Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories "Yup | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories "The man is right  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories "Good ol' Victorian (double )standards | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories "Hah. No. Look up average of deaths under socialist parties. I accept your apology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
"In the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
"For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology"Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan! "Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is all over the news " Get an early night eh Tom? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol"It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat 
Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem " And not at all opportunities that are much less open to poorer families | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is all over the news " Really? It's a well known and well established phenomenon. Not sure why it's suddenly news now, it's been the case for a long as there have been rich and poor people. Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat
Mr"They should attach his corspe to a dynamo and he is probably turning in his grave | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Libitarianism. We are free, free to starve." It's funny (not funny) how libertarianism is a really popular ideology for people under 20 who have never had to interact with the real world, but give it up as soon as they do. And Tories | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem " Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat
Mr
They should attach his corspe to a dynamo and he is probably turning in his grave"Given the fuel nightmare, caused by wonk tory sell-everything-that-we-already-own policies of old, then every little helps, once he's plugged in to the grid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr" Well said! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat
Mr
They should attach his corspe to a dynamo and he is probably turning in his grave
Given the fuel nightmare, caused by wonk tory sell-everything-that-we-already-own policies of old, then every little helps, once he's plugged in to the grid."Exactly, can we class this as a brexit benefit though? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is all over the news Really? It's a well known and well established phenomenon. Not sure why it's suddenly news now, it's been the case for a long as there have been rich and poor people. Mr" It's news because life expectancy amongst the poor is actually falling.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr" Incorrect. I didn't have the choice of either establishment, however, I did work hard to ensure I won't be reliant on handouts and never went back to a council estate. That is a life choice. No politics, just fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is all over the news Get an early night eh Tom?" You are so sweet.. is that an offer ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is all over the news Really? It's a well known and well established phenomenon. Not sure why it's suddenly news now, it's been the case for a long as there have been rich and poor people. Mr It's news because life expectancy amongst the poor is actually falling.. " Again, tories | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr Incorrect. I didn't have the choice of either establishment, however, I did work hard to ensure I won't be reliant on handouts and never went back to a council estate. That is a life choice. No politics, just fact. " And ‘we all get the same 24 hours’ fabbers have arrived. YAY.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem " *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
"I know right look at those socialist stalwarts Norway Sweden Iceland Finland and if we're going with the far right's definition of socialism we can include: France Germany Britain Belgium Austria Switzerland .....oh wait when I look at them it seems like your argument is..... total and utter horseshit. Sorry - should have begun with a trigger warning - I know how sensitive you right wingers are to facts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. " well said  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology"You keep saying that and I counter it only for you to and say that... So I will say this one more time for you. I know they are different but both have the highest death counts of the main three systems. Neither of the two you mentioned have positive points whereas Capitaliam elevates people who try. Corruption keeps them down but that corruption is typically not capitalist but rather protectionism. I'm not a capitalist either as I see the bad points of them all and noneeasure up to my own ideals. I'm just not evil enough to say I support socalism or communism despite world evidence. C | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr Incorrect. I didn't have the choice of either establishment, however, I did work hard to ensure I won't be reliant on handouts and never went back to a council estate. That is a life choice. No politics, just fact. And ‘we all get the same 24 hours’ fabbers have arrived. YAY. "I like cake. And factually we all have the same 24 hours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. " Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing new it's happened for many years " Are we better off than we have ever been ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
You keep saying that and I counter it only for you to and say that...
So I will say this one more time for you.
I know they are different but both have the highest death counts of the main three systems. Neither of the two you mentioned have positive points whereas Capitaliam elevates people who try. Corruption keeps them down but that corruption is typically not capitalist but rather protectionism.
I'm not a capitalist either as I see the bad points of them all and noneeasure up to my own ideals. I'm just not evil enough to say I support socalism or communism despite world evidence.
C"This conversation is off topic and not actually worth having. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr" The 3rd option is they just don't care, which is perhaps the most depressing of them all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing new it's happened for many years Are we better off than we have ever been ?" Those who are and those who aren't aren't same as before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr" thats a whole pile of shite I know plenty of people who came from some of the worst estates in my city who have made a successful life for themselves. You either want to work and make a better life for yourself or you don't and that is what life choices mean. And I grew up in the 80s in Ireland so I know first hand what its like to live in a poorer family. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr The 3rd option is they just don't care, which is perhaps the most depressing of them all." And most often the answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it." *privilege, I literally typed it for you... Very few. Any gain on the whole is at the expense and abuse of others, proportionately increased by wealth and privilege backing. Also. Whilst you may or may not have earned 'it', nobody has 'earned' suffering by birth and circumstance. We're all humans beings that deserve life, love and happiness by default, our 'worth' measured by capitalism is of no value in any semblance of civilised society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr Incorrect. I didn't have the choice of either establishment, however, I did work hard to ensure I won't be reliant on handouts and never went back to a council estate. That is a life choice. No politics, just fact. " As have I. Do you honestly believe the two scenarios are the only options? Is your imagination do limited you are incapable of imagining how different your life could have been but for this or that random event or opportunity? Your circumstances are unique to you as are every one else's. Are there people who don't try and as a result have nothing? Sure there are. Are there people who try really, really hard and get no where? Absolutely. Try doing a little reading on biases - in particular self serving and survivorship bias. Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr thats a whole pile of shite I know plenty of people who came from some of the worst estates in my city who have made a successful life for themselves. You either want to work and make a better life for yourself or you don't and that is what life choices mean. And I grew up in the 80s in Ireland so I know first hand what its like to live in a poorer family. " That's completely separate to the OP! Yes, people can work their way out with some hard work and some luck, but whose to say that hard work doesn't correlate to dying young due to the long hours compared to those born into rich families. Please stop making it about whether people work hard or not and look at the effects it has on those who are poorer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr thats a whole pile of shite I know plenty of people who came from some of the worst estates in my city who have made a successful life for themselves. You either want to work and make a better life for yourself or you don't and that is what life choices mean. And I grew up in the 80s in Ireland so I know first hand what its like to live in a poorer family. " The idea that people that remain poor and die younger, do so because they don’t want a better life is an incredibly dangerous myth. And I think it’s a stance you should reconsider out of respect for others in this thread at least. