adrian Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by Tony No doubt a kind Forum member will be able to furnish us with the actual figure that determines poverty, but isn't it something like £15,000 pa household income? Last I heard the definition of "poverty" in the UK is a household with an income of less than 60% of the (median) average. This was a bit under £6000 However I know a couple of years ago it was suggested that the definition change. I'm not aware that it ever did. See http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key_facts.htm for a summary of stats. "In 2001/02, before deducting housing costs, this equated to £187 per week for a couple with no children, £114 for a single person, £273 for a couple with two children and £200 for a lone parent with two children." Comprehensive report "Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2003" at http://www.npi.org.uk/reports/mpse%202003.pdf "It may also be that Britain is beginning to move clear of the group of – largely south European – countries in the European Union (EU) with the worst poverty records. This judgement is more tentative because the latest published figures from the EU are for 1999, which show the UK still near the bottom, better only than Greece and Portugal and bracketed with Spain, Italy and Ireland [2B]. But if the rates in these countries have not changed since then, the reduction in poverty seen in Britain since 1999 would mean that it was moving clear of this group by 2001/02, in the direction of the poverty rate recorded in France." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superCol Posted June 4, 2004 Author Share Posted June 4, 2004 Originally posted by Tony Nothing is 'free'. Those cheap bus rides were paid for through extortionate taxes and rates. Sorry, you're right. It was not free. What I should have said was ' free at the point of use', rather like the NHS (should be). However I cannot agree with the (then) taxation rates being described as extortionate. Most economists would agree that the overall basket of taxation (direct and indirect) has not changed markedly over the last 40 years. I checked this with 5 economists who work for 3 major banks (old pals). Transport plays a big part in most of our lives. You just have to look at the many strident posts on some of the threads. The concept of free (at the point of use) public transport is not that mad. Everybody walks out of their front door and uses transport infrastructure (the pavement) without being expected to buy a ticket. The cost of it's provision and upkeep is met by the public purse (free at the point of use). The extension of this concept makes sense when you see the daily gridlock on many of our roads. People will only get out their cars either at gunpoint or if the economic case is severely tilted against it. Before you ask. I drive a Rover 820. However I only use it when there is no other option. Free (at the point of use) public transport would fuel an improvement in bus, tram and train services whilst providing a valuable cut in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas production. Knock that down if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 You and your banking buddies are not taking into account one very important factor - that we are talking about LOCAL taxes and rates that paid for those cheap bus rides. National taxation has nothing to do with that. South Yorkshire had mad levels of rates that paid for socialist ideology. Thankfully that is now gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superCol Posted June 4, 2004 Author Share Posted June 4, 2004 Originally posted by Tony You and your banking buddies are not taking into account one very important factor - that we are talking about LOCAL taxes and rates that paid for those cheap bus rides. National taxation has nothing to do with that. Hi Tony I was including local taxation in the argument. Taking inflation into account, most folk pay more now than they did in 70's in local taxation. Admitted that the structure is a bit different now ( rates v. council tax). Only the very rich come out of this smiling. Can this be right? The problem is that we could discuss this all night but not get any agreement without the hard evidence. I can't get my hands on the actual council documents that would my point or yours beyond doubt. Can you? I have to make do with papers written by economists, after the fact. If not let's agree to differ and just argue political doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodhouselad Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I think you are being far too kind regarding Thatcher's treatment of the local industry devistation. Here in Newcastle, Australia the huge steelworks privately owned by BHP closed in 1999. A conserted effort was made by both the state government and the private company to find work for the employees made redundant. They were given advice on how to invest their redundancy, the best industries to retrain into and active assistance to find work. Effort has been made to attract new industry into the city and Newcastle is now being pushed as a clean city with an alternative lifestyle to the metropolitan rush of Sydney, which is about 100 miles south. As I remember, the steelworks and the mines simply closed. The land stood vacant for years waiting for someone to come along with the imagination to do something with it and in desperation the Student Games were adopted as a frail lifeline. Once again, with no government support, they were a financial desaster and universities around the world use it as an example of how not to run a major sporting event. While the Tories cannot be blamed for absolutely everything, their apathetic attitude towards an area where they were smug in their efforts to level major industry without actively providing any replacement cannot be forgotten. As far as I remember, the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire was a Tory-generated phrase and was adopted by many in the area to sum up the feeling of alienation and abandonment as we were labelled 'the enemy within'. I was 12 when the steelworks closed and 16 when the miners went on strike. We were taught at school that we had a future as either a miner or a steelworker. We were taught about the carbon content of different types of coal and of the history of steel production and when I left school both industries were either dead or in their knees. So I had no qualms about leaving Sheffield or England to find a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superCol Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by woodhouselad As far as I remember, the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire was a Tory-generated phrase and was adopted by many in the area to sum up the feeling of alienation and abandonment as we were labelled 'the enemy within'. Whoever generated the phrase is not pertinant (crap grammar, I know , it doesn't matter). Many of us took it as a badge of honour. David Blunkett will know what I'm talking about. The important point was that an attempt was made to change society, not a bolshevism revolution sense, but a real try at making things better for the ordinary bloke (and his missus) who produced the goods for the country. Is that not patriotic or what!! In the end, it is all about about respecting each other. Oh, by the way, I'm only back for a while. You know what I mean!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by superCol Many of us took it as a badge of honour. David Blunkett will know what I'm talking about. Oooo the irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superCol Posted June 26, 2004 Author Share Posted June 26, 2004 Originally posted by Tony Oooo the irony! Tony. What's ironic about trying to make things better for your fellow man and woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 I don't think that's ironic at all SuperCol I do think David Blunkett and socialism is ironic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superCol Posted June 26, 2004 Author Share Posted June 26, 2004 Originally posted by Tony I don't think that's ironic at all SuperCol I do think David Blunkett and socialism is ironic! Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.