Over 50% of people
Frank the tank
Posts: 6,553
Living in poverty in the UK.......................... ARE IN WORK!! :evil:
According to an item on the BBC news today.
According to an item on the BBC news today.
Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
0
Posts
Because of the way poverty is calculated there is always a certain percentage of the population that is going to be classed as in poverty.
That is it, I can't back it up with any hard and fast facts.
Alternatively, Frank has walked into a trap of his own making by proving that benefits are way too high and need to be cut
Main question is what's the median income used for this article?
My concern now (and I know pensions make up the biggest proportion of the welfare bill) is .
Someone who left school at 16 and has never worked will be eligible to more of a state pension than someone who left school at 16 and will make 54 years worth of N.I contributions before they can retire at 70.
A proportion (say 3%) should be taken from benefits received and paid into N.I to cover the state pensions of those who do not or cannot work.
At the moment those at work Pay N.I to and P.A.Y.E to cover benefit payments , and those who receive benefits (other than pensioners who have worked and are taxed at 40% on their state pension if in receipt of a private pension) contribute nothing and live comfortably all their lives having never worked.
The rest of us will just drop before we are 70 and never be able to get any of what we've paid in back.
"The latest year for which household income data is available is 2008/09. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: £119 per week for single adult with no dependent children; £206 per week for a couple with no dependent children; £202 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and £288 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment."
source: http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml
Unfortunately it was you that spouted off with your misinformed view as to what was meant by relative in this context as, by your own admission, you hadn't even researched the story whereas I had sought out the story and simply explained the reference.
I wouldn't expect everyone to be academic researcher but not having even reading the story? Come on, put some effort in before spouting off.
My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.
A fair days work for a fair days pay. If a fair days work doesn't put bread on the table then that is not right and the exploitive tory barstards should look into their hearts, if indeed they have one.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
I wonder how many billions of people round the world who live in absolute poverty would bite your arm off to live in the UK definition of 'relative poverty'?
Anyhow, my Luxembourg and Monaco point stands under either definition. Just helping you to keep up as you probably didn't realise that on your own
Monthly utility bills, council tax, rent/mortgage, food, clothes (not designer stuff etc) that has to come to at least £900 min (ball park stuff) and I live in the EM.
IF they scrapped the benefits system all together are you suggesting that that £900 figure would reduce..............I don't think so.
If you work NO WAY should you be dependent an any kind of hand out.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
Part of the problem is how poverty is defined here.
The concept of poverty based on ones earnings compared to a national median is seriously flawed. I live in the lap of luxury, have a yacht, several sports cars and a couple of houses. If everybody else in the UK got mega rich but my income didn't change, I'd still be considered to be in poverty. For me, poverty should be a measure of whether somebody has an income that allows them to live a life free from problems related to poorness.
It's also flawed because journalists don't understand statistics and usually quote them out of context because they're idiots or are trying to mislead the viewer/listener.
If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation haven't used just a single measure of poverty but have combined numerous socio-economic measures to create a more rounded picture of poverty and social exclusion yielding 50 indicators. It throws up some welcome changes among the young and old yet even with the reduction in median income the rise of poverty among those in low paid work is surprising and is likely to be worse now as the data is two years old .
Hello again Frank.
I have a job paying just above the minimum wage so can I regard you as being one of the country's rich, Frank? After all, it's all relative isn't it?
I work with some people who flatly refuse to work more than a certain number of hours so that their benefit entitlement isn't affected. We are breeding a class who would prefer not to work but claim benefits to give them a reasonable living. Probably goes some way to explaining this BBC story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
I'll turn your point on its head. If someone is being paid such a low wage they have to claim benefits to make a decent living, who is the state subsidising.................the employee or the employer?
If the employer paid a proper wage the employee wouldn't have to go to the state for a hand out whatever form it takes.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
Lets assume that a particular task requires 40 hours per week to complete. If a company pays 1 person 40 hours pay or 2 people 20 hours, the cost is the same.
My point is that people sometimes are choosing not to work and preferring to claim.
The company isn't being subsidised, but I admit the situation may give a misleading unemployment figure. People are being paid tax credits rather than job seekers.
The employee never went to the state from what I remember it's the other way round, tax credits and other benefits were pushed by government towards the recipient. They changed the culture where to be seen to be accepting handouts was shameful. There was a balance to be struck as being in need shouldn't be seen as to be in disgrace but it was missed. Now I know of more than one occasion where people have refused promotions as the tax credit system makes it more responsibility for no extra money so they don't bother.
Housing benefit. Prescription charges, Council tax, School meals, Child care e.t.c.
My brother in law has not worked for over 10 years, and receives a JSA and Housing Benefit.
He has a far greater disposable income than me at the end of every week.
It doesn't pay to work below a certain amount of earnings.