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mrthats a whole pile of shite I know plenty of people who came from some of the worst estates in my city who have made a successful life for themselves. You either want to work and make a better life for yourself or you don't and that is what life choices mean. And I grew up in the 80s in Ireland so I know first hand what its like to live in a poorer family. " You must appreciate luck will also play a part. You could have 2 people do exactly the same thing, with exactly the same work ethic. One gets a lucky break due to a chance meeting or knowing someone who knows someone and the other doesn't. You must also appreciate that making a better life for yourself can come to the detriment of your family if you have a caregiver role in the family. Some folks aren't willing to see their family suffer for their own gain. That doesn't make them work shy or lacking. Your tone is a looky downy one. Some folks really do only have up as the direction to go, and even getting into college means they've broken the cycle in their family, I don't think you can look down on that, just because it doesn't match your expectations. It's something to be incredibly proud of and will have taken much soul searching and effort. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr thats a whole pile of shite I know plenty of people who came from some of the worst estates in my city who have made a successful life for themselves. You either want to work and make a better life for yourself or you don't and that is what life choices mean. And I grew up in the 80s in Ireland so I know first hand what its like to live in a poorer family. That's completely separate to the OP! Yes, people can work their way out with some hard work and some luck, but whose to say that hard work doesn't correlate to dying young due to the long hours compared to those born into rich families. Please stop making it about whether people work hard or not and look at the effects it has on those who are poorer." Damn right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is the old "study hard, work hard and earn well " thing not in fashion anymore? It has worked for me so far, but I'm not dead yet so I don't know my projected life expectancy "Ignorance to current circumstances, beyond belief. I could spoon feed you info and you'd not get it either. Sickening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mrthats a whole pile of shite I know plenty of people who came from some of the worst estates in my city who have made a successful life for themselves. You either want to work and make a better life for yourself or you don't and that is what life choices mean. And I grew up in the 80s in Ireland so I know first hand what its like to live in a poorer family. You must appreciate luck will also play a part. You could have 2 people do exactly the same thing, with exactly the same work ethic. One gets a lucky break due to a chance meeting or knowing someone who knows someone and the other doesn't. You must also appreciate that making a better life for yourself can come to the detriment of your family if you have a caregiver role in the family. Some folks aren't willing to see their family suffer for their own gain. That doesn't make them work shy or lacking. Your tone is a looky downy one. Some folks really do only have up as the direction to go, and even getting into college means they've broken the cycle in their family, I don't think you can look down on that, just because it doesn't match your expectations. It's something to be incredibly proud of and will have taken much soul searching and effort. " Structures definitely limit you. They can be communities , families, etc. Breaking out is hard you have to leave the safety and go alone. This is why people who travel for uni or a year out abroad do so much better , once you leave the structure you become free, it doesn’t matter what you study or do. This is also why poorer kids who go to uni or college in their hone town generally don’t progress much | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol"You've never heard of Bevan?!?!?! The NHS... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat
Mr
They should attach his corspe to a dynamo and he is probably turning in his grave
Given the fuel nightmare, caused by wonk tory sell-everything-that-we-already-own policies of old, then every little helps, once he's plugged in to the grid."The same tories that introduced the most socialist policies this country had sent for decades over the last couple of years (possibly ever), whilst Starmer and his politcking cronies just scorned and did nothing practical to help? Those ones? Just seeking clarification. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol"He came up with the idea of the NHS, get on the naughty step!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat
Mr
They should attach his corspe to a dynamo and he is probably turning in his grave
Given the fuel nightmare, caused by wonk tory sell-everything-that-we-already-own policies of old, then every little helps, once he's plugged in to the grid.
The same tories that introduced the most socialist policies this country had sent for decades over the last couple of years (possibly ever), whilst Starmer and his politcking cronies just scorned and did nothing practical to help? Those ones?
Just seeking clarification."Different question, but I think most opposition parties supported the government over furlough etc, and I think we might assume Labour would have gone further (eg further help for the self-employed etc) from what thet said about what they would have done differently, but we'll never know. It's not the opposition's job to make government policy...and parties of all colours criticise the government when they're in opposition so I'm not sure what more what "practical help" they ought to have provided? Quick, someone call Ant and Dec: I'm a Fabber (not really here for the politics), get me out of here... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it interesting that the majority, if not all, of the ‘you just have to work hard/try hard to get out of the poverty cycle’ come from men. Whilst it could (though not entirely correctly imo - there are still many external factors that affect this) be argued that men are masters of their own destiny (though intellect or lack of it is also a substantial factor imo - and the quality of education received - which is likely to be substandard if you live in a deprived neighbourhood). For a woman - once you become a mother your life stops being your own for a minimum of 18 years (usually longer). A large percentage of carers are also women. I’ll use my own case as an example - though I’m fortunate enough to have a full time job above the minimum wage now. Whilst I was at college aged 17 my mum had a serious, life affecting/threatening accident at work. She survived but could no longer work. To put money in the family pot I had to leave college and get a full time job. At 22 I got pregnant and decided abortion wasn’t an option. There was no state help towards childcare at that time and - as I didn’t have the qualifications to earn a high salary - I had to stay at home with her until she started school. When she started school I got a full time job. Fast forward 7 years and I met the chap I thought was Mr Right. We had 2 children together and I cared for them full time whilst he built up a very successful business. When we split up I received little as we weren’t married. I had to work part time as I was caring for the children (one of whom by then had mental health issues) and my mother who’s health was deteriorating rapidly. Mum died last year and I’m now working full time again. However - I’m 53 and - due to the above circumstances - have just 5 years of pension contributions. I can afford to put a little away for the next 12 years - but not much - and once I retire I’ll be poor. Many people in poverty are single parents - I’m by no means unique - and I’m luckier than many. As I said above - men don’t have long career breaks - they don’t generally have to work part time (therefore having little or no pension contributions) to care for children or parents - therefore they generally have a whole career to build up a pension. External factors have a considerable effect on a persons wealth/prospects. " Poor people don’t holiday in Jamaica | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it interesting that the majority, if not all, of the ‘you just have to work hard/try hard to get out of the poverty cycle’ come from men. Whilst it could (though not entirely correctly imo - there are still many external factors that affect this) be argued that men are masters of their own destiny (though intellect or lack of it is also a substantial factor imo - and the quality of education received - which is likely to be substandard if you live in a deprived neighbourhood). For a woman - once you become a mother your life stops being your own for a minimum of 18 years (usually longer). A large percentage of carers are also women. I’ll use my own case as an example - though I’m fortunate enough to have a full time job above the minimum wage now. Whilst I was at college aged 17 my mum had a serious, life affecting/threatening accident at work. She survived but could no longer work. To put money in the family pot I had to leave college and get a full time job. At 22 I got pregnant and decided abortion wasn’t an option. There was no state help towards childcare at that time and - as I didn’t have the qualifications to earn a high salary - I had to stay at home with her until she started school. When she started school I got a full time job. Fast forward 7 years and I met the chap I thought was Mr Right. We had 2 children together and I cared for them full time whilst he built up a very successful business. When we split up I received little as we weren’t married. I had to work part time as I was caring for the children (one of whom by then had mental health issues) and my