Making the poor better off

[unbeliever]

There are premisces in the following which some may wish to challenge. Some will think that one side of the other of the traditional political divide are not genuinely interested in helping the poor. Please don't take my phrasing as an assertion that it is not legitimate to challenge them.

 

Mostly, I think people on both sides of the traditional political divide want the poor to be better off. There are 2 key questions which arise from this.

1. Should the goal be to make the poor better off relative to the rich, or in absolute terms.

2. Is it best to empower the poor to make themselves better off, or to simply give them what they need to be better off.

 

If the goal is to make the poor better off relative to the rich, then the solution is easy. Just take from the rich and give to the poor. Whatever impact this has on the economy overall, some believe positive and others negative (still more neutral), it is certain to reduce the divide between rich and poor so, job done. If the long term impact on the economy is positive or neutral, you have also achieved the goal of making the poor better off in absolute terms. If it's negative then you may have made them worse off in absolute terms but maybe that doesn't matter.

 

If the goal is to make the poor better off in absolute terms, things get a lot more complicated. It may be that allowing the divide between rich and poor to grow can serve the goal of making the poor better off in absolute terms, if it leads to faster growth. It may also be that rather than handing money to the poor, the best strategy would be to spend more on education and training so as to empower the poor to better themselves (which I would have thought was in everybody's best interests).

 

Then we get on to the matter of whether it's the working poor (in this I include those earnestly seeking work) we want to help, or whether we also want to help the wilfully and chronically unemployed. I think that one's opinion on that has a big impact on where one lands in this debate. Obviously handing money to the poor can provide a perverse incentive against encouraging them to better themselves through work, education and training.

On the other hand if the poor do not have the resources in terms of money and time to undertake education and training to better themselves then they're stuck.

 

This is all obviously coming from my own perspective. I don't think there's enough evidence on any of these matters to come to an unquestionable conclusion on the matter, but I'm very interested in opinion on the ideological goal of relative or absolute poverty reduction.

Edited September 5, 2015 by unbeliever

[TJC1]

Theres no mileage in helping the wilfully unemployed and I would basically ignore benefit cheats as a form of revenue. Thats purely ideological.

 

I think we look further up the tree, closely at tax avoidance. And filter down into widening access to education which should be free and funding training For those who wish to get on.

 

Direct high taxation on earnings is prob not the answer either. Again this 50 or 45 or 40% higher tax rate debate is purely ideological.

 

Its a multi faceted question with multiple correct answers.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:07 ----------

 

I side on the pro absolute poverty debate, but there is transference into relative, depending on the form it takes.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:10 ----------

 

..i would basically dismantle the archaic and not fit for purpose DWP. I wouldnt have 'dole offices'. Administration could be centralised and it could all be executed digitally.

 

Id have universal benefits for all and then further benefits for most vulnerable.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:13 ----------

 

For those working, a living wage is the way to go. I'd do much more to incentivise businesses though. Work on productivity and infrastructure. Much more done to guard against possible fall out of living wage introduction.

 

The 'living wage' should be a little higher than tories proposal. Its along right lines though.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:17 ----------

 

I'd do much more to promote entrepreneurship. There needs to be wider access to finance. I'd like to see valuable resources like libraries transformed into modern hubs, with a wider remit.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:19 ----------

 

Basically it has to pay to work. Pre-school subsidies could be a part of this. Simplify the system.

Nobody should question if its better to be on the dole than work.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:23 ----------

 

I much more ambitious switch is a move away from a service and finance economy, centralised in the south east. The current system has made London powerful but hasnt benefited the north.

 

I'd devolve power to regions. I'd make england a republic.

Again both ambitious and ground breaking proposals which arent nevessarily popular right now.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 13:28 ----------

 

Because we have increased wages successfully we have removed the necessity of the state subsidising private landlords. Housing can keep at an affordable level as earnings increase.

Edited September 5, 2015 by TJC1
....

[Vague_Boy]

I think we look further up the tree, closely at tax avoidance.

 

Do you mean avoidance or evasion?

 

One is legal, the other is not.

 

 

I'd make england a republic.

 

Although I am a republican myself, you can't really make England a republic without a major change in public opinion. Or by imposing a dictatorship.

[RickyM]

We need to get rid of the Tories, the fatcats, (same thing as Tories almost) people that want to be Tories or fatcats and royalty.

 

Then...........when things get better we need another purge of society to stop more Tories and fatcats emerging.

[tinfoilhat]

We need to get rid of the Tories, the fatcats, (same thing as Tories almost) people that want to be Tories or fatcats and royalty.

 

Then...........when things get better we need another purge of society to stop more Tories and fatcats emerging.

 

You might want to ask for another option on the poll, "everybody should be in poverty, living under a communist dictator."

 

Have you thought of moving to North Korea?

[RickyM]

You might want to ask for another option on the poll, "everybody should be in poverty, living under a communist dictator."

 

Have you thought of moving to North Korea?

 

I want to stay here and eradicate poverty from England.

 

Are you with me?

[tinfoilhat]

I want to stay here and eradicate poverty from England.

 

Are you with me?

 

Yes, ( absolute poverty anyway). But that's not what you said in your first post.

[unbeliever]

I want to stay here and eradicate poverty from England.

 

Are you with me?

 

 

Seeing as how you seem to want to shoot anybody who goes to work in a suit... No.

[RickyM]

Yes, ( absolute poverty anyway). But that's not what you said in your first post.

 

It's easy to reduce inequality by getting rid of the super rich and Tories - those that create it.

 

Then we can all re-build a new society under strong leadership.

[tinfoilhat]

It's easy to reduce inequality by getting rid of the super rich and Tories - those that create it.

 

Then we can all re-build a new society under strong leadership.

 

You can get a flight to North Korea via Amsterdam and Beijing. Pack a bag, honestly, you'll love it.