14 million in poverty

[Mice!]

5 hours ago, Whatmuff said:

You're bang on mate. There is a lot of generalisation on here as to poor people just spend money on cars , fags, booze and sky TV. Who's sky cost £100 a month? Don't put numbers into people's heads when you have no idea. Cost of living has gone through the roof due to inflation, average food prices have risen 10% in a year which is insane, everyone just blames the fall in the pound. (Bull) . Millionaires are getting richer every day and the rest of us are getting poorer. It amazes me that people can just judge an entire population on millions based on pub chat, "they just breed kids and watch TV with no job, and we are paying for them" 

Try a nurse on 30k in Kent when the average home is 300k. Still think it's easy for her/him to survive with 2 kids. In today's society?

Cost of living is very different depending on which part of the country you live in and people are finding it very tough, so don't generalise. I agree there are families that have taken the **** with benefits in the pass and there are definitely millionaires and CEOs that take the **** and pocket stupid amounts of money and avoid tax to add to their wealthy estates, but again not all of them do. And I can't help feeling sorry for someone who takes home 1 million, regardless of how much tax he pays.

Oh and I can't wait for children in need this year when we get the tax avoidance celebs who tell us all to dig deep for some money! 

Found it, i said early on about how much dearer things are but that says it better, a nurse on £30k should have a great lifestyle but then an ordinary house "down south" might well be £300k which to us "Northerners" seems crackers, and that's without childcare costs.

[Hamster]

23 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

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*

I missed that bit could you point it out please, save me reading all six pages again. 

To me it makes no difference what level constitutes being rich because it isn't being rich or the rich that matters but the poverty itself. 

[motty]

7 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.

£400 a month on a car? Hardly necessary. A car to get someone to work and back could cost £400 full stop!

[Whatmuff]

30 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

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*

I'm not left? Or right for that matter but please continue to evaluate me. Err Amazon and large corporations paying their fair share of tax. Starbucks? I haven't targeted any individual apart from Persimmon home CEO as his earnings were direct profits from the tax payer. 

BBC news article.

"Online retail giant Amazon's UK paid £1.7m in taxes despite profits almost trebling to £72.3m"

[sandspider]

3 minutes ago, motty said:

£400 a month on a car? Hardly necessary. A car to get someone to work and back could cost £400 full stop!

My first car cost £250, and that was only back in 2000 ish. Lasted me a couple of years with some maintenance and bits and pieces, and taught me a fair bit about car maintenance! It wasn't flashy or fast (VW Polo in fact), but it got me around the place.

I agree that benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice - but am not sure how to eliminate the latter (several generations now) and not affect the former.

[Retsdon]

4 minutes ago, motty said:

£400 a month on a car? Hardly necessary. A car to get someone to work and back could cost £400 full stop!

The problem with a £400 quid car is the looming cost of repairs. But fundamentally, you're  correct. I just looked in Auto Trader and for £200 a month there are loads of very good and serviceable cars. I wish cars were as cheap in Thailand! 

[Whatmuff]

Bottom line is if we don't start funding this issue soon the streets will turn to war zones and the levels of equality will increase and cause uproar within the poorer communities. Take a look at London with stabbings and many council estates  these days, crime is sky high. I agree that benefits shouldn't be handed to anyone to fund a lifestyle but more for people that need it, however with the help of all the Governments over the last 40 years we are in this situation and something has to be done. If people can justify an individual getting paid 75m or a company paying less tax for a given year even though it's profits trippled the next and then having homeless on our streets and kids without food then fine. I just think it's unfair and the balance is too far the other way at the moment. Just because some people in society spend their money on things they shouldn't and end up on the street is doesn't mean they deserve it or they should die because of "natural selection" they may need help with making financial decisions or to learn how to live within their means.

How many companies are paying minimum wage to their employees while taking millions in profits to the shareholders? It's not fair. If these companies didn't have these people working for them they would make nothing. 

[12gauge82]

I think part of the problem with the inequality within our country is that it has caused people to simply give up, there are those on benefits that probably would have a good work ethic, but they know they will never secure a decent job and staying on benefits will pay more, when they have a family to support can anyone really blame them for making that choice?

[Retsdon]

7 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

How many companies are paying minimum wage to their employees while taking millions in profits to the shareholders?

Not just that, but the taxpayer subsidies those profits by topping up their employees wages with income and housing support. That's one of the biggest scams out there.

 

[Gordon R]

Retsdon - a very valid point.

[Dave-G]

4 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!