mother who’s health was deteriorating rapidly. Mum died last year and I’m now working full time again. However - I’m 53 and - due to the above circumstances - have just 5 years of pension contributions. I can afford to put a little away for the next 12 years - but not much - and once I retire I’ll be poor. Many people in poverty are single parents - I’m by no means unique - and I’m luckier than many. As I said above - men don’t have long career breaks - they don’t generally have to work part time (therefore having little or no pension contributions) to care for children or parents - therefore they generally have a whole career to build up a pension. External factors have a considerable effect on a persons wealth/prospects. Poor people don’t holiday in Jamaica " Poor Jamaicans do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it interesting that the majority, if not all, of the ‘you just have to work hard/try hard to get out of the poverty cycle’ come from men. Whilst it could (though not entirely correctly imo - there are still many external factors that affect this) be argued that men are masters of their own destiny (though intellect or lack of it is also a substantial factor imo - and the quality of education received - which is likely to be substandard if you live in a deprived neighbourhood). For a woman - once you become a mother your life stops being your own for a minimum of 18 years (usually longer). A large percentage of carers are also women. I’ll use my own case as an example - though I’m fortunate enough to have a full time job above the minimum wage now. Whilst I was at college aged 17 my mum had a serious, life affecting/threatening accident at work. She survived but could no longer work. To put money in the family pot I had to leave college and get a full time job. At 22 I got pregnant and decided abortion wasn’t an option. There was no state help towards childcare at that time and - as I didn’t have the qualifications to earn a high salary - I had to stay at home with her until she started school. When she started school I got a full time job. Fast forward 7 years and I met the chap I thought was Mr Right. We had 2 children together and I cared for them full time whilst he built up a very successful business. When we split up I received little as we weren’t married. I had to work part time as I was caring for the children (one of whom by then had mental health issues) and my mother who’s health was deteriorating rapidly. Mum died last year and I’m now working full time again. However - I’m 53 and - due to the above circumstances - have just 5 years of pension contributions. I can afford to put a little away for the next 12 years - but not much - and once I retire I’ll be poor. Many people in poverty are single parents - I’m by no means unique - and I’m luckier than many. As I said above - men don’t have long career breaks - they don’t generally have to work part time (therefore having little or no pension contributions) to care for children or parents - therefore they generally have a whole career to build up a pension. External factors have a considerable effect on a persons wealth/prospects. Poor people don’t holiday in Jamaica " Sorry - thought I pointed out that I’m now working full time and not on minimum wage? I was pointing out that circumstances can massively affect your outcome. I wasn’t holding a pity party! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it interesting that the majority, if not all, of the ‘you just have to work hard/try hard to get out of the poverty cycle’ come from men. Whilst it could (though not entirely correctly imo - there are still many external factors that affect this) be argued that men are masters of their own destiny (though intellect or lack of it is also a substantial factor imo - and the quality of education received - which is likely to be substandard if you live in a deprived neighbourhood). For a woman - once you become a mother your life stops being your own for a minimum of 18 years (usually longer). A large percentage of carers are also women. I’ll use my own case as an example - though I’m fortunate enough to have a full time job above the minimum wage now. Whilst I was at college aged 17 my mum had a serious, life affecting/threatening accident at work. She survived but could no longer work. To put money in the family pot I had to leave college and get a full time job. At 22 I got pregnant and decided abortion wasn’t an option. There was no state help towards childcare at that time and - as I didn’t have the qualifications to earn a high salary - I had to stay at home with her until she started school. When she started school I got a full time job. Fast forward 7 years and I met the chap I thought was Mr Right. We had 2 children together and I cared for them full time whilst he built up a very successful business. When we split up I received little as we weren’t married. I had to work part time as I was caring for the children (one of whom by then had mental health issues) and my mother who’s health was deteriorating rapidly. Mum died last year and I’m now working full time again. However - I’m 53 and - due to the above circumstances - have just 5 years of pension contributions. I can afford to put a little away for the next 12 years - but not much - and once I retire I’ll be poor. Many people in poverty are single parents - I’m by no means unique - and I’m luckier than many. As I said above - men don’t have long career breaks - they don’t generally have to work part time (therefore having little or no pension contributions) to care for children or parents - therefore they generally have a whole career to build up a pension. External factors have a considerable effect on a persons wealth/prospects. Poor people don’t holiday in Jamaica Sorry - thought I pointed out that I’m now working full time and not on minimum wage? I was pointing out that circumstances can massively affect your outcome. I wasn’t holding a pity party! " It just seemed to me your post was contradictory? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it." "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough? "Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group "Statistics are just that ......... What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ........." Fucking hell  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell "Precisely. Christ. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell "You forgot the other question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
Precisely. Christ. "Statistics are just facts, guys. Stop being so precious.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
Precisely. Christ. "Statistics can be banded about until we all turn green. What is you solution to rising levels of poverty in the uk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question."What would you do, out of interest? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?"My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts. # Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work # make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws # administer the benefit system properly and fairly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question."Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that." NO!!! They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born. Jesu' hell fire | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
Precisely. Christ.
Statistics can be banded about until we all turn green. What is you solution to rising levels of poverty in the uk?"You've contributed nothing to the discussion except having a dig at Peachy. Hypocritical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly"You answered like a politician. What does sort out mean? Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates. How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?"What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?"The suspense is killing me... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair at reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me..."Perhaps he's gathering his statistics about job vacancies? Oh wait... "Statistics can be banded about until we all turn green".  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I turned green | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me..."Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits. Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI. I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate. Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account. Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding. I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies. The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire "Histrionics do little to move the debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate."Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist. "As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?"All good suggestions that could help redistribute wealth, as you say (though I don't happen to agree with you on defence spending. How can you have half a nuclear deterrent?) but you can see why people were with your rather blasé dismissal of the stats showing the extent of child poverty in the UK, the world's 5th richest country... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?"Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate."Histrionics? Don't make me laugh! Your "they're just statistics" is epitome of dismissiveness. How on Earth can you be so casual about children (real ones, not ones off EastEnders) living in poverty? Go and do some actual research about poverty, both here in the UK and worldwide. It is not "just statistics". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Histrionics? Don't make me laugh! Your "they're just statistics" is epitome of dismissiveness. How on Earth can you be so casual about children (real ones, not ones off EastEnders) living in poverty?
