Question Time

[Butch Willykins]

Are you suggesting that people in poverty should be barred from having children? In those parts of the world where poverty is endemic, would you add 'not being allowed to have children' to the other tragedies of their lives?

I'm talking about the UK here.

People need to be responsible for their actions. If you don't work and not very well off then why the f*** would you bring a child into the world that you can't pay for yourself?

 

[User removed 4]

Blimey man!

That is quality ranting!

 

[Waynflete]

Hold on your talking about some dysfunctional communities, this doesn't constitute poverty in those areas.

Those living within those communities have problems which is another issue, but they will be receiving benefits equally ( maybe more accessing other funding ) as those in less 'deprived' areas.

That again doesnt show increased poverty.

Er, you want the example of just one person? What? Do you want me to do this one person at a time?

1 in 5 children in the UK is living in poverty. To give you an idea of what that means - it means they are living in a family that has an income of £250 per week. And that does not exclude housing costs.

So, after you've paid housing costs (which yes, are subsidised) you then have to buy food etc. Of course, in such a happy situation as this, when faced with all the joys of the world, you're not going to consider cigarettes and alcohol are you. I'm sure they just exist on a nice balanced vegetarian diet! No. We shouldn't be surprised that people who live without hope turn to things like fags and booze - but that certainly doesn't mean that they all do.

Poverty does exist. Even the Tory government admits it exists. No political party is blind to the fact that in the UK poverty exists.

What are those housing costs and how much is subsidised and can they use the private housing stock, we all have to pay for housing it is a burden for us all, it needs to be shown as a benefit ??

What other benefits are they in receipt of, free school meals ??

Yeah, there is a handy little benefit calculator on the directgov website.

I was an unemployed single parent to two young boys, I would imagine that this would fit into your 'poverty profile'.

Now I am not dismissing the difficulty for some in these situation but if you compare to many on here working it does offer an insight to the benefit system.

It is not POVERTY.

You may be able to claim the following benefit(s), which we have estimated for you:

Child Tax Credit £113.68 per week

Housing Benefit £200.00 per week

Council Tax Benefit £11.54 per week

Child Benefit £33.70 per week

Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) £71.00 per week


Total weekly income £429.92 per week

The further benefits that can be accessed:

Extra help that may be available to you:

Free school meals

NHS Healthy Start Vouchers for children under four years old

Free NHS prescriptions

Free NHS dental treatment

Free NHS sight test

Vouchers towards the cost of glasses or contact lenses

(Reasonable) travel costs to hospital for NHS treatment

So basically, it comes down to how you define poverty.
Those in Easterhouse, I rather suspect, have (as well as a roof over their head), hot/cold water, heathcare/doctors, food (not starving at least) etc. If so, they're not (under the definition of absolute poverty) in poverty.

Your (and others, including some politicians etc.) definition of poverty is a higher standard of living that that of mine (and of those in many 3rd world countries).

By all means, I agree that we (as a society) should help those who are very poor (and moreso those in real poverty) but, imo, to simply call those who are very poor in this country as being in "poverty" just demeans and trivialises those actually in real (absolute) poverty. THAT is callous and I put that insinuation that you made back to YOU.

Anyway, IMO, we are on the same page so to speak if we agree that what we are really talking about in this country is those who are very poor, whatever label is put in it ("poverty" is a poor label imo for the reasons above).

Poverty is an emotive word. It is not unqualified.

Your calculator on directgov is administered on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. The same department hosts this web page...

Households Below Average Income (HBAI)

Yes you can argue that Mr and Mrs A bring in this and Mr & Mrs B bring in that, but what is a beholden truth is that there are people living in poverty, and they are in the UK.

The definition of poverty used in this country is a household living on 60% or less than the median income. It's designed to capture the fact that poverty is substantially about the ability of someone to function reasonably in the society where they live.

