Poverty in the UK
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Hrolf The Ganger  21 Dec 18 10.12am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol
My guess is zero, prove me wrong No offence but someone with such ingrained prejudices and condescending manner adds nothing to this debate I don't have ingrained prejudices except against stupidity. The fact is that the only people benefiting from immigration are those who are already well off. You want to blame the Tories no doubt but homelessness is a much more complex issue than just being about poverty.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Dec 18 12.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Wasn’t there homelessness under Labour? Should the people who had the runaway homeless teenagers for the past few decades have been encouraged to have children via the welfare state?
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Dec 18 12.51pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Most homelessness, in the sense of how we think of it is more down to mental health than anything else....drugs, alcohol or other manifestations of mental weaknesses, which we all have to varying degrees of course, but are mental weaknesses regardless if they require outside intervention. How much it is the responsibility of the tax payer (and that's what the government directs) to be responsible for an individual's weaknesses in mental health is a debatable question......I'm not saying these people don't need help but it's a question as too whose responsibility it is....different situations, different possible answers. So to me this line of attack is very lazy and questionable. However, people who lose their homes via various means...that may have been from policy on regulations and things like that... and become homeless that way.....I think that's a far fairer mode of attack. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Dec 2018 12.55pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ddjdd Chichester 21 Dec 18 1.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Often gets left out of the homelessness conversation that although employment is indeed rising (as is unemployment for that matter), many of the jobs are not sufficient to support people given current costs of living, particularly rent. The issue for me is that austerity was strictly enforced, cutting vital frontline public services that aid people who fall into these situations. This is an issue because a recent UN report classed it as 'idealogical choice' rather than 'economic necessity', which invalidates the conservative rhetoric of 'balancing the books'. A limited understanding of macroeconomics will tell you that talking about an economy like you would your personal finances invalidates any point you make. Anyone who denies the last 8 years of conservative governance has brought the country to its knees has their head in the sand. To solve these growing issues of poverty and homelessness in the UK, we need greater government investment in welfare. This does have to be paid for however, with the obvious choice being taxation. This does not mean that those already stretched financially should be taxed more. What it means is that the tax cuts the conservatives gave to both the top earners, and also to corporations, should be reversed. From each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their needs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Dec 18 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ddjdd
Often gets left out of the homelessness conversation that although employment is indeed rising (as is unemployment for that matter), many of the jobs are not sufficient to support people given current costs of living, particularly rent. The issue for me is that austerity was strictly enforced, cutting vital frontline public services that aid people who fall into these situations. This is an issue because a recent UN report classed it as 'idealogical choice' rather than 'economic necessity', which invalidates the conservative rhetoric of 'balancing the books'. A limited understanding of macroeconomics will tell you that talking about an economy like you would your personal finances invalidates any point you make. Anyone who denies the last 8 years of conservative governance has brought the country to its knees has their head in the sand. To solve these growing issues of poverty and homelessness in the UK, we need greater government investment in welfare. This does have to be paid for however, with the obvious choice being taxation. This does not mean that those already stretched financially should be taxed more. What it means is that the tax cuts the conservatives gave to both the top earners, and also to corporations, should be reversed. From each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their needs. Apart from a partial agreement with the last sentence I didn't agree with any of the rest of it. Since when is the UN a credible voice on political ideology? I haven't heard why the tax payer is responsible for general misfortune.....Most tax payers aren't particularly well off and many of them struggle themselves. The use of the tax payer must be directed effectively not thrown about like a hopeful panacea. Taxing the most wealthy significant levels does not bring in more revenue, that's been a busted argument for some time. All it does is lose investment.....Didn't the socialists in France prove this yet again? Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Dec 2018 1.29pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 21 Dec 18 1.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Well as the resident expert on poverty, I thought you must have the breakdown. He never has any facts or solutions, just left wing populist rhetoric repeated ad hominem.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
chateauferret  21 Dec 18 1.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Absolute rubbish. I pay a lot of money in taxes and I am happy to help support the poorer members of society but I object to supporting single mothers where the father of their children doesn't and I don't like supporting people who prefer to spend their own money on booze and fags rather than food. I assume that as you don't live in the UK you also don't contribute to the state's coffers preferring instead to criticize from the outside Yes, well of course it's always the mother's fault when some feckless tosser decides he doesn't want to feed his children after all, isn't it? The uselessness of the Child Support Agency and its successors is legendary.
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Pussay Patrol  21 Dec 18 2.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Apart from a partial agreement with the last sentence I didn't agree with any of the rest of it. Since when is the UN a credible voice on political ideology? I haven't heard why the tax payer is responsible for general misfortune.....Most tax payers aren't particularly well off and many of them struggle themselves. The use of the tax payer must be directed effectively not thrown about like a hopeful panacea. Taxing the most wealthy significant levels does not bring in more revenue, that's been a busted argument for some time. All it does is lose investment.....Didn't the socialists in France prove this yet again? Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Dec 2018 1.29pm) You have to look at the bigger picture of where the UK stands and how we measure ourselves as a nation, taking into account education standards (which are getting worse), cancer survival rates, unemployment rates, and of course these levels of poverty. Our living standards are poor and getting worse, where now house prices have gone beyond the reach of ordinary people and rents are extortionate, cost of getting a train is stupidly expensive. Put it altogether and we fall further and further behind other nations as inequality widens. You want to live in a two tier society of have and have not which is the road to ruin, if wealth distribution shrinks that will eventually affect growth and inflation, a spiral effect.
Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 21 Dec 18 2.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Western Europe is being destroyed by NEETS AND NINJAS. Not in Employment, Education or Training. and No Income No Job or Assets.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chateauferret 21 Dec 18 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I don't have ingrained prejudices except against stupidity. The fact is that the only people benefiting from immigration are those who are already well off. You want to blame the Tories no doubt but homelessness is a much more complex issue than just being about poverty.
But you define stupidity as "anything I don't agree with". I've just been benefiting from immigration over the road in the Vietnamese restaurant. For example.
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Dec 18 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol
You have to look at the bigger picture of where the UK stands and how we measure ourselves as a nation, taking into account education standards (which are getting worse), cancer survival rates, unemployment rates, and of course these levels of poverty. Our living standards are poor and getting worse, where now house prices have gone beyond the reach of ordinary people and rents are extortionate, cost of getting a train is stupidly expensive. Put it altogether and we fall further and further behind other nations as inequality widens. You want to live in a two tier society of have and have not which is the road to ruin, if wealth distribution shrinks that will eventually affect growth and inflation, a spiral effect. I'd agree with some of these complaints (education has been damaged by both its professionals and government) and I'd agree that they are all concerns that come under governmental remit.....but not exclusively. However, the expectations of how well we can expect these indicators of well being to be however....that may be a different question.....Are expectations being reasonable for what the taxpayer can realistically solve? I don't think so. Where is that dividing line between what is reasonable for people to expect from the government and what isn't? People become over reliant and expect problems to be solved by others....when it's debatable. Where is that dividing line on how much help is reasonable if it is given? I often think that much of this becomes lost in a 'lets blame the government' kind of mist. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Dec 2018 2.18pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Dec 18 2.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chateauferret
Yes, well of course it's always the mother's fault when some feckless tosser decides he doesn't want to feed his children after all, isn't it? The uselessness of the Child Support Agency and its successors is legendary.
The knock on affects of this in areas like crime and lawlessness have been dramatic....children need fathers almost as much as they need mothers. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Dec 2018 2.25pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.