Go and do some actual research about poverty, both here in the UK and worldwide. It is not "just statistics"." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you."No, but it is used in the main to label women's language and behaviour and subtly put them down - which is what you just did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you."You've never met me. You can't see me presently. I couldn't be further from "histrionic" - the definition of which is "melodramatic behaviour designed to seek attention". If calling out an unnecessarily harsh and dismissive comment is histrionic, then you can take me down to the cells now, pal. I confess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account. "You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account. "My first suggestion is to radical? The only way to reduce uk poverty is to have radical measures in place that effect real change. Point me to the research on these strategies I’d experts on which you are reliant? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you.
You've never met me. You can't see me presently. I couldn't be further from "histrionic" - the definition of which is "melodramatic behaviour designed to seek attention".
If calling out an unnecessarily harsh and dismissive comment is histrionic, then you can take me down to the cells now, pal. I confess. "Well I suppose dramatic then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate."Nor does sarcasm and *insults. Winston *not what I wanted to say, but you know, ahem, "holidays......." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most..."I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you.
You've never met me. You can't see me presently. I couldn't be further from "histrionic" - the definition of which is "melodramatic behaviour designed to seek attention".
If calling out an unnecessarily harsh and dismissive comment is histrionic, then you can take me down to the cells now, pal. I confess.
Well I suppose dramatic then."Again, sue me. I'll pay. If it's dramatic to call out such as attitude, then fair enough. I really don't care what adjective you think applies to me. You know absolutely nothing about me. You cannot see my current state of being, my behaviour or any other cues to suggest my emotional state. Whatever political viewpoint a person has, it is not only disgustingly dismissive but also fundamentally incorrect to suggest statistics on poverty are meaningless or nonsense. The fact we have families, WORKING, families still choosing whether to heat or eat, is obscene. It's something we'd like to think disappeared alongside small children up chimneys, cotton mill related limb amputation and cholera. But no, some facets of poverty are still clinging on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
My first suggestion is to radical? The only way to reduce uk poverty is to have radical measures in place that effect real change.
Point me to the research on these strategies I’d experts on which you are reliant?"I didn't say radical. But it would mean a large hit to the coffers and the Tory party are unlikely to be supportive I imagine of a tax cut which wouldn't benefit any of them. I've already quoted stats from one source. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a lot of great material. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system."I also put forward suggestions. Which you dismissed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system."I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
My first suggestion is to radical? The only way to reduce uk poverty is to have radical measures in place that effect real change.
Point me to the research on these strategies I’d experts on which you are reliant?
I didn't say radical. But it would mean a large hit to the coffers and the Tory party are unlikely to be supportive I imagine of a tax cut which wouldn't benefit any of them. I've already quoted stats from one source. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a lot of great material. "You miss the point entirely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I also put forward suggestions. Which you dismissed. "You quoted statistics and statistically statistics can be viewed in different ways. Please don’t say I am dismissive. It’s sexist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you.
You've never met me. You can't see me presently. I couldn't be further from "histrionic" - the definition of which is "melodramatic behaviour designed to seek attention".
If calling out an unnecessarily harsh and dismissive comment is histrionic, then you can take me down to the cells now, pal. I confess.
Well I suppose dramatic then.
Again, sue me. I'll pay. If it's dramatic to call out such as attitude, then fair enough. I really don't care what adjective you think applies to me. You know absolutely nothing about me. You cannot see my current state of being, my behaviour or any other cues to suggest my emotional state.
Whatever political viewpoint a person has, it is not only disgustingly dismissive but also fundamentally incorrect to suggest statistics on poverty are meaningless or nonsense.
The fact we have families, WORKING, families still choosing whether to heat or eat, is obscene. It's something we'd like to think disappeared alongside small children up chimneys, cotton mill related limb amputation and cholera. But no, some facets of poverty are still clinging on. "I'm off to bed, but obscene is the word. I'll say it again: the 5th richest country in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies"."It’s not beyond the wit of human kind to reduce poverty levels in the uk by direct action. I admit for the most part government administration is slow unwieldy and inefficient but there are few other means of funding social equality programs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies".
It’s not beyond the wit of human kind to reduce poverty levels in the uk by direct action. I admit for the most part government administration is slow unwieldy and inefficient but there are few other means of funding social equality programs?"Yes, sure. But your suggestions were all measures only government could implement. We can't raise inheritance tax by direct action! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you.
You've never met me. You can't see me presently. I couldn't be further from "histrionic" - the definition of which is "melodramatic behaviour designed to seek attention".
If calling out an unnecessarily harsh and dismissive comment is histrionic, then you can take me down to the cells now, pal. I confess.
Well I suppose dramatic then.
Again, sue me. I'll pay. If it's dramatic to call out such as attitude, then fair enough. I really don't care what adjective you think applies to me. You know absolutely nothing about me. You cannot see my current state of being, my behaviour or any other cues to suggest my emotional state.
Whatever political viewpoint a person has, it is not only disgustingly dismissive but also fundamentally incorrect to suggest statistics on poverty are meaningless or nonsense.
The fact we have families, WORKING, families still choosing whether to heat or eat, is obscene. It's something we'd like to think disappeared alongside small children up chimneys, cotton mill related limb amputation and cholera. But no, some facets of poverty are still clinging on. "Just look at what you wrote there. When did I ever say statistics were meaningless or nonsense? The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies".
It’s not beyond the wit of human kind to reduce poverty levels in the uk by direct action. I admit for the most part government administration is slow unwieldy and inefficient but there are few other means of funding social equality programs?"But I will also say, if by "social equality" programmes you mean charities etc, I say no. They do great work, and have a role, but government should not absolve itself of responsibility of ensuing ALL citizens have a decent standard of living. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies".
It’s not beyond the wit of human kind to reduce poverty levels in the uk by direct action. I admit for the most part government administration is slow unwieldy and inefficient but there are few other means of funding social equality programs?
Yes, sure. But your suggestions were all measures only government could implement. We can't raise inheritance tax by direct action!"Give me a break fella! Are you suggesting we bring Sir Bob Geldof out of retirement? The only way to address the inequality in society is by direct interventionist policies by the elected government? Do you have any other vehicle for a radical change? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies".
It’s not beyond the wit of human kind to reduce poverty levels in the uk by direct action. I admit for the most part government administration is slow unwieldy and inefficient but there are few other means of funding social equality programs?
Yes, sure. But your suggestions were all measures only government could implement. We can't raise inheritance tax by direct action!
