if i wanted to. I dont over spend or use credit cards. Put me next to my boss or my superiors at work and i could say im poor. But I know im not and i have enough to live and enjoy my work life and home life. 

My sister and brother inlaw have two kids, and have for the last two years lived on 17k.. Thats a family of 4 on 17k before tax income.. She cannot work due to epilepsy, he was made redundant and took the next job that was offered at the time. They dont claim poverty!!!!!!! 

Well said!

2 hours ago, Walker570 said:

You will always have the..."Haves and Have Nots"   I am now in my 78th year and have seen it all come and go in those years..the aftermath of the last war...the swinging sixties and seventies when we never had so good all the way to the presnt day.  When I was but a lad back in the 50s on the farm, there would regularly be a knock at the back door by one or two local chaps who worked down the pit at Pooley. One in particular worked permanent nights on the cutters, which I am told was not a pleasant job and was one of the higher paid. Canny Adcock would knock on our back door and ask my grandfather if there was any work needed doing and almost invariably he would spend the next four or five hours forking muck out of a calf pen or knocking posts in for a new fence anything to earn a few extra bob.  He lived in a council house and we delivered milk there, I don't know for sure how many kids he had but you had to be careful not to trip over them. They were always well dressed, clean and polite.  Canny was one of the first in the area to have a 21 inch TV. Had a nicely furnished home but nothing unnecessary....he was willing to get off his backside and go find extra work to provide it.   Today I see a couple in the Post Office piling notes into their wallets, quite fit enough to walk and drive a car(provided by the tax payers) but have conned some social security operative they are unfit. 

A lot of truth there!

[Hamster]

3 hours ago, Whatmuff said:

 

Or in an instance of someone I knew, he served in the RAF, lived in married quarters and had 3 children. All was well and could afford them and then suddenly died from cancer and left his wife with no house and 3 children and she wasn't working. Still think she deserves no help and it's her fault for not planning enough for the future? 

The lack of compassion on here really surprises me and it's amazing how people think that the rich work harder and some how deserve more in life than the poor because they have money. 

 

👍 😞  These are the sort of people who get blamed en masse along with a small proportion of the genuinely lazy, the way I have always seen it is that as a society we must help without judgement. I don't give a damn if some of the homeless are there through bad choices, they still deserve our help. 

😞  Spot on again, we are where we are because they've got us quarrelling amongst one another while they laugh all the way to offshore accounts with zero prospect of ever being held to account. 

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I don't accept the original stats and their definition of poverty.

That said - the thread has descended into the gutter - team tractor - you have my sympathy - some of the posts are a disgrace.

Based on what ? 👂

Correct. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamster

[pinfireman]

2 hours ago, henry d said:

What a load of testicles, we grew our own population well before immigration as we know it. It took us just 100 years to jump from 27million (1850`s) to 56 million (1970`s). If you want further shock figures the population density per square kilometre doubled from 1850`s in just 60 years!

Are they paying their way or are they also tax exiles with family in the UK using the support systems that they should also be helping pay for?

Henry, the jump in population IS, in part due to immigration.. in 1947 it was 46.6 million, now it is 66.5 million. In the 100 years approx from 1850 to 1950, the jump was 19.6 million. From 1947 (when large scale immigration started)  to today population 66.5 million,  in 71 years, it has increased another 20 million. And the birth rate amongst immigrants is  almost double that of the ethnic majority. Make what you like of that.............official figures.

6 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

Im sorry for having an opinion. And reports can be made to look how ever they want us the public to see. 

So im not saying its their fault. At no point did I say that, but I get bored of hearing people say they cant afford their rent or mortgage but can afford £80 on a phone contract, £100 on sky per month, £400 a month on a car. 

Correct!

[Lloyd90]

54 minutes ago, KB1 said:

Arbitration seems to be your thing on this forum. So, as Lloyd90 has asked you which posts are a disgrace, why don't you just get to the point?

Having read the thread with interest, it does seem that Team Tractor took someones opinion too emotively and escalated it himself.  I myself have had a few too many kids and at times in my life it has proved to be somewhat difficult, and I can tell myself that I have maybe been a tad irresponsible for letting it happen.  BUT, I wouldnt dream of laying that on a forum poster having an generic opinion on the matter.

'Sticks and Stones'

Thank you KB1, 

As always an emotive topic and some people take it all very personally. 

 

 

 

[pinfireman]

5 hours ago, Retsdon said:

The thing is though, that these are examples of what are almost necessities of modern life. Every last Bangladeshi worker here in Saudi has a smart-phone, and their pay is $150 a month. The £400 for the car? Unless you have no deadlines to meet, bus services have been pared to the point of uselessness in most of the country. You can't get to work without a car, and if you can't get to work you can't work. Me, I'd buy a cheap car for cash. But then again I have a few thousand cash and spare income for incidental repairs. A lot of people have no choice but lock themselves into the never never. £100 for Sky? Well, it's not exactly necessary, but hardly a wild extravagance.

A smart phone, a  large plasma tv is NOT a necessity! It,s a "desirable" item, but NOT a necessity!