Point I'm making is us baby boomers are the result of many families producing several kids in the era's you speak of: I'm one of 10 and wife is one of 12, thus our parents begat 22 children.

We only produced three kids between us which is not enough to fund both of our pensions and health care out of the taxes they pay. One is a houswife with 5 kids and two are earning, one of them not a lot.

Like the facts or not, its higher breeding immigrants that have increased the more recent population increases.

We need to rethink our means of funding ourselves and our homes whilst also funding our parents.

[JohnfromUK]

20 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

I agree that benefits shouldn't be handed to anyone to fund a lifestyle but more for people that need it, however with the help of all the Governments over the last 40 years we are in this situation and something has to be done.

We are agreed!  But the solution is better targeting of the benefits - teh something that has to be done is to cut out those who don't deserve and give more to those who do.

 

22 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

It's not fair. If these companies didn't have these people working for them they would make nothing.

Whilst that is true, if the people working for them didn't, they would would have nothing either.  As to the shareholders ...... those are mainly all of us - in the form of our pension funds.  We provide the working capital, and take the risks - and in return the shareholders get income  (dividends) - that are used pay our pensions. 

The reality is that much of British industry is funded by the pension funds, the beneficiaries of which are the 'workers'.

29 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

Take a look at London with stabbings and many council estates  these days, crime is sky high.

That is largely due to entirely different reasons (drugs 'gangs' territory wars).  It used to be blamed on unemployment, but since unemployment has (thankfully vastly reduced) it is now blamed on other things and has  greatly increased as unemployment has reduced.

 

32 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

If people can justify an individual getting paid 75m or a company paying less tax for a given year even though it's profits trippled the next

I entirely agree that these issues need tackling - the person getting £75m looks like a seriously bad contract and everyone admits it was badly done - but a contract was made - and so has to be fulfilled, and taxation of companies (and individuals) is a metter for the government.

32 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I think part of the problem with the inequality within our country is that it has caused people to simply give up, there are those on benefits that probably would have a good work ethic, but they know they will never secure a decent job and staying on benefits will pay more, when they have a family to support can anyone really blame them for making that choice?

And Universal Credit was supposed to ensure that you would always be better 'in work'.  I do not know it's details well enough to comment further.

[stumfelter]

5 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Which ones Gordon? 

Which concepts do you find so distasteful? 

I'd hazard a guess that one of them was you inferring that TT's wife had duped him in to having more children.

[Whatmuff]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

We are agreed!  But the solution is better targeting of the benefits - teh something that has to be done is to cut out those who don't deserve and give more to those who do.

 

Whilst that is true, if the people working for them didn't, they would would have nothing either.  As to the shareholders ...... those are mainly all of us - in the form of our pension funds.  We provide the working capital, and take the risks - and in return the shareholders get income  (dividends) - that are used pay our pensions. 

The reality is that much of British industry is funded by the pension funds, the beneficiaries of which are the 'workers'.

That is largely due to entirely different reasons (drugs 'gangs' territory wars).  It used to be blamed on unemployment, but since unemployment has (thankfully vastly reduced) it is now blamed on other things and has  greatly increased as unemployment has reduced.

 

I entirely agree that these issues need tackling - the person getting £75m looks like a seriously bad contract and everyone admits it was badly done - but a contract was made - and so has to be fulfilled, and taxation of companies (and individuals) is a metter for the government.

Completely agree with everything you've said, so really it comes down to Politics and change within our system, to make sure the benefit system is used for its intended purpose and people who use it and don't need it should be offered work for the payment of benefits or such system. 

 

Perhaps looking into corporations and tax loopholes and paycaps (If profits are subsidised by Government schemes)

Homelessness needs dealing with, by helping the people on the streets and getting them safe and integrating a system that gets them back into work with training in simple life skills to enable them to be integrated back into society.

Knife crime needs tackling by using the charity workers of those communities and give them funding to educate children early on. I heard a case the other day from an ex gang member who sat down 7 years ago with Mrs May and told her he needed funding to be sent to every school in London both Primary and Secondary to begin teaching the youths of gang culture and how to avoid that path in life. And her response was how much would that cost? And she denied him of The funds. 

