05-09-2012, 02:12 PM
1
Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
Save The Children seem to be becoming concerned about “poverty” in GB.Maybe they should keep their concern for where REAL poverty exists and stop entering the political arena.
But it does raise a question, is poverty a relative or an absolute thing?
There's two views on this.
Mine --- and the wrong one.
The wrong one is that a state of poverty exists when the income of a family is at 60% or less than the median income within a country.
Mine is when you have no access to the necessities of life.
In GB the median income for a family is £24,500 net of taxes which means that you're in poverty if their income is below £14,700 net.
Now I'll grant that £14,700 isn't a fortune but it IS a living income after tax and to declare that anyone on that income is in poverty really is wrong for the simple reason that the word “poverty” conjures up all sorts of images such as the way that people have to live in the third world countries of the world.
It is indicative of just how innumerate the ex-Chancellor of GB was when he stated that his aim was to “lift people out of poverty” when because poverty is defined by a mathematical formulation such a thing is simply impossible.
Maybe one method he proposed to employ was to tax the wealth creators in GB “until the pips squeaked” so reducing the median wage, a typical Socialist principle of having nothing and sharing it who can say.
One thing is for certain.
There is no REAL poverty in GB.
Thinks ---- “Tax until the pips squeak”. Now who was it said that ….. Oh yes, Dennis Healey. Now what political party did he belong to?
05-09-2012, 04:12 PM
2
Re: Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
These average wage statisics always leave me wondering, if ten people are on ten grand a year, and one person is on a million, the average wage for the eleven is one hundred thousand, don't mean the first ten folks can spend an extra 90 grand they ain't got.
05-09-2012, 04:29 PM
3
Re: Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
Maybe you're right Erinaceous but..... there was a young woman on the news at lunchtime who said that she relies on food hand-outs to feed herself and her family. Maybe she doesn't handle her money very well, I wouldn't know, but what I do know is that if someone in our society relies on hand-outs to survive, something is wrong !!!05-09-2012, 05:41 PM
4
Re: Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
Originally Posted by Alan Cooke
->
Maybe you're right Erinaceous but..... there was a young woman on the news at lunchtime who said that she relies on food hand-outs to feed herself and her family. Maybe she doesn't handle her money very well, I wouldn't know, but what I do know is that if someone in our society relies on hand-outs to survive, something is wrong !!!
Quite true Alan, this morning a mother said that all she had to feed herself and child, was just £17-50p a week.
Yes she had broadband and phone, but as it said on the news, these are no longer classed as a luxury, but a essential in every household.
05-09-2012, 07:18 PM
7
Re: Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
Originally Posted by spitfire
->
These average wage statisics always leave me wondering, if ten people are on ten grand a year, and one person is on a million, the average wage for the eleven is one hundred thousand, don't mean the first ten folks can spend an extra 90 grand they ain't got.
06-09-2012, 08:11 AM
9
Re: Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
Looks like Saave the Children has had its humbug exposed in a BIG way :-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...or-Africa.html
Many well known GB charities provide very well paid jobs these days. A nice little earner for the agencies that many use in order to rake the money in either.
06-09-2012, 09:32 AM
10
Re: Save The Children and GB "Poverty".
I suppose there is no child poverty in this country, when you compare it to children who are starving for want of any kind of food.But some families are living on the edge of poverty by this country's standards.
And it's easy for the more affluent among us to point fingers and say people who are less fortunate should be on the level as those in third world countries before they are classed as in poverty.
I would not like to see the shameful way that children in third world countries suffer, repeated here. But it sounds like some think it's how it should be before they are classed as in poverty.
When families cannot afford to keep warm or eat properly, then in my opinion they are in poverty.
It's not too long ago that poorer of the working class were suffering all kinds of health related problems due to poverty and the mortality rate among children high.
I find it hard to believe that some think this is how far down the line we have to go before those in poverty deserve help.
|
|