If someone does not have sufficient money to undertake reasonable activities like heating a home, buying nutritious food, sending their children on school trips, affording school uniforms etc., then that person is in poverty. Those things are determined by the cost of living in your own society, so poverty has to be calculated relatively. The reason it's calculated on the median, not the mean, is so it's not skewed by the huge wealth of the super-rich, but rather is relative to the 'average' income.

This is different from the international measure of 'absolute poverty' which is currently $1.25 a day, that may be a useful rule of thumb, but isn't really very useful when you're comparing people living in countries with vastly different living costs (e.g. Bangladesh vs Angola).

Personally I think relative poverty is a vital way of working out whether people are seriously disadvantaged in the country where they live.

 

[BigGully]

The definition of poverty used in this country is a household living on 60% or less than the median income. It's designed to capture the fact that poverty is substantially about the ability of someone to function reasonably in the society where they live.

If someone does not have sufficient money to undertake reasonable activities like heating a home, buying nutritious food, sending their children on school trips, affording school uniforms etc., then that person is in poverty. Those things are determined by the cost of living in your own society, so poverty has to be calculated relatively. The reason it's calculated on the median, not the mean, is so it's not skewed by the huge wealth of the super-rich, but rather is relative to the 'average' income.

This is different from the international measure of 'absolute poverty' which is currently $1.25 a day, that may be a useful rule of thumb, but isn't really very useful when you're comparing people living in countries with vastly different living costs (e.g. Bangladesh vs Angola).

Personally I think relative poverty is a vital way of working out whether people are seriously disadvantaged in the country where they live.

No that is someone/somebodies interpretation of poverty, it wouldnt necessarily follow that it is accepted by me or others, thats why there has been this debate.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Yeah, there is a handy little benefit calculator on the directgov website.

I was an unemployed single parent to two young boys, I would imagine that this would fit into your 'poverty profile'.

Now I am not dismissing the difficulty for some in these situation but if you compare to many on here working it does offer an insight to the benefit system.

It is not POVERTY.

You may be able to claim the following benefit(s), which we have estimated for you:

Child Tax Credit £113.68 per week

Housing Benefit £200.00 per week

Council Tax Benefit £11.54 per week

Child Benefit £33.70 per week

Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) £71.00 per week


Total weekly income £429.92 per week

The further benefits that can be accessed:

Extra help that may be available to you:

Free school meals

NHS Healthy Start Vouchers for children under four years old

Free NHS prescriptions

Free NHS dental treatment

Free NHS sight test

Vouchers towards the cost of glasses or contact lenses

(Reasonable) travel costs to hospital for NHS treatment

Now calculate the effects of getting a part-time job for 20 hours a week, that pays £6.19 an hour, and tell me what the point of working is.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's utter left wing shite to suggest that huge numbers of the UK are in 'Poverty'.

Well reasoned. Carry on.

 

[BigGully]

Now calculate the effects of getting a part-time job for 20 hours a week, that pays £6.19 an hour, and tell me what the point of working is.

LB I agree with you.

But I suspect you think that should prompt an increase in the minimum wage rather than a decrease in the benefits.

There are unemployed families that might be unqualified and uneducated living in private lets, that cannot possibly get a job and maintain there £30 - £40 000 lifestyle

 

[Lord Bracknell]

LB I agree with you.

But I suspect you think that should prompt an increase in the minimum wage rather than a decrease in the benefits.

You suspect right.

Although I'm not sure that simply increasing the minimum wage would be enough. There also need to be incentives to ensure that employers pay the proper rate for the job. There are far too many real jobs in the economy that are priced at such a low hourly rate as to ensure that committed, skilled workers feel disengaged from the culture of employment.

 

[Waynflete]

No that is someone/somebodies interpretation of poverty, it wouldnt necessarily follow that it is accepted by me or others, thats why there has been this debate.

