International Day For The Eradication Of Poverty

[crazyhorse]

12 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I'd like to know what sort of ludicrous definitions are being applied that puts a quarter of the entire UK population in so called "poverty".

 

Just what exactly are we looking at here when potentially a full-time worker on minimum net wage over £1,200 a month and with the support of things such as free universal Healthcare, free education, mandatory housing provision and additional state top ups is seriously declared poverty. 

 

There are literally people starving to death in African countries, people without running water, electricity, and basic medical care. In the Far East, there are literally millions of people living in shantytowns surrounded by piles of garbage, rats and disease. These are people living with basically nothing, very little furnishing or goods and many items are having to either scrounge off the streets, recycle from rubbish sites or make themselves. What really is a kicker is that on top of their extremely difficult lives, they are the people who are working for pennies a day in factories manufacturing the goods and supplies that our so-called poverty population is lapping up when they go on their shopping trips to the discount stores.

 

That's REAL poverty and yet our so-called "poverty" are quite happy to take advantage of that cheap prices on the goods and plentiful supply being just there readilly available to them whenever they want to indulge in the consumer society.

 

If this truely is some international initiative as the title of the day describes, just how on earth are we seriously to compare someone living in a shanty town or a mudhut on pennies a day within the same definitions of poverty as someone living in subsidised state housing, with top-up benefits, healthcare and a potential salary of up to £15,000 a year.

 

No wonder the message keeps being lost.

I agree.

 

I guess this measure of poverty is something like "everyone below a certain percentage of average income" is classed as in poverty...

 

Trouble is I reckon the vast majority of people outside the "professional poverty industry" that has been built up around that arbitrary figure...simply do not see 1 in 4 of their friends, family, or the people who live in their town as being in poverty.

The whole measure is counter productive and simply makes the vast majority of people think that the figure is made up...which I believe it is.

 

I have seen real poverty in India, Indonesia and North Africa and it makes you feel sick, to have one armed kids, who look weeks from death tugging at your clothing...

 

The poverty situation in this country is simply not comparable and if it was, why are people risking their lives to sail to this supposedly horrible country every day?

 

Having said that, I do know people close to me who are scratching a living on a small pension...but I don't even think that they would be happy to class themselves as in poverty.

 

This emotion based approach to societies problems pushed by the Left is why they never get anywhere at the ballot box...

Most people simply can't see what they are talking about.

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

Your views? 

I earn around £16k and get no benefits, do I get a check in the post?

[Carbuncle]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

According to 'Sunday Morning Live' (BBC1 ) 20 - 25% of people in the UK are living in poverty.

Relative poverty - presumably, the figure of 20-25% refers to something of this kind - tends to stress the importance of inequality even to the extent that society can have everybody become better off yet relative poverty go up. In a world where everybody has plenty how terrible would inequality of wealth really be?

 

Absolute poverty and variants of this deprivation are a disgrace in a rich country like Britain. I would suggest we ought to be able to provide everybody, or nearly everybody, with a decent material standard of living and a good standard of assistance with life's non-material hardships such as ill health.

 

@Anna B, do you have any data on absolute poverty, etcetra you could share rather than relative poverty.

[El Cid]

12 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Relative poverty - presumably, the figure of 20-25% refers to something of this kind - tends to stress the importance of inequality even to the extent that society can have everybody become better off yet relative poverty go up. In a world where everybody has plenty how terrible would inequality of wealth really be?

 

Absolute poverty and variants of this deprivation are a disgrace in a rich country like Britain. I would suggest we ought to be able to provide everybody, or nearly everybody, with a decent material standard of living and a good standard of assistance with life's non-material hardships such as ill healt.

Things which make people turn to food banks is our poorly performing benefits system which does not deal with change well.

Getting put on UC did once mean a six week wait for benefits. This was perposly set up this way, which shows how those in charge think.

Many people have personallity flaws, drugs, alcohol, food, addiction; should the state give them more money because of this?

 

[Carbuncle]

17 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Many people have personallity flaws, drugs, alcohol, food, addiction; should the state give them more money because of this?

I am interested in the idea of the state providing a universal basic income because it could address people's basic material needs while eliminating the humiliating indignity of means testing in many, perhaps most, cases of deprivation. In general, I dislike the collective ruminations over whether such-and-such a group are deserving of support and whether those who are supported are making good life choices. A universal basic income would be indifferent to whether somebody has personality flaws or addictions.

 

Specific problems such as addiction do require specific help be provided.

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

I am interested in the idea of the state providing a universal basic income because it could address people's basic material needs while eliminating the humiliating indignity of means testing in many, perhaps most, cases of deprivation. In general, I dislike the collective ruminations over whether such-and-such a group are deserving of support and whether those who are supported are making good life choices. A universal basic income would be indifferent to whether somebody has personality flaws or addictions.

I higher minimum wage would dispell the need for some benefits, but other salaries would just increase, making the higher minimum wage the new poverty. There will always be this relative poverty.

But giving people money without working, needs a ethic that people should work.

[Guest sibon]

8 hours ago, HumbleNarrator said:

Eradicating poverty is predicated on the notion that a state/government is directly responsible for the outcomes in peoples lives, which is the socialists/communists wet dream.  

 

In the real world, the government sets a basic framework for stability and then we all, notwithstanding all the obvious caveats, as individuals take personal responsibility for our own lives. 

There are a great many wealthy owners of companies who are reliant upon the government for their wealth.

 

They do it by underpaying their workers, who then claim benefits. Then they trouser obscene amounts of subsequent profits.

 

All at the taxpayer’s expense 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by sibon

[Anna B]

There is enough food, power and resources in the world to keep everyone happy. 

It's the distribution that's wrong. 

Read 'Fully automated Luxury Communism.' by Aaron Bastani.

Very positive, interesting and enlightening.

[cuttsie]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

There is enough food, power and resources in the world to keep everyone happy. 

It's the distribution that's wrong. 

Read 'Fully automated Luxury Communism.' by Aaron Bastani.

Very positive, interesting and enlightening.

Very enlightening it is Anna , but it will never work , Greed always takes over .

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, cuttsie said:

Very enlightening it is Anna , but it will never work , Greed always takes over .

True, but surely something can be done about greed with legislation. A decent tax system is a great way of redistributing money and forming a more equitable society as they have done in some Scandinavian countries.

Of course if a government see greed as an acceptable way of life you're done for, unless you change the government....