[Lloyd90]

6 minutes ago, Hamster said:

👍 😞  These are the sort of people who get blamed en masse along with a small proportion of the genuinely lazy, the way I have always seen it is that as a society we must help without judgement. I don't give a damn if some of the homeless are there through bad choices, they still deserve our help. 

😞  Spot on again, we are where we are because they've got us quarrelling amongst one another while they laugh all the way to offshore accounts with zero prospect of ever being held to account. 

Based on what ? 👂

Correct. 

When’s the last time you ever saw anyone blame the widow of a service man or woman for being a drain on benefits? 

I’ve never EVER seen it. 

99% of the time complaining about benefits claimants involves saying how the money should instead be used for service personal and their families, the exact opposite of what your suggesting. 

[Hamster]

Just now, Lloyd90 said:

When’s the last time you ever saw anyone blame the widow of a service man or woman for being a drain on benefits? 

I’ve never EVER seen it. 

99% of the time complaining about benefits claimants involves saying how the money should instead be used for service personal and their families, the exact opposite of what your suggesting. 

It was about 15 hours ago roughly speaking,  😌  when the figure of 14 million was dismissed without any evidence whatsoever of the proportion and myriad types of different cases, peoples and scenario's that it clearly HAS to be comprised of. 

[pinfireman]

5 hours ago, Hamster said:

Don't know where you got that info from, the top 1% have schemes in place when often they pay no tax ! That's half the reason we're in this mess. How did you figure out that the middle class tax is a drop in the ocean ? 

Bear in mind tax is not just what we pay as stoppages but everything we spend our already taxed money on is taxed again via VAT, fuel tax, congestion charges etc, when seen as a percentage of ones income 😉  paying a fiver to pop over the Dartford crossing feels a lot worse to the average man than it would say a millionaire. 

This subject is actually very much connected to tax avoidance, a subject which I know from previous experience the PigeonWatch massive think is a sign of intelligence for the culprits and damn the rest. 

Where is your PROOF that the majority of the 14 million fall into that category ? Opinion is one thing proof is another. Here we have an official report that maintains this number of people fall into what is today defined as poverty or below levels, then we have people coming on with one liners, rhetorics and opinion suggesting they don't agree with those findings. 

And who are those who came up with this definition of poverty?  Official reports can be misleading, depends on who ordered the report.....................sometimes it is merely a blunt tool to persuade people to vote a certain way!

[henry d]

25 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Henry, the jump in population IS, in part due to immigration.. in 1947 it was 46.6 million, now it is 66.5 million. In the 100 years approx from 1850 to 1950, the jump was 19.6 million. From 1947 (when large scale immigration started)  to today population 66.5 million,  in 71 years, it has increased another 20 million. And the birth rate amongst immigrants is  almost double that of the ethnic majority. Make what you like of that.............official figures.

Exactly, in part, White people comprise 87% or over 55 million of the 63 million in the UK

17 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

And who are those who came up with this definition of poverty?  Official reports can be misleading, depends on who ordered the report.....................sometimes it is merely a blunt tool to persuade people to vote a certain way!

Social metrics commission who are independent, Summary report here

[Mice!]

well 3 pages behind and wow! I think some of you have completely missed what TT was saying, he hasn't had kids so he or his misses can avoid work, he said that his second partner has had two kids and he now has 4 in total, so he's already paying for two with his ex, he said it wasn't worth his current partner going back to work because of the cost of childcare.

I have two kids and we decided the same thing, we didn't look at child care costs before deciding whether to have children who does?

But i agree with TT, his misses would like to work but why should she when there is no financial benefit, I'm sure if the government paid half the fee of child care so people could work it would work out better.

[Lloyd90]

6 minutes ago, Mice! said:

well 3 pages behind and wow! I think some of you have completely missed what TT was saying, he hasn't had kids so he or his misses can avoid work, he said that his second partner has had two kids and he now has 4 in total, so he's already paying for two with his ex, he said it wasn't worth his current partner going back to work because of the cost of childcare.

I have two kids and we decided the same thing, we didn't look at child care costs before deciding whether to have children who does?

But i agree with TT, his misses would like to work but why should she when there is no financial benefit, I'm sure if the government paid half the fee of child care so people could work it would work out better.

I thought most people got that just fine. 

No one suggested that he has had 4 kids to avoid work, And I doubt very much the government is throwing money at him and his Mrs and they’re living it up in luxury. 

TT genuinely sounds like a hard working bloke from his many posts. 

 

The issue is though, not looking at this personally - does anyone HAVE to have 2 kids? Or 3? Or 4? Or it is a choice you make? 

 

Surprised lots of people don’t think of childcare costs when they consider having kids. I know lots of people don’t, they just get on with it.

You obviously have to accept that if your going to have kids however that you will have to make sacrifices, whether financial or your time etc and life isn’t going to be the same, especially when they’re young. 

[JohnfromUK]

4 hours ago, Whatmuff said:

The lack of compassion on here really surprises me and it's amazing how people think that the rich work harder and some how deserve more in life than the poor because they have money.

