Bedroom tax
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
Pussay Patrol  22 Feb 13 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 9.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 22 Feb 2013 6.48am
In my view, you must be an idiot if you can't see that our welfare system is not only more generous than we can afford, but is going to bankrupt us completely unless we make drastic changes. Deal with that last point, if you can, without going off on a tangent about child poverty and tax avoidance. Is the welfare system too generous if it makes sure that people have the basic necessities for living-food, heat, electricity, clothing etc? Despite the arguments that sky and internet are not a basic necessity, which I agree with, a vast majority on benefits do not have such luxuries (see my earlier post)and are living on the breadline as it is. The biggest problem, in my humble, is the fact that for many in work, their wages are so low that they have to rely on 'top up' benefits just to meet the cost of living. I believe that this makes up a large proportion of the welfare bill. Of course increasing wages brings about other problems- competition against foreign low wage economies for instance. High unemployment also leads to a higher benefits bill. This is a major issue, particularly when there is not much investment in job creation. For instance, how many could be trained and employed to make and fit solar panels to the uk housing stock? If we were to invest heavily in this it would help towards alleviating the oncoming energy crisis and lower unemployment. I'm sure there are other areas in which we could invest - building more housing stock etc etc. One of the main issues I have with the privatisation of many of our services is that the profit generated by them doesn't go back into the nations coffers. What if we were to encourage more job sharing, with a maximum of a 35 hour week? A company that employs 50 people to do a 60 hour week could employ more people if they all worked less hours. Of course this wouldn't apply to self starters and entrepreneurs who will probably want to put more hours in to build up their business. Our biggest problem is that we have developed an every man for himself culture rather than fostering a PROPER we are all in this together attitude whereby it is ingrained that whatever we do should be for the common good.(Human nature probably dictates that this is an impossibility- however, humans are socially conditioned creatures and over time, perhaps the me, me, me attitude could change - Jamiemartin would be able to shed more light on this I'm sure) The fact is though, I'm not sure any of us has a 'magic bullet' solution to sort out the spiralling welfare bill. What is apparent is that the current lot in power are very quick to come up with ideas that are ill thought through. It seems that any ideas they have hit the worst off hardest, we need to come up with ideas where we ALL share the load of resolving the crisis. Maybe if we had an economy that wasn't weighed down with debt and a massive Welfare Bill it could invest in industries which create jobs and build more social housing. The only way we can invest is with growth and a robust economy and we'll never get there with such a huge, unsustainable Welfare burden.
Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 22 Feb 13 12.07pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 11.27pm
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.18pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 10.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 10.12pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 9.49pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 9.05pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 9.02pm
We can debate the merits of this policy which obviously isn't going to be popular and maybe the logistics and costs may not weigh up, however, I feel there is a bigger picture in that the government is trying to smash the ideology of a welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I'm all for people in genuine need being supported and they should be isolated but as i've said before our welfare bill is way to big and as a taxpayer I want to see it brought down.
No idea but I refuse to believe such a large proportion of people need state support, either that or benefits are too high. Of all the tax collected by the state about 1/3rd is swallowed up by welfare, more than schools, hospitals, everything else. It's the biggest single cost to the taxpayer. The only way to get it down is to break the cycle of culture
Where did you get your figure of 1/3 of uk taxes going to benefits. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 10.23pm)
I'd hardly call an unsubstantiated pie chart a master move. When he reveals the source behind the figures I may change my mind.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Kermit8  Hevon 22 Feb 13 12.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It was unregulated banks, greed and aggressive capitalism that has brought us to this pathetic point. We bought into the get rich quick ideas and here we are now one trillion in debt. And now pIcking on folk because they have an extra bedroom and blaming benefits for our ills. You can con some of the people all of the time it seems
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Stuk  Top half 22 Feb 13 2.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 7.41pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 6.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
All the bits in bold are just plucked out of thin air, none define poverty.
Respective. Not respected. This is the trouble with your Piper'esque cut and pastes. I've picked you up on something you've put up on the site and then you claim it's a side issue. Which different definition are we supposed to be looking at? Point it out for me and i'll tear that apart as not actual poverty too.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 13 3.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 2.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 7.41pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 6.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
All the bits in bold are just plucked out of thin air, none define poverty.
Respective. Not respected. This is the trouble with your Piper'esque cut and pastes. I've picked you up on something you've put up on the site and then you claim it's a side issue. Which different definition are we supposed to be looking at? Point it out for me and i'll tear that apart as not actual poverty too. 1. I cut and paste the information from the child poverty action group to save you looking it up. 2. If you read it, you would have seen the part that said the Government have defined 3 levels of poverty: Absolute low income, Relative low income and Material deprivation and low income combined. 3. The charity defined poverty as thus, 'children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.' So if none of these are by your definition poverty, what is your actual definition of poverty?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 22 Feb 13 3.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 3.08pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 2.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 7.41pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 6.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
All the bits in bold are just plucked out of thin air, none define poverty.
Respective. Not respected. This is the trouble with your Piper'esque cut and pastes. I've picked you up on something you've put up on the site and then you claim it's a side issue. Which different definition are we supposed to be looking at? Point it out for me and i'll tear that apart as not actual poverty too. 1. I cut and paste the information from the child poverty action group to save you looking it up. 2. If you read it, you would have seen the part that said the Government have defined 3 levels of poverty: Absolute low income, Relative low income and Material deprivation and low income combined. 3. The charity defined poverty as thus, 'children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.' So if none of these are by your definition poverty, what is your actual definition of poverty? 1. You haven't saved me looking it up, you've just swamped us with irrelevant information. According to yourself. 2. I've told you many times I don't read cut and paste s***e in full. 3. Please define these "basic necessities" you mention. 4. I made my definition in my first post (I think) on this thread.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 13 3.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.24pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 3.08pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 2.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 7.41pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 6.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
All the bits in bold are just plucked out of thin air, none define poverty.