On another note with large corporations and big shareholders taking profits. Take Carillion for example, most of their contracts are funded by the tax payer at extortionate rates. I live on an RAF base and they run the housing contracts for maintenance ect, and they have charged the MOD a huge amount to maintain property when all they do is sub contract out to other firms, so to change a towel rail could cost in excess of £200! How is this effective use of tax payers cash? I could have a team of 10 people per baseband do a far better job using local tradesmen and pay them a decent wage, yet most of the contract money gets sent back to the shareholders, and when the company issues profit warnings these same major shareholders jump ship to their next project. I think the Government has to take blame for a hell of a lot when it comes to the economy, share of wealth and poverty in today's society. I'm not left, or right, I just want to live in a fair a decent society where everyone lives in peace and helps one another. 

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

I think the Government has to take blame for a hell of a lot when it comes to the economy, share of wealth and poverty in today's society. I'm not left, or right, I just want to live in a fair a decent society where everyone lives in peace and helps one another.

You are quite right - and you are also right in that it isn't a 'left or right' issue; it is simple incompetence.

7 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

I just want to live in a fair a decent society where everyone lives in peace and helps one another.

We all do ...... but we (or at least some) see the way of achieving that slightly differently. 

I am firmly of the view that we should help the true needy (however they fell into that situation), but not the bone idle for whom 'needy' has been a 'lifestyle' choice.

I also firmly believe in encouraging and rewarding hard work, enterprise, risk taking and success, and investing in business and saving for the 'rainy day', or retirement.  That means allowing people to spend their own money, not take it from them in tax and spend it for them.

I also believe that all people should be allowed to keep as much of their income/wealth as possible, because the state has an incredibly poor record of spending unwisely.  The idea that the state can spend your money better than you yourself is wrong in my view.

[Whatmuff]

14 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

You are quite right - and you are also right in that it isn't a 'left or right' issue; it is simple incompetence.

We all do ...... but we (or at least some) see the way of achieving that slightly differently. 

I am firmly of the view that we should help the true needy (however they fell into that situation), but not the bone idle for whom 'needy' has been a 'lifestyle' choice.

I also firmly believe in encouraging and rewarding hard work, enterprise, risk taking and success, and investing in business and saving for the 'rainy day', or retirement.  That means allowing people to spend their own money, not take it from them in tax and spend it for them.

I also believe that all people should be allowed to keep as much of their income/wealth as possible, because the state has an incredibly poor record of spending unwisely.  The idea that the state can spend your money better than you yourself is wrong in my view.

Perfect post John.

[Retsdon]

I've just been browsing some UK employment websites and, for me anyway, it's startling how low the average wage is that's on offer for unskilled or semi-skilled work. 

[motty]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

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

Rather than overcrowded?

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, stumfelter said:

I'd hazard a guess that one of them was you inferring that TT's wife had duped him in to having more children.

He’ put himself forward as an example to be used in this thread, stating his family should have more help and it’s not right. 

It’s not personal and that why it’s got emotive. He has taken it as a personal dig. 

 

Despite that, Any individual who has a kid accidentally and then goes on to do it again, whilst already having several kids, should perhaps put more thought into safe practice, and their actions, rather than bang out several kids and then complain that they’re in a difficult situation because the government doesn’t provide enough support for parents. 

People make choices everyday and whilst lots of people are constrained by their circumstances, lots of people arent. 

 

Do you think someone who accidentally gets pregnant repeatedly is response for the number of kids they have? Or not? 

[team tractor]

31 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

He’ put himself forward as an example to be used in this thread, stating his family should have more help and it’s not right. 

It’s not personal and that why it’s got emotive. He has taken it as a personal dig. 

 

Despite that, Any individual who has a kid accidentally and then goes on to do it again, whilst already having several kids, should perhaps put more thought into safe practice, and their actions, rather than bang out several kids and then complain that they’re in a difficult situation because the government doesn’t provide enough support for parents. 

People make choices everyday and whilst lots of people are constrained by their circumstances, lots of people arent. 

 

Do you think someone who accidentally gets pregnant repeatedly is response for the number of kids they have? Or not? 

I wasn’t going to comment again but hay ho, 

my oldest daughter was while the ex was on the pill,

son planned on.

new relationship. Implant which is the best guarantee still failed twice. 

Oh boy I guess you’ve never done sex education. It’s not guaranteed to work and hasn’t for me so I had the snip. Funny thing is that’s not guaranteed either. It can reattach at any point and in some cases up to 10 years later. 

now That’s nothing to do with personal life’s but a just a fact. 

 

Maybe I’ll claim against the NHS ? ( joke) 

 

One things certain , Its fun trying 😂

 

 

[Whatmuff]

35 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

He’ put himself forward as an example to be used in this thread, stating his family should have more help and it’s not right. 