Give me a break fella!
Are you suggesting we bring Sir Bob Geldof out of retirement? The only way to address the inequality in society is by direct interventionist policies by the elected government?
Do you have any other vehicle for a radical change?"No! I was agreeing that we need government to make substantial change, as I thought you were saying otherwise... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I'm sure that's right about bold measures. The point I was agreeing with was that raising taxation is great for generating income, but it then needs to be spent in such a way that it benefits those that need it. So, in my basic head, we'd need to ensure the money from your windfall tax was used to fund childcare for parents who needed it etc. Otherwise it's just in the coffers: that's what I understood Inconceivable to mean by "direct benefitting strategies".
It’s not beyond the wit of human kind to reduce poverty levels in the uk by direct action. I admit for the most part government administration is slow unwieldy and inefficient but there are few other means of funding social equality programs?
Yes, sure. But your suggestions were all measures only government could implement. We can't raise inheritance tax by direct action!
Give me a break fella!
Are you suggesting we bring Sir Bob Geldof out of retirement? The only way to address the inequality in society is by direct interventionist policies by the elected government?
Do you have any other vehicle for a radical change?"It's been "fun" but I'm off to bed. I'm pleased you agree that having people living in poverty in the UK is a very bad thing. G'night! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing to do with the tories its more to do with their lifestyle " Yeah, that must be it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing to do with the tories its more to do with their lifestyle " Spending all their private health care and private education money on booze, no doubt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had private education for the record I never had any alcohol in life so I disagree on that one" You disagree that poor people are spending all their money on alcohol instead of private education and health care? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO. "Need to get ready for work now. But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all. The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
"If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate? Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't. This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be. If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now? I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
It's OK, he didn't do anything important - something about being the person responsible for founding the NHS or summat
Mr
They should attach his corspe to a dynamo and he is probably turning in his grave
Given the fuel nightmare, caused by wonk tory sell-everything-that-we-already-own policies of old, then every little helps, once he's plugged in to the grid.
The same tories that introduced the most socialist policies this country had sent for decades over the last couple of years (possibly ever), whilst Starmer and his politcking cronies just scorned and did nothing practical to help? Those ones?
Just seeking clarification."And what socialist policies are they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem And not at all opportunities that are much less open to poorer families " More about choices of alcohol drugs smoking | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother."I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc. Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them. They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not! "But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more. There will always be something that needs levelling up. Society as seen in this thread is very divided. I also prefer the beach to the lakes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem *are. Also they're not. Very few people can escape the life they're born into, whatever choices they may or not make. Hard to be healthy when good food is more expensive and takes prep time and cooking facilities you might not have and you're working one or multiple minimum wage jobs to service the debt you accrued just by being born into a family with nothing who can't help you out so have no time (or money) for exercise or fun to ease the stress. A single person on full time minimum wage is currently in minus figures just by existing because of the current cost of rent and utilities etc Your privilege is showing. Some people earn their priviledge and I'm not ashamed of it. "Some people earn their privilege". I despair st reading a sentence like this. Completely blind to the environmental and societal advantages some people have. Some statistics because children who grow up in poverty are more likely of course to have a lower life expectancy. Literally have their life reduced because of where they grew up and in what circumstances. "49 per cent of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty. Lone parents face a higher risk of poverty due to the lack of an additional earner, low rates of maintenance payments, gender inequality in employment and pay, and childcare costs." "Children from Black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty: 46 per cent are now in poverty, compared with 26 per cent of children in White British families." "Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 75 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works." Did these children not work hard enough?
Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group
Statistics are just that .........
What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?
My suggestions are the same those put forward by poverty experts.
# Sort our childcare costs which are a huge barrier for parents wishing to work
# make zero contract jobs a thing of the past by amending employment laws
# administer the benefit system properly and fairly
You answered like a politician.
What does sort out mean?
Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates.
How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?
What are your solutions or is it easier to just criticise mine?
The suspense is killing me...
Sorry I was getting a cup of tea and some hob knob biscuits.
Firstly I would overhaul the taxation system to ensure that those on the NMW were exempt from income tax and paid a 50% reduction in NI.
I would increase the imposition of inheritance tax to a 65% basic rate.
Those earning in excess of £100k had a levy of £2.5k per annum charged to their NI Account.
Over a period of 5 years I would reduce the spending on trident by 50% diverting the savings to the welfare and NHS funding.
I would impose windfall taxes on all utility companies.
The list is endless in an attempt to redistribute wealth?
Your first suggestion is very unlikely to be put into place by any government. Yet it is the only point you made which actually directly benefits those living in poverty. Those who have expertise in this area (I don't claim to be one of them) recommend strategies that do directly benefit those in need ie money in their account.
You're right: an important point! Any idea to increase income to the Treasury *could* help a better distribution of wealth, but it requires the right govt policies to make sure the money reaches the people who need it the most...
I put forward 5 policies that would make money available. I am making the point that radical measures are needed to change current inequalities in our system.
I also put forward suggestions. Which you dismissed.
You quoted statistics and statistically statistics can be viewed in different ways.
Please don’t say I am dismissive. It’s sexist."I suggested three solutions. Your response "You answered like a politician. What does sort out mean? Statistics tell us that job vacancies are pretty much in line with unemployment rates. How would you administer the benefit system properly and fairly?" Ironic that you mention statistics.... A) Sort out means making childcare affordable. B) No idea what vacancies and unemployment rates have to do with unstable employment? C) I wouldn't administer the benefit system personally. Do I need to provide a 30 page report in order to suggest something? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing to do with the tories its more to do with their lifestyle " Whose lifestyle? You will have to be more precise. "More than one in five of the UK population (22%) are in poverty– 14.5 million people. Of these, 8.1 million are working-age adults, 4.3 million are children and 2.1 million are pensioners." Are all of those 14.5 million people living lifestyles which lead them into poverty? Even the children? Answers, please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing to do with the tories its more to do with their lifestyle Whose lifestyle? You will have to be more precise. "More than one in five of the UK population (22%) are in poverty– 14.5 million people. Of these, 8.1 million are working-age adults, 4.3 million are children and 2.1 million are pensioners." Are all of those 14.5 million people living lifestyles which lead them into poverty? Even the children? Answers, please. " Quote from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Data source: DWP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Statistics are just that ......... Fucking hell
You forgot the other question.
Couldn't care less about the other question. I'm picking up on your casual attitude that "statistics [on child poverty] are just that."
NO!!!
They are derived from real, living, breathing people. Humans. CHILDREN. Children do not get to choose where, when and to whom they are born.
