Politics

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I want to say for the record that I fundamentally reject CT's stance on poverty - it does exist here, even if it isn't as widespread as the emerging economies. I'd argue that if we had to wait until we were at the same level as them before taking any action, we'd be in serious bother.

 

With that said, the recession has apparently managed to level the playing field a bit more, and our Gini coefficient has fallen in 2012 - which would be encouraging except that I can't shake this feeling that the super rich aren't paying for it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/income-gap-narrowest-margin-25-years

 

With that said, you may also be interested in this graph showing that Thatcher was responsible for the coefficient going through the roof while she was in power. Which I think sums up the Tory viewpoint. Sweden is at around 25%.

 

http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gini-index-uk.jpg

 

I dont have a stance on poverty. Try not to fall into the same knee jerk pile of patter as some of these others.

 

Its the word POVERTY that I think is overused.

 

Its a fairly straightforward point as usual, totally taken out of context by the peoples front of Toontastic.

 

Im not questioning how poor, poor people are Im simply saying that IMO Poverty is a word that should be reserved for the worlds real poor. The countries where they dont have the safety net of welfare state or free medicine or treatment.

 

I appreciate its a term thats measured globally based on Median pay, but are we really saying that where that calculation is made in this country equates to the life of a family in Greece or Latvia or India etc etc.

[Gemmill 34680]

The word poverty is reserved for the poor, you monumentally stupid cunt. It applies to the poor in this country though, despite your fucking idiotic protestations.

[Tom 13883]

I think "third world" is the term CT is thinking of.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

The word poverty is reserved for the poor, you monumentally stupid cunt. It applies to the poor in this country though, despite your fucking idiotic protestations.

 

 

You are being extremely dense for a bean counter.

 

Poverty is based on a simple calculation. While someone in this country can fall below the percentage that classifies them as "in poverty" it is in nowhere comparable to families in other countries who also meet exactly the same calculation criteria.

 

someone in the UK on 60% of the Median wage has a much better quality of life than someone in a jack shit country where the median wage is jack shit and they have no free medicine, benefits, health service etc etc.

 

How someone of supposed intelligence can not understand this point astounds me.

[Gemmill 34680]

There are occasions when you're on the wind up and I ignore you, and then there are occasions where you just expose yourself as an unthinking moron. We are in the midst of the latter.

 

Let's see the extent to which you embarrass yourself.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I think "third world" is the term CT is thinking of.

 

 

This might help you (from wiki)

 

 

Seebohm Rowntree chose a basic 'shopping basket' of foods (identical to the rations given in the local workhouse), clothing and housing needs - anyone unable to afford them was deemed to be in poverty. By 1950, with the founding of the modern welfare state, the 'shopping basket' measurement had been abandoned.

The vast and overwhelming majority of people that fill the government's current criteria for poverty status (see above) have goods unimaginable to those in poverty in 1900. Poverty in the developed world is often one of perception; people compare their wealth with neighbours and wider society, not with their ancestors or those in foreign countries.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

There are occasions when you're on the wind up and I ignore you, and then there are occasions where you just expose yourself as an unthinking moron. We are in the midst of the latter.

 

Let's see the extent to which you embarrass yourself.

 

 

You literally have no comeback to the facts I have pointed out. That you choose to ignore the difference between a fixed way of calculating poverty and what real poverty is tells me all about your angle tonight. You are simply mischief making.

[Happy Face 29]

How does someone who can't afford food in England have it better than someone who can't afford food in India?

 

How does the 10% increase in mortality of poor children in England have those dead children better off than dead kids elsewhere?

 

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk

 

[Gemmill 34680]

Keep going. You flew out the blocks on this one, but I think you've still got some left in the tank.

[Monkeys Fist 38866]

There are occasions when you're on the wind up and I ignore you, and then there are occasions where you just expose yourself as an unthinking moron. We are in the midst of the latter.Let's see the extent to which you embarrass yourself.

Keep going. You flew out the blocks on this one, but I think you've still got some left in the tank.

[Dr Gloom 19844]

CT, you're not a bad man but I'm afraid to say you are a moron

[Monkeys Fist 38866]

You are simply mischief making.

[Rayvin 4964]

CT, behold: http://www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/what-do-we-think-we-need

 

There are, to be fair to you, different ways of measuring it. But this seems to be what most on here consider accurate, and certainly seems a more compassionate way of looking at. The outcome of their approach is shown here, dated from March 2013; therefore reasonably up to date. http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9270.html

 

Apologies if this page was considered earlier. I note that the EU policy of 60% under median has already been covered.