It’s not personal and that why it’s got emotive. He has taken it as a personal dig. 

 

Despite that, Any individual who has a kid accidentally and then goes on to do it again, whilst already having several kids, should perhaps put more thought into safe practice, and their actions, rather than bang out several kids and then complain that they’re in a difficult situation because the government doesn’t provide enough support for parents. 

People make choices everyday and whilst lots of people are constrained by their circumstances, lots of people arent. 

 

Do you think someone who accidentally gets pregnant repeatedly is response for the number of kids they have? Or not? 

I agree with slot you've said Lloyd, and the Government definitely needs to sort these benefit seeking mum's out. And I think it needs to be at school level and they need educating and to understand the Government will not find a lifestyle for them just by having children. However they didn't give the direction to schools or funding required and just took benefits away which has worsened the situation. 

It drives me mad to know there are women out there that have had children time and time again without planning or even working, knowing the Government will support them. But where is the education, and where is the punishment or discipline for those families? It's like they have been rewarded for doing it.  My suggestion would be to make them live with immediate family and then perhaps the parents would take it up on themselves to educate their children. But on a case by case basis, there are genuine cases out there for many reasons that families could end up in a bad situation 

1 minute ago, team tractor said:

I wasn’t going to comment again but hay ho, 

my oldest daughter was while the ex was on the pill,

son planned on.

new relationship. Implant which is the best guarantee still failed twice. 

Oh boy I guess you’ve never done sex education. It’s not guaranteed to work and hasn’t for me so I had the snip. Funny thing is that’s not guaranteed either. It can reattach at any point and in some cases up to 10 years later. 

now That’s nothing to do with personal life’s but a just a fact. 

 

Maybe I’ll claim against the NHS ? ( joke) 

 

One things certain , Its fun trying 😂

 

 

And this is a perfect example of the cases that do deserve help in my opinion.

[Lloyd90]

1 minute ago, team tractor said:

I wasn’t going to comment again but hay ho, 

my oldest daughter was while the ex was on the pill,

son planned on.

new relationship. Implant which is the best guarantee still failed twice. 

Oh boy I guess you’ve never done sex education. It’s not guaranteed to work and hasn’t for me so I had the snip. Funny thing is that’s not guaranteed either. It can reattach at any point and in some cases up to 10 years later. 

now That’s nothing to do with personal life’s but a just a fact. 

 

Maybe I’ll claim against the NHS ? ( joke) 

 

One things certain , Its fun trying 😂

 

 

Jesus man you must be the luckiest (or unluckiest) man around 😂 

At least you had fun trying!! 

 

[team tractor]

1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said:

Jesus man you must be the luckiest (or unluckiest) man around 😂 

At least you had fun trying!! 

 

In a few months I’ll hopefully be told they’re all dead as I don’t want the swimmers anymore . 

4 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

I agree with slot you've said Lloyd, and the Government definitely needs to sort these benefit seeking mum's out. And I think it needs to be at school level and they need educating and to understand the Government will not find a lifestyle for them just by having children. However they didn't give the direction to schools or funding required and just took benefits away which has worsened the situation. 

It drives me mad to know there are women out there that have had children time and time again without planning or even working, knowing the Government will support them. But where is the education, and where is the punishment or discipline for those families? It's like they have been rewarded for doing it.  My suggestion would be to make them live with immediate family and then perhaps the parents would take it up on themselves to educate their children. But on a case by case basis, there are genuine cases out there for many reasons that families could end up in a bad situation 

And this is a perfect example of the cases that do deserve help in my opinion.

Cheers mate. 

[stumfelter]

43 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

He’ put himself forward as an example to be used in this thread, stating his family should have more help and it’s not right. 

It’s not personal and that why it’s got emotive. He has taken it as a personal dig. 

 

Despite that, Any individual who has a kid accidentally and then goes on to do it again, whilst already having several kids, should perhaps put more thought into safe practice, and their actions, rather than bang out several kids and then complain that they’re in a difficult situation because the government doesn’t provide enough support for parents. 

People make choices everyday and whilst lots of people are constrained by their circumstances, lots of people arent. 

 

Do you think someone who accidentally gets pregnant repeatedly is response for the number of kids they have? Or not? 

Do you think it's right for you to imply that his wife has tricked him to get pregnant?

[Lloyd90]

7 minutes ago, stumfelter said:

Do you think it's right for you to imply that his wife has tricked him to get pregnant?

Not really, it was more said in jest. Although it does happen to men all the time, duly named ‘sperm jacking’.