I don't think there is a lack of compassion;  Pretty much everyone supports helping the genuine needy - as I said in my earlier post on page 3 "the wealthy should bear a responsibility to support those less fortunate and in genuine need such as the disabled, ill, injured and elderly"  That would include those such as the example you give.

But there are those who simply exploit the system - and they are spoiling it for everyone.  Everyone (I think) is happy to support those with genuine need, but no one should have to support people who are bone idle and cheat the system - and there are some - and they are stealing and draining resources that should go to the needy.

4 hours ago, Whatmuff said:

it's amazing how people think that the rich work harder

No one has said or implied that they work harder.  They often carry a lot of responsibility - employing many people.  Many do work hard, as do many average and low earners.  Hard work doesn't guarantee wealth as we all know, but very few people get wealthy without it - and usually a lot of risk taking and worry.

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I thought most people got that just fine. 

No one suggested that he has had 4 kids to avoid work, And I doubt very much the government is throwing money at him and his Mrs and they’re living it up in luxury. 

TT genuinely sounds like a hard working bloke from his many posts. 

 

The issue is though, not looking at this personally - does anyone HAVE to have 2 kids? Or 3? Or 4? Or it is a choice you make? 

 

Surprised lots of people don’t think of childcare costs when they consider having kids. I know lots of people don’t, they just get on with it.

You obviously have to accept that if your going to have kids however that you will have to make sacrifices, whether financial or your time etc and life isn’t going to be the same, especially when they’re young. 

I think you could equally flip your choice argument and say nobody has a choice that they live in modern society or not, you can obviously no longer stake claim to a piece of land and live off it, bothering no one and providing for your family, there's an argument to be said why shouldn't you have a child or two simply because you can't land a well paid job? It's is after all a part of modern society that everyone is born into, like it or not.

[Yellow Bear]

At this point the "usual suspects" are taking up the cry "tax the rich more" - but as yet, like the poverty question they do no specify what constitutes rich?

If you listen to the current opposition it is anyone who actually is payed more than £30k and/or has savings.

So come on the "tax the rich" callers actually define what YOU term rich not just some left/marxist "think tank*

[Mice!]

7 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

The issue is though, not looking at this personally - does anyone HAVE to have 2 kids? Or 3? Or 4? Or it is a choice you make? 

 

Surprised lots of people don’t think of childcare costs when they consider having kids. I know lots of people don’t, they just get on with it.

You obviously have to accept that if your going to have kids however that you will have to make sacrifices, whether financial or your time etc and life isn’t going to be the same, especially when they’re young. 

Someone said to me once, possibly my old fella, if you looked at how much kids cost you would never have them.

Do people have to have kids, yes if your healthy and able you do, we stopped at two because we can manage well enough so the kids get nice things.

Imagine if people just stopped having children? It's people who have never worked banging out 4,5, 6 and up living off the state that is a massive problem.

[Retsdon]

15 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Surprised lots of people don’t think of childcare costs when they consider having kids. I know lots of people don’t, they just get on with it.

If everyone did the maths properly first, the schools would be empty.

[Lloyd90]

7 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Someone said to me once, possibly my old fella, if you looked at how much kids cost you would never have them.

Do people have to have kids, yes if your healthy and able you do, we stopped at two because we can manage well enough so the kids get nice things.

Imagine if people just stopped having children? It's people who have never worked banging out 4,5, 6 and up living off the state that is a massive problem.

That’s exactly it, you stopped at 2, and it sounds quite sensible. 

Clearly you thought it through and decided that 2 were sustainable and you could balance the cost VS what reward people have from having children. 

 

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

If everyone did the maths properly first, the schools would be empty.

Or just a bit emptier? Aren’t class rooms apparently bursting at the seems presently? 

 

As the poster above shows, some people think it through and decide based on what’ they can afford 🤷‍♂️

 

[Mice!]

7 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

That’s exactly it, you stopped at 2, and it sounds quite sensible. 

Clearly you thought it through and decided that 2 were sustainable and you could balance the cost VS what reward people have from having children. 

 

Or just a bit emptier? Aren’t class rooms apparently bursting at the seems presently? 

 

As the poster above shows, some people think it through and decide based on what’ they can afford 🤷‍♂️

 

Im not sure i could have managed any more babies, lots of disturbed nights, kids change everything, but most of it is for the better.

But a question your asked when you go for the snip is "what would you do if you split up with your partner and a new one wants more kids" you can hardly say how many children someone can have, its how you pay for them that matters.

[motty]

7 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

People should be allowed to save and build wealth - and to pass it on to the following generations.  It is this that provides the working capital for the UK economy.  To balance that - the wealthy should bear a responsibility to support those less fortunate and in genuine need such as the disabled, ill, injured and elderly.  This is what the taxation and benefits systems should do.  In fact, and accepted with some problems, that is what actually happens.

Those that are simply plain bone idle don't deserve help and should receive at best a 'subsistence' level.  At present the system doesn't weed them out very well, and tends to be inaccurate in separating the needy from the lazy.

A system that encourages people into bringing children into this world just to 'farm the benefits system' is sheer folly and will have dire consequences on the society as a whole in the longer term.

Amen to that, especially the last paragraph!