Jesu' hell fire
Histrionics do little to move the debate.
Please don't refer to a woman's opinion as histrionics. It's sexist.
As opposed to a man’s opinion. Being histrionic is not the domain of the female of the species I can assure you.
You've never met me. You can't see me presently. I couldn't be further from "histrionic" - the definition of which is "melodramatic behaviour designed to seek attention".
If calling out an unnecessarily harsh and dismissive comment is histrionic, then you can take me down to the cells now, pal. I confess.
Well I suppose dramatic then.
Again, sue me. I'll pay. If it's dramatic to call out such as attitude, then fair enough. I really don't care what adjective you think applies to me. You know absolutely nothing about me. You cannot see my current state of being, my behaviour or any other cues to suggest my emotional state.
Whatever political viewpoint a person has, it is not only disgustingly dismissive but also fundamentally incorrect to suggest statistics on poverty are meaningless or nonsense.
The fact we have families, WORKING, families still choosing whether to heat or eat, is obscene. It's something we'd like to think disappeared alongside small children up chimneys, cotton mill related limb amputation and cholera. But no, some facets of poverty are still clinging on.
I'm off to bed, but obscene is the word. I'll say it again: the 5th richest country in the world. "That's a mere statistic surely . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not!
But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more.
There will always be something that needs levelling up.
Society as seen in this thread is very divided.
I also prefer the beach to the lakes."If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not!
But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more.
There will always be something that needs levelling up.
Society as seen in this thread is very divided.
I also prefer the beach to the lakes.
If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society."Why is it a crime to be a millionaire? Simple question, no statistics. Why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not!
But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more.
There will always be something that needs levelling up.
Society as seen in this thread is very divided.
I also prefer the beach to the lakes.
If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society.
Why is it a crime to be a millionaire?
Simple question, no statistics. Why?"Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not!
But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more.
There will always be something that needs levelling up.
Society as seen in this thread is very divided.
I also prefer the beach to the lakes.
If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society.
Why is it a crime to be a millionaire?
Simple question, no statistics. Why?
Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. "You word wealth and success as a negative. I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Life choices is the problem Indeed. One can well imagine how the choice between Cambridge or Oxford has a direct comparison to having to choose between going to school or skipping it to care for younger siblings because your mum is too sick/has to work 3 jobs to pay for the rent. The only people who believe this shit are either those whose life is so blessed or they're so lacking in imagination they haven't a fucking clue what other people can/do face. Mr Incorrect. I didn't have the choice of either establishment, however, I did work hard to ensure I won't be reliant on handouts and never went back to a council estate. That is a life choice. No politics, just fact. " ................................. Oh dear, you were fortunate to have a choice and be in a position to exercise it to your advantage. There are many factors at play, it's not necessarily just about living on 'handouts' on a council estate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. " Its not a crime, it's just morally repugnant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not!
But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more.
There will always be something that needs levelling up.
Society as seen in this thread is very divided.
I also prefer the beach to the lakes.
If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society.
Why is it a crime to be a millionaire?
Simple question, no statistics. Why?
Where did I call it a crime? Simple question.
You word wealth and success as a negative.
I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth?"I said that society was divided because of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I didn't attach any negatives. You first used the word divided. The Chancellor and the Health Secretary have both benefitted from non-Dom status to increase their wealth. I think many people are questioning that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. Its not a crime, it's just morally repugnant" A bit OTT with your wording. Morally repugnant being wealthy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private Healthcare releases pressure on the NHS. It's not a negative thing IMO.
Need to get ready for work now.
But - I believe I read that Sweden doesn’t have a private education system. The wealthy have to send their children to state schools - ones anyone can attend. Because of this , the rich pump more money into state schools because their own children have to go there - and education is better for all.
The same would apply to the health care system. If the queen/other very wealthy people had to use the same healthcare system as my chronically ill neighbour - you can bet that healthcare system would be a damned sight better than it is now.
If there is no benefit to progression, would people work as hard or innovate?
Would people accumulate 'wealth' or upskill if they end up in the same net position as someone who doesn't.
This isn't a 'same 24 hours in a day' comment. The point I am trying to make is some people work for the house, holidays, private medical.......whatever it may be.
If everyone gets the same regardless of input would we have the technology and infastructure etc we have now?
I agree higher earners should pay higher taxes (I do). However, there must be a benefit to self progress or nobody would bother.
I wasn’t talking about every aspect of life. Those who earned more would still have bigger houses, better cars, more holidays etc.
Education and health, however - two massive factors to prospects, health and social justice - would be equal - therefore the rich would care considerably more about them and invest in them.
They can still have their lake houses and their Ferraris, worry not!
But it never stops at two elements. Because the mindset in my experience coming from a poor background is the 'wealthy' should always put in more.
There will always be something that needs levelling up.
Society as seen in this thread is very divided.
I also prefer the beach to the lakes.
If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society.
Why is it a crime to be a millionaire?
Simple question, no statistics. Why?
Where did I call it a crime? Simple question.
You word wealth and success as a negative.
I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth?
