Last Budget "worse for poor"

#2
Better to have to pay more of your income in tax with a view to an improvement, than to have no income, no hope of an income other than the 'boro and see benefits going to everyone but the ones who pay for them...
 

Fronty

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#3
Just heard a summary of what people are talking about on Radio 4. It looks like the whole thing could go to court if it was proved that the coalition did not fully consider the impact their spending cuts would have under the Equality Act.

The feeling I got from the interview was that this has only come to the fore because the last government got the law in plce, but never made spending cuts like this in their budgets. The coalition then had to pick up the pieces, make the cuts, then get shafted (potentially) by the law.

Of course, if they can prove they had gone through the right process, it's all by the by.
 
#4
Shock horror -- the biggest beneficiaries of Gordon Brown's lavish-generosity-with-other-People's-money lose out the most when the money runs out.

In other news, bears defecate in wooded areas. Full story at 10 o'clock.
 

Fronty

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#5
Also according to Radio 4 (I know, I should get out more), 1 in 3 households receives 50% or more of their income from benefits. So, it's a reasonable bet that cutting them will cause some people pain.
 
#6
I really would like to know the definition of "poor".

I've seen poor single mums wheeling their babies around in pushchairs that cost more than my wife's monthly "State Pittance",and poor kids walking around in trainers the cost of which would fill my little car for the month.

Poor,I don't think so.
 
#7
I really would like to know the definition of "poor".

I've seen poor single mums wheeling their babies around in pushchairs that cost more than my wife's monthly "State Pittance",and poor kids walking around in trainers the cost of which would fill my little car for the month.

Poor,I don't think so.
The widely accepted definition of poverty is having an income which is less than 60% of the national average (excluding the wealthiest members of society).
This means
2008/09 In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: £115 per week for single adult with no dependent children; £199 per week for a couple with no dependent children; £195 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and £279 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 14.

These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment.
So if you have less than £115 a week beer and food money then you are offically poor it seems

UK: numbers in low income - The Poverty Site
 
#8
As Stoaty says bears defecate in the woods. Surprise. There are obviously still lots of people who have not quite understood that the rich will always be that bit better off than those with no money, that gap has always been there, it always will be.
Did I mention that Ursus has been spotted defecating in forested areas?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
It's surely all dependent on how you measure 'poverty' and how to deal with it. If you think that the poor should get all their money from the State, then reducing this by allowing them to earn more from the real economy (thus needing less from the State) means that that you think the Budget was a Bad Thing.

That's a purely Socialist viewpoint - that the State is Father and Mother (but no need for a Father, of course). It's akin to the BBC's going on and on about the Coalition's reducing public spending equalling "taking £5Bn out of the economy" when the truth is, quite obviously, the other way round - it's leaving £5Bn IN the economy.
 
#11
£ 115 per week disposable income means just shy of £ 6000 per year!

Try telling a sub-Saharan African subsistence farmer living on less than $2 a day that this makes you poor.

We do not have poor people in this country any more -- it appears that being a paid for member of the Labour Party core vote is sufficiently lucrative.
 
#12
They were having this debate on the radio this morning.....someone was getting very upset that the housing benefit was being capped at £400 a week......FFS that's £20,000 a year to cover your rent and bills, who the f*** needs £20,000 a year for rent and bills....if your house is that big you aren't 'poor'.

S_R
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
In the current economic climate, it might be worth re-visiting the Beveridge Report (Ed Beveridge et al 1942), and getting the poor to recognise the difference between "Need" and "Want".

Please bear in mind that "want" didn't originally mean "something that I'd like".

Here's what the report envisaged:

The Report offered three guiding principles to its recommendations:

Proposals for the future should not be limited by "sectional interests" in learning from experience and that a "revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching".

Social insurance is only one part of a "comprehensive policy of social progress". The five giants on the road to reconstruction were Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Policies of social security "must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual", with the state securing the service and contributions. The state "should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family".

The man responsible for the Welfare State would be appalled by what we have now.
 
#14
They were having this debate on the radio this morning.....someone was getting very upset that the housing benefit was being capped at £400 a week......FFS that's £20,000 a year to cover your rent and bills, who the f*** needs £20,000 a year for rent and bills....if your house is that big you aren't 'poor'.

S_R
Apparently people on the dole have to be allowed to live in places like Westminster and Islington. It's due to Discrimination, racism, or something.

Meanwhile, people who work for a living and pay their own way have a simple, and indeed compulsory, solution in case they can't afford where they are living -- they move somewhere cheaper.

But expecting that people who don't pay their own way do the same is wrong, apparently...
 
#15
The widely accepted definition of poverty is having an income which is less than 60% of the national average (excluding the wealthiest members of society)
.....which, of course, is why we can never eradicate poverty. Taken to the absurd, if the national average was £1m p.a., people on less than £600k p.a. would still be poor.

Absolute poverty isn't an issue, but accepting that would put a lot of those in the statist leviathan out of employment.
 
#16
S_R - Dopey Dave and Gormless George apparently. Check out the MP's expenses and he gets to keep the house/mansion even though we have bought it at our expense.
 
#18
So the poor are losing a higher percentage of their income than the rich. I'm not one of the rich, yet I don't see why that's a problem. I don't know anybody, employed or otherwise, who can't afford the essentials. In fact, I don't know anyone, employed or otherwise, that can't afford a TV, laptop, mobile phone, half decent clothes and nights on the town. The idea of "poverty" in this country is a lie.
 
#19
S_R - Dopey Dave and Gormless George apparently. Check out the MP's expenses and he gets to keep the house/mansion even though we have bought it at our expense.
Good attempt at a troll...you should be trying better now you've hit your 5th post on the site.

MPs - despite my general loathing of the self serving blood sucking scum they are - at least are working and are only entitled to the interest payments on their mortgage not the capital repayments, even then I would be very impressed if many (I'm sure some do) of them manage to to hit £20,000 on interest payments - that's a £400,000 mortgage at 5%.

But MPs are not counted as 'poor' and their expenses are there for, in theory, to ensure they don't lose out financially while doing a job. Housing benefits are there to ensure someone has a house to live in...not £1,600 a month to rent a place I could only dream of.

S_R
 
#20
So the poor are losing a higher percentage of their income than the rich. I'm not one of the rich, yet I don't see why that's a problem. I don't know anybody, employed or otherwise, who can't afford the essentials. In fact, I don't know anyone, employed or otherwise, that can't afford a TV, laptop, mobile phone, half decent clothes and nights on the town. The idea of "poverty" in this country is a lie.
Really,just go down to your nearest Post Office,at about 09:00hrs Monday to Friday,and stop one of those nice little old ladies,who have just picked up their weekly "State Pittance",and ask them how much disposable income they have,you self opinionated twat.

Stick to writing about something you actually know about,eh.
 

Similar threads

Top