It's not just 'someone/somebodies interpretation of poverty'. It's the definition officially used by the OECD and the European Union. (Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You're obviously entitled to disagree with it, hence the debate as you say, but it's not just something someone dreamt up recently. It's a well-established and accepted indicator of poverty in developed countries.

 

[beorhthelm]

Are you suggesting that people in poverty should be barred from having children? In those parts of the world where poverty is endemic, would you add 'not being allowed to have children' to the other tragedies of their lives?

well now theres a thorny one... hypothetically... if the poverty is indeed endemic then they are only bringing those children into poverty too, so which is the greater tragedy? and they are increasing their own poverty in the process, often the over population is one root cause of poverty in the first place. by simply not having children would they improve their lives and prospects?

 

[Nibble]

Yeah , a convicted burglar who writes seriously shit poetry who's got such a chip on his shoulder about this country he turned down the OBE that a patronising white establishment offered him, seriously , why do we "need" to hear from him more ? , he is a second generation immigrant who hates the way this country is and is so proud of his caribbean roots , yet still lives here , the reason people like you "need to hear from him more" is to make yourself feel good about how cool and down with multiculturalism you are, I bet he cannot believe his f***ing luck how people like you fawn over him and how the absolute dogshit he passes off as poetry is taken seriously .

Blimey

 

[BigGully]

It's not just 'someone/somebodies interpretation of poverty'. It's the definition officially used by the OECD and the European Union. (Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You're obviously entitled to disagree with it, hence the debate as you say, but it's not just something someone dreamt up recently. It's a well-established and accepted indicator of poverty in developed countries.

Sorry, but OECD and European Union are just that, somebodies that produce the odd interpretations to fit whatever agenda pleases them, those self same bodies with different personnel could offer a different interpretation at another time.

 

[JCL666]

I'm talking about the UK here.

People need to be responsible for their actions. If you don't work and not very well off then why the f*** would you bring a child into the world that you can't pay for yourself?

You're just ranting.

What about people who have been in work, decide to have a family and then lose their job?

How about people who decided to have a family, then made a mistake and overstretched themselves financially?

How about a couple who thought they loved each other, had a family, they made a joint decision that the mother would look after the kids while the father worked, then split up and the mother finds herself with no relevant skills in a tough job market?

How about a woman, who got a bit drunk, made a mistake and slept with an idiot, got pregnant?

 

[sten_super]

It's not just 'someone/somebodies interpretation of poverty'. It's the definition officially used by the OECD and the European Union. (Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You're obviously entitled to disagree with it, hence the debate as you say, but it's not just something someone dreamt up recently. It's a well-established and accepted indicator of poverty in developed countries.

There are massive and widely-recognised problems around the poverty statistics precisely because this is the measure adopted by the EU and OECD. Personally I think it's a complete misnomer - what they are talking about is a measure of inequality, not poverty.

 

[JCL666]

Yeah , a convicted burglar who writes seriously shit poetry who's got such a chip on his shoulder about this country he turned down the OBE that a patronising white establishment offered him, seriously , why do we "need" to hear from him more ? , he is a second generation immigrant who hates the way this country is and is so proud of his caribbean roots , yet still lives here , the reason people like you "need to hear from him more" is to make yourself feel good about how cool and down with multiculturalism you are, I bet he cannot believe his f***ing luck how people like you fawn over him and how the absolute dogshit he passes off as poetry is taken seriously .

Yeah, he's a bit foreign looking so no wonder you don't like him.

 

[User removed 4]

Yeah, he's a bit foreign looking so no wonder you don't like him.

Well made point , very convincing counter argument you've made there , I mean it's not as if you've just fallen back on a lazy, ill thought out accusation of racism as a catch all term that will appeal to the groovy gang on here is it ?

 

[Waynflete]

The definition of poverty used in this country is a household living on 60% or less than the median income. It's designed to capture the fact that poverty is substantially about the ability of someone to function reasonably in the society where they live.