Respective. Not respected. This is the trouble with your Piper'esque cut and pastes. I've picked you up on something you've put up on the site and then you claim it's a side issue. Which different definition are we supposed to be looking at? Point it out for me and i'll tear that apart as not actual poverty too. 1. I cut and paste the information from the child poverty action group to save you looking it up. 2. If you read it, you would have seen the part that said the Government have defined 3 levels of poverty: Absolute low income, Relative low income and Material deprivation and low income combined. 3. The charity defined poverty as thus, 'children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.' So if none of these are by your definition poverty, what is your actual definition of poverty? 1. You haven't saved me looking it up, you've just swamped us with irrelevant information. According to yourself. 2. I've told you many times I don't read cut and paste s***e in full. 3. Please define these "basic necessities" you mention. 4. I made my definition in my first post (I think) on this thread.
My own definition: Basic necessities: House, Food, Heat, Clothing, Hot Water, electricity/power. Anyone who is lacking in any one of these could be defined as being in poverty.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 22 Feb 13 3.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 3.30pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.24pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 3.08pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 2.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 7.41pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 6.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
All the bits in bold are just plucked out of thin air, none define poverty.
Respective. Not respected. This is the trouble with your Piper'esque cut and pastes. I've picked you up on something you've put up on the site and then you claim it's a side issue. Which different definition are we supposed to be looking at? Point it out for me and i'll tear that apart as not actual poverty too. 1. I cut and paste the information from the child poverty action group to save you looking it up. 2. If you read it, you would have seen the part that said the Government have defined 3 levels of poverty: Absolute low income, Relative low income and Material deprivation and low income combined. 3. The charity defined poverty as thus, 'children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.' So if none of these are by your definition poverty, what is your actual definition of poverty? 1. You haven't saved me looking it up, you've just swamped us with irrelevant information. According to yourself. 2. I've told you many times I don't read cut and paste s***e in full. 3. Please define these "basic necessities" you mention. 4. I made my definition in my first post (I think) on this thread.
My own definition: Basic necessities: House, Food, Heat, Clothing, Hot Water, electricity/power. Anyone who is lacking in any one of these could be defined as being in poverty.
Those I agree with, actual poverty. The figures will be nowhere near the percentages you quoted. (Again, all of this is in my first couple of posts on this) You don't read people's replies, that's the problem. I'm not even arguing with you, I just don't believe the nonsense that you swallow with relish. Edited by Stuk (22 Feb 2013 3.45pm)
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 13 5.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.44pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 3.30pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.24pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 3.08pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 2.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 7.41pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 6.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
All the bits in bold are just plucked out of thin air, none define poverty.
Respective. Not respected. This is the trouble with your Piper'esque cut and pastes. I've picked you up on something you've put up on the site and then you claim it's a side issue. Which different definition are we supposed to be looking at? Point it out for me and i'll tear that apart as not actual poverty too. 1. I cut and paste the information from the child poverty action group to save you looking it up. 2. If you read it, you would have seen the part that said the Government have defined 3 levels of poverty: Absolute low income, Relative low income and Material deprivation and low income combined. 3. The charity defined poverty as thus, 'children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.' So if none of these are by your definition poverty, what is your actual definition of poverty? 1. You haven't saved me looking it up, you've just swamped us with irrelevant information. According to yourself. 2. I've told you many times I don't read cut and paste s***e in full. 3. Please define these "basic necessities" you mention. 4. I made my definition in my first post (I think) on this thread.
My own definition: Basic necessities: House, Food, Heat, Clothing, Hot Water, electricity/power. Anyone who is lacking in any one of these could be defined as being in poverty.
Those I agree with, actual poverty. The figures will be nowhere near the percentages you quoted. (Again, all of this is in my first couple of posts on this) You don't read people's replies, that's the problem. I'm not even arguing with you, I just don't believe the nonsense that you swallow with relish. Edited by Stuk (22 Feb 2013 3.45pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 22 Feb 13 5.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 5.29pm
I'm pretty sure that a charity would not publicly release figures without getting them verified. The report I linked yesterday goes through child poverty figures region by region. Did you read it? Or have you just dismissed it out of hand?
Secondly it's a campaign, they're hardly going to shoot themselves in the foot by saying - you know what, we're way above poverty in actual terms the rest of the world uses. Thirdly it's bollocks. It is only based on the DWP figures on Households Below Average Income. Below average income doesn't mean poverty, you could have zero income and still not technically be in poverty.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 13 6.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 5.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 5.29pm
I'm pretty sure that a charity would not publicly release figures without getting them verified. The report I linked yesterday goes through child poverty figures region by region. Did you read it? Or have you just dismissed it out of hand?
Secondly it's a campaign, they're hardly going to shoot themselves in the foot by saying - you know what, we're way above poverty in actual terms the rest of the world uses. Thirdly it's bollocks. It is only based on the DWP figures on Households Below Average Income. Below average income doesn't mean poverty, you could have zero income and still not technically be in poverty. The Joseph Beds Rowntree foundation's research on child poverty comes up with similar figures. They have a very good reputation. Tis worth having a look through some of the reports on their website.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 22 Feb 13 6.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Just a thought, if someone who lives on their own in a two bedroom house and is on benefit is persuaded / coerced (delete as per political persuasion,) to move into a one bedroom house surely we are doing them a favour. Cheaper running costs and all that?
|
|
| 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.