I said that society was divided because of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I didn't attach any negatives. You first used the word divided. The Chancellor and the Health Secretary have both benefitted from non-Dom status to increase their wealth. I think many people are questioning that. "Personal taxation is actually a specialism. In the case of Rishi I believe it was his wife who legitimately claimed non dom status. You also have various allowances you can utilise legitimately. I assume an ISA contribution or tax relief on a pension is acceptable? It is within the rules. They just have better advice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. Its not a crime, it's just morally repugnant A bit OTT with your wording. Morally repugnant being wealthy? " And having more money than is reasonably spendable or required isn't "OTT"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. Its not a crime, it's just morally repugnant A bit OTT with your wording. Morally repugnant being wealthy? And having more money than is reasonably spendable or required isn't "OTT"?" Quantify reasonable - every person in this thread will have a different lifestyle now and in the future. If they live in London a million is nothing is relative terms due to property prices. Some may have kids they want to help out. Some may want to retire early. How can you say a certain amount is too much? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Society as seen in this thread is very divided. I also prefer the beach to the lakes. If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society. Why is it a crime to be a millionaire? Simple question, no statistics. Why? Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. You word wealth and success as a negative. I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth? I said that society was divided because of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I didn't attach any negatives. You first used the word divided. The Chancellor and the Health Secretary have both benefitted from non-Dom status to increase their wealth. I think many people are questioning that. Personal taxation is actually a specialism. In the case of Rishi I believe it was his wife who legitimately claimed non dom status. You also have various allowances you can utilise legitimately. I assume an ISA contribution or tax relief on a pension is acceptable? It is within the rules. They just have better advice." I know it is within the rules - did I say otherwise? You keep putting words in my mouth. Why is that? I said the Chancellor benefitted from non-Dom status which is accurate. I am hardly the only person questioning the ethics of that situation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. " Where have I made comparisons?! I stated that people would like to think poverty is something that occurred historically (in the era of children up chimneys etc). I didn't say that now, today, children were going up chimneys etc. In fact, poverty isn't something consigned to the Victorian history books (hence my selection of Victorian era examples). It's something still very much impacting on 21st century people and condemning "mere statistics" is really unhelpful and comes across as highly dismissive. Rude, even. Deary me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Society as seen in this thread is very divided. I also prefer the beach to the lakes. If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society. Why is it a crime to be a millionaire? Simple question, no statistics. Why? Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. You word wealth and success as a negative. I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth? I said that society was divided because of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I didn't attach any negatives. You first used the word divided. The Chancellor and the Health Secretary have both benefitted from non-Dom status to increase their wealth. I think many people are questioning that. Personal taxation is actually a specialism. In the case of Rishi I believe it was his wife who legitimately claimed non dom status. You also have various allowances you can utilise legitimately. I assume an ISA contribution or tax relief on a pension is acceptable? It is within the rules. They just have better advice. I know it is within the rules - did I say otherwise? You keep putting words in my mouth. Why is that? I said the Chancellor benefitted from non-Dom status which is accurate. I am hardly the only person questioning the ethics of that situation. " I’m really surprised how his wife managed to get non Dom status , if you spend more than 91 days in the U.K. you’re almost certainly resident and all your foreign and U.K. income is taxed at 45%. The loopholes to allow up to 180 days here are complex & require minimum ties and a home a family and 2 definite ties. Two ties allows you to be here between 91 and 120 days only All I can assume is her tax accountant lied on the forms | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. Its not a crime, it's just morally repugnant A bit OTT with your wording. Morally repugnant being wealthy? And having more money than is reasonably spendable or required isn't "OTT"? Quantify reasonable - every person in this thread will have a different lifestyle now and in the future. If they live in London a million is nothing is relative terms due to property prices. Some may have kids they want to help out. Some may want to retire early. How can you say a certain amount is too much? " Everybody does have different lifestyles, some people live in luxury and privilege, while others have to choose between eating and heating. London is the way it is because of ridiculously wealthy people buying up property so that the less wealthy are priced out. Oh, it's an opinion and its fun to see you get so defensive over this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Society as seen in this thread is very divided. I also prefer the beach to the lakes. If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society. Why is it a crime to be a millionaire? Simple question, no statistics. Why? Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. You word wealth and success as a negative. I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth? I said that society was divided because of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I didn't attach any negatives. You first used the word divided. The Chancellor and the Health Secretary have both benefitted from non-Dom status to increase their wealth. I think many people are questioning that. Personal taxation is actually a specialism. In the case of Rishi I believe it was his wife who legitimately claimed non dom status. You also have various allowances you can utilise legitimately. I assume an ISA contribution or tax relief on a pension is acceptable? It is within the rules. They just have better advice. I know it is within the rules - did I say otherwise? You keep putting words in my mouth. Why is that? I said the Chancellor benefitted from non-Dom status which is accurate. I am hardly the only person questioning the ethics of that situation. I’m really surprised how his wife managed to get non Dom status , if you spend more than 91 days in the U.K. you’re almost certainly resident and all your foreign and U.K. income is taxed at 45%. The loopholes to allow up to 180 days here are complex & require minimum ties and a home a family and 2 definite ties. Two ties allows you to be here between 91 and 120 days only All I can assume is her tax accountant lied on the forms" Residency and domicile are different things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the polarisation of opinion in this thread hard to stomach personally. The arrogance of some people to assume that those less fortunate have just themselves to blame and should get up and do something about it is frankly appalling. Yes some people may not do that but most want a better life for themselves and their families. Our lives are shaped by a myriad of factors, from where we were born, to opportunities available, health and even luck. Everytime a topic like this comes up you get the ones 'I was born with nothing, worked hard and look at my big house and my even bigger ego now' -well done you but it's not always the same for everyone. Then you get the ones, just like in the media, picking up the most extreme example of someone fiddling the benefits system instead of concentrating on the thousands who struggle to make ends meet and put food on tbe table for their kids. What about the ill and the disabled? People go through the most humiliating experiences with their disability allowance claim and a process openly regarded to be there to stop claims rather than support people and which is by the way more often than not challenged successfully in courts with more money wasted than if the claims had been paid in the first place. Some of us seem to have lost the ability to empathise with other people. I am not interested in the few who may undeservedly claim benefits or cheat the system or not doing enough to get themselves out of their situation. I am interested in how we help and support the rest. I like to live in a society that cares, not in the one full of arrogant people that believe that if you need support it must always be your own fault. Just my opinion and I am out " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everytime a topic like this comes up you get the ones 'I was born with nothing, worked hard and look at my big house and my even bigger ego now' -well done you but it's not always the same for everyone." .................................. ..and they often equate the value of their personal assets with their wellbeing & happiness which often isn't the case. At an extreme level I can think of many lottery/pools winners who've believed money would make them happy and achieved the opposite outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stats showing that girls and boys from the poorest areas of the UK die about 18 years earlier than those from the richest areas of the UK. What's going on here guys.. ?" The rich live longer ?. Much better health care (private not NHS). Better food (fresh fruit and veg instead of junk food). MUCH less stress all round, no need to struggle to pay basic bills and heat your home, much better legal support and outcome, better housing in better areas, neighbours that aren't looking to rob you.... more reason to smile, and smiling is good for you . A positive outlook goes a long way  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the polarisation of opinion in this thread hard to stomach personally. The arrogance of some people to assume that those less fortunate have just themselves to blame and should get up and do something about it is frankly appalling. Yes some people may not do that but most want a better life for themselves and their families. Our lives are shaped by a myriad of factors, from where we were born, to opportunities available, health and even luck. Everytime a topic like this comes up you get the ones 'I was born with nothing, worked hard and look at my big house and my even bigger ego now' -well done you but it's not always the same for everyone. Then you get the ones, just like in the media, picking up the most extreme example of someone fiddling the benefits system instead of concentrating on the thousands who struggle to make ends meet and put food on tbe table for their kids. What about the ill and the disabled? People go through the most humiliating experiences with their disability allowance claim and a process openly regarded to be there to stop claims rather than support people and which is by the way more often than not challenged successfully in courts with more money wasted than if the claims had been paid in the first place. Some of us seem to have lost the ability to empathise with other people. I am not interested in the few who may undeservedly claim benefits or cheat the system or not doing enough to get themselves out of their situation. I am interested in how we help and support the rest. I like to live in a society that cares, not in the one full of arrogant people that believe that if you need support it must always be your own fault. Just my opinion and I am out " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
He came up with the idea of the NHS, get on the naughty step!!"No he didn’t. The White Paper proposing a National Health Service that was free and open to all was produced by Henry Willink. A Conservative MP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
He came up with the idea of the NHS, get on the naughty step!!