 

The real point here as far as I'm concerned is what your problem with viewing it this way is? I would suggest that a more equitable distribution of wealth would be in everyone's best interests... even the rich; they would reduce the chance of violent, murderous uprising.

 

When you consider how much money you have, do you look at it in the relative terms of 'well, I'm being paid 500 times as much as a taxi driver in India is, so I'm doing pretty well for myself'. I doubt it - much more likely you'd compare yourself to your neighbours.

[Monkeys Fist 38866]

 

CT.....When you consider how much money you have, do you look at it in the relative terms of 'well, I'm being paid 500 times as much as a taxi driver in India is, so I'm doing pretty well for myself'. I doubt it - much more likely you'd compare yourself to your neighbours.

I'm going to keep quoting this until he answers.

[NJS 3986]

You can just imagine Duncan Smith or one of the other cunts coming out with "So you've got £12 a week to feed your family - that's not poor - that would be a fortune in Somalia" - the level of idiocy and sheer refusal to feel empathy with people is beyond contempt.

[desmondTUTU 0]

There is no way we've got 13 million in poverty. no way.

[Monkeys Fist 38866]

 

No , I agree, it's probably more.

[desmondTUTU 0]

maybe i need to look up the definition of poverty if the census of opinion is so great.

 

when i think of poverty i think of central africa

[NJS 3986]

There is no way we've got 13 million in poverty. no way.

As an aside of misconceptions about incomes when the "middle earners" are mentioned its assumed that millions are in the 40 and 45 percent tax brackets - in fact the last figure I saw was that only 11% pay 40% or more.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

How does someone who can't afford food in England have it better than someone who can't afford food in India?

Dear Lord that's ignorant.

 

We are not comparing no food against no food we are comparing the European calculation that classifies someone as been in poverty.

 

Rather than simply arguing for arguments sake, maybe you should digest the points I've made and then tell me if it's the same for people in poverty in Newcastle as it is for those in poverty in India.

[NJS 3986]

maybe i need to look up the definition of poverty if the census of opinion is so great.

 

when i think of poverty i think of central africa

So what do you consider "well-off" - somebody with 2 cows and a hut?

 

Poverty is always relative - if the people who were "poor" in the UK all earned £20k and had a decent disposable income which involved no credit cards, no overdrafts, no wonga and no food banks I'd be relatively happy and would dispute the definition. But when people are left with £20 a week to feed themselves when I know how rich many, many people are I think its fucking evil and I have no problem defining them as poor.

[NJS 3986]

Dear Lord that's ignorant.

 

We are not comparing no food against no food we are comparing the European calculation that classifies someone as been in poverty.

 

Rather than simply arguing for arguments sake, maybe you should digest the points I've made and then tell me if it's the same for people in poverty in Newcastle as it is for those in poverty in India.

Of course we're talking about no food you fucking imbecile - why the fuck are there food banks?

[desmondTUTU 0]

So what do you consider "well-off" - somebody with 2 cows and a hut?

 

Poverty is always relative - if the people who were "poor" in the UK all earned £20k and had a decent disposable income which involved no credit cards, no overdrafts, no wonga and no food banks I'd be relatively happy and would dispute the definition. But when people are left with £20 a week to feed themselves when I know how rich many, many people are I think its fucking evil and I have no problem defining them as poor.

 

Mostly correct but rather than get carried away I was only suggesting that we probably do not have nearly a quarter of the population in poverty.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Shamefully stupid comments tonight.

 

This statement I posted earlier (from the wiki entry for poverty), quite clearly explains the point.

 

 

 

 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3215]

 

 

You literally have no comeback to the facts I have pointed out. That you choose to ignore the difference between a fixed way of calculating poverty and what real poverty is tells me all about your angle tonight. You are simply mischief making.

Goods unimaginable to those in poverty in the 1900's. shoes, glasses, underwear, washing machines, baths, showers, radiators, boilers, ovens, sinks, toilets, paracetemol, inuprofen, inhalers, toothbrushes, soap, beds, quilts, double glazing, a bike, a scooter, books, pens, fresh fruit, fresh fish, fresh bread, fresh anything. If you think having these things means you can't be below the poverty line you truly are a thick cunt.