Those are IMF figures for relative poverty, which is a social and economic problem, whatever flippant, uneducated comments you may wish to make about it.

Do you work for Tory HQ? Have you studied the recent behaviours of The Conservative Party including rape allegations? (including new charge of leading Minister reported by The Evening Standard on Monday) All this on the day when Theresa May is likely to sack the out-of-control Priti Patel - what exactly was she discussing with the Israeli PM and company across those 12+ meetings during her so-called holiday?

You're an idiot. All empirical data shows that reducing inequality from its current levels would increase productivity and increase output. This isn't simply theory.

The Laffer curve has also been shown, empirically, to only kick in at relatively high levels of taxation (above 60% top rate), so again, from real life, well tested data, increasing the top rate of tax to a more reasonable level wouldn't reduce effort, and so wouldn't impact on output, and in fact the tax raised could be used to fund investment in infrastructure, education and public services, all of which would have a multiplier effect on output and make the economy and society better off.

The extreme inequality in the UK and elsewhere across the globe is a huge break on economic productivity, both through inefficiencies of resources and in the way that the super wealthy go about avoid their proper contributions to the public purse, thereby forcing larger incidences of taxation on the less well off. The more skewed the income/wealth distribution the worse these two (huge) problems get.

Is this the point at which we should all flap about like school boys and encourage you to alert the mods?

Naaaaaaa!

Just so i can start to get my head around the definition which is poverty...feel free to educate me here Cambridge...is the IMF definition based on a financial figure in relation to that countries GDP or similar?

The reason I ask is that a number of us seem to have different ideas...each perfectly valid as to what the term 'poverty' ACTUALLY means.

- Do we use the victorian example?
- Do we use the IMF fiscal measure?
- Do we use the measure that excludes various 'luxuries' such as Fags, Internet, Vehicles, Phones, Alcohol before 'poverty' can be reasonably claimed?

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

The term child poverty is deliberately emotive since children don't earn money.
What are the parents spending their money on?

In times gone by, many people barely had a pot to piss in and yet managed to get by and feed their kids.

I see no evidence of this Victorian work house style existence today. Some people need a reality check.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Nov 2017 5.03pm)