If someone does not have sufficient money to undertake reasonable activities like heating a home, buying nutritious food, sending their children on school trips, affording school uniforms etc., then that person is in poverty. Those things are determined by the cost of living in your own society, so poverty has to be calculated relatively. The reason it's calculated on the median, not the mean, is so it's not skewed by the huge wealth of the super-rich, but rather is relative to the 'average' income.

This is different from the international measure of 'absolute poverty' which is currently $1.25 a day, that may be a useful rule of thumb, but isn't really very useful when you're comparing people living in countries with vastly different living costs (e.g. Bangladesh vs Angola).

Personally I think relative poverty is a vital way of working out whether people are seriously disadvantaged in the country where they live.

Sorry, but OECD and European Union are just that, somebodies that produce the odd interpretations to fit whatever agenda pleases them, those self same bodies with different personnel could offer a different interpretation at another time.

There are massive and widely-recognised problems around the poverty statistics precisely because this is the measure adopted by the EU and OECD. Personally I think it's a complete misnomer - what they are talking about is a measure of inequality, not poverty.

Yes it is partly a measure of inequality. As I said in my first post, if you don't compare incomes with people in the same country then it doesn't account for the local conditions, cost of living etc.

And yes they could of course change the definition, but as it happens this definition has been around for some time and has been accepted quite widely as being useful.

Won't stop the debate, of course! It really comes down to whether you think poverty should be defined as the ability of someone to live a reasonable life in the country where they live. If so, then this is a useful indicator.

 

[Nibble]

Bushy doesn't like him because he's not white, working class and 100% English and he is more intelligent and succesful than Bushy. This is the reason Bushy doesn't like anyone that isn't like him. Essentially Bushy is a racist and the worst kind of racist, one who tries to use "intelligent" arguments to back up his luddite views but is not intelligent enough to realise people see straight through it. It's no coincidence that he sited Jim Davidson as his favourite comedian. Or that he is jealous of other races being succesful. It's why he hates the ethnic population he lives amongst, because he is upset that someone he believes is inferior to him has made it to the same point in life he has. Inside he is enraged and bitter at this.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

well now theres a thorny one... hypothetically... if the poverty is indeed endemic then they are only bringing those children into poverty too, so which is the greater tragedy? and they are increasing their own poverty in the process, often the over population is one root cause of poverty in the first place. by simply not having children would they improve their lives and prospects?

Is a life without children ever going to be an improved life? For many people this will not be the case, no matter how little they have.

Where there is the sort of poverty that we're talking about, not having children would obviously lead to a little more to go around for the people affected. Yes, over-population is an enormous problem, and birth control education needs to improve enormously. It would be great if families were of a 'sensible' size.

However, there is not enough desire to spread the wealth and reduce poverty - the prospects of these people will only be improved if governments in these places (and worldwide) put in the support and policies needed to do this. Otherwise, hypothetically as you say, not having children will mean that those in poverty will simply die off. Some might consider this a solution to the problem, others might consider it a little unethical.

 

[sten_super]

Yes it is partly a measure of inequality. As I said in my first post, if you don't compare incomes with people in the same country then it doesn't account for the local conditions, cost of living etc.

You could do that very straightforwardly without tying it to median income - e.g. the $1.25 (which I believe is measured in current US dollars) a day figure.

The problem with the definition used is that it results in completely illogical policy, if you are looking to really attempt to sort out poverty; and conversely good poverty-targeted policy might actually make the indicator worse. Poverty policy should be looking to make the worst off (if they really are living in poverty) better off; but in so doing, you might raise the median income bar to such an extent that more people then end up being classified as 'in poverty' as they earn less than 60% of the new median.

And yes they could of course change the definition, but as it happens this definition has been around for some time and has been accepted quite widely as being useful.

Won't stop the debate, of course! It really comes down to whether you think poverty should be defined as the ability of someone to live a reasonable life in the country where they live. If so, then this is a useful indicator.[/QUOTE]