No he didn’t.
The White Paper proposing a National Health Service that was free and open to all was produced by Henry Willink. A Conservative MP.
".................................. He wasn't an enthusiastic advocate for the service which was ultimately implemented! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
He came up with the idea of the NHS, get on the naughty step!!
No he didn’t.
The White Paper proposing a National Health Service that was free and open to all was produced by Henry Willink. A Conservative MP.
..................................
He wasn't an enthusiastic advocate for the service which was ultimately implemented!"Who is to say that his vision wouldn’t have produced a better NHS than the one that Bevan had to ’stuff the mouths of the Drs and Consultants with gold” to get in place? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories
Hah.
No.
Look up average of deaths under socialist parties.
I accept your apology.
For a start, communism isnt socialism. Then look up Clement Attlee, then I will accept your apology
Don't leave out the greatest Welshman to ever hold political office Aneirin Bevan!
Never heard of him, and I doubt I can pronounce his name either lol
He came up with the idea of the NHS, get on the naughty step!!
No he didn’t.
The White Paper proposing a National Health Service that was free and open to all was produced by Henry Willink. A Conservative MP.
..................................
He wasn't an enthusiastic advocate for the service which was ultimately implemented!
Who is to say that his vision wouldn’t have produced a better NHS than the one that Bevan had to ’stuff the mouths of the Drs and Consultants with gold” to get in place?"How would any other politician at that time, got the (privately practising) doctors on board?! The medics held the upper hand - eons of doing whatever they wanted with minimal regulation, able to charge what they liked. Those unable to pay relied on charity or simply died. Go back and listen to Harry Leslie Smith's address to the Labour Party Conference in 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2018/nov/28/we-must-never-let-the-nhs-free-from-our-grasp-harry-leslie-smiths-powerful-2014-speech-video | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. Where have I made comparisons?! I stated that people would like to think poverty is something that occurred historically (in the era of children up chimneys etc). I didn't say that now, today, children were going up chimneys etc. In fact, poverty isn't something consigned to the Victorian history books (hence my selection of Victorian era examples). It's something still very much impacting on 21st century people and condemning "mere statistics" is really unhelpful and comes across as highly dismissive. Rude, even. Deary me. " I said statistics are just that meaning numbers can be manipulated to suit an argument or a point of view. If for a moment you dismounted from your high horse you would see that my suggestion on the redistribution of wealth to tackle social inequalities are pretty radical. All you have done is taken one sentence read it out of context and battered on about me being Atilla the Hun. Not once have added to the debate on what you’re view or solutions would be to change society for the better. Dreary you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stats showing that girls and boys from the poorest areas of the UK die about 18 years earlier than those from the richest areas of the UK. What's going on here guys.. ?" I think its really cheap food, Stress about money, Depression might be a factor, With depression comes no motivation to exercise or look after them selfs properly, A loss of 18 years of your life just because they have not had the privilege of a good wage is really sad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. Where have I made comparisons?! I stated that people would like to think poverty is something that occurred historically (in the era of children up chimneys etc). I didn't say that now, today, children were going up chimneys etc. In fact, poverty isn't something consigned to the Victorian history books (hence my selection of Victorian era examples). It's something still very much impacting on 21st century people and condemning "mere statistics" is really unhelpful and comes across as highly dismissive. Rude, even. Deary me. I said statistics are just that meaning numbers can be manipulated to suit an argument or a point of view. If for a moment you dismounted from your high horse you would see that my suggestion on the redistribution of wealth to tackle social inequalities are pretty radical. All you have done is taken one sentence read it out of context and battered on about me being Atilla the Hun. Not once have added to the debate on what you’re view or solutions would be to change society for the better. Dreary you." I've learned over a couple of years of this place, that there's a significant subset of people on here who would prefer that the poor might die, and decrease the surplus population. They ask, are there no workhouses etc? Anyone putting forward possible solutions to the issue of poverty are decried as snowflakes, "woke" and anyone female putting ideas forward are dismissed as probable benefit scroungers, who are frightened to lose their "free" house and money. So, I had intended to thread watch last night, but your statement of "they're just statistics", in response to a comment about children, was too much and I decided to jump in. I have no regrets. I have my own views on what might benefit society but I'll be keeping them to myself for now. There were enough PMs with abuse last time this topic came up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. Where have I made comparisons?! I stated that people would like to think poverty is something that occurred historically (in the era of children up chimneys etc). I didn't say that now, today, children were going up chimneys etc. In fact, poverty isn't something consigned to the Victorian history books (hence my selection of Victorian era examples). It's something still very much impacting on 21st century people and condemning "mere statistics" is really unhelpful and comes across as highly dismissive. Rude, even. Deary me. I said statistics are just that meaning numbers can be manipulated to suit an argument or a point of view. If for a moment you dismounted from your high horse you would see that my suggestion on the redistribution of wealth to tackle social inequalities are pretty radical. All you have done is taken one sentence read it out of context and battered on about me being Atilla the Hun. Not once have added to the debate on what you’re view or solutions would be to change society for the better. Dreary you. I've learned over a couple of years of this place, that there's a significant subset of people on here who would prefer that the poor might die, and decrease the surplus population. They ask, are there no workhouses etc? Anyone putting forward possible solutions to the issue of poverty are decried as snowflakes, "woke" and anyone female putting ideas forward are dismissed as probable benefit scroungers, who are frightened to lose their "free" house and money. So, I had intended to thread watch last night, but your statement of "they're just statistics", in response to a comment about children, was too much and I decided to jump in. I have no regrets. I have my own views on what might benefit society but I'll be keeping them to myself for now. There were enough PMs with abuse last time this topic came up. " Well said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. Where have I made comparisons?! I stated that people would like to think poverty is something that occurred historically (in the era of children up chimneys etc). I didn't say that now, today, children were going up chimneys etc. In fact, poverty isn't something consigned to the Victorian history books (hence my selection of Victorian era examples). It's something still very much impacting on 21st century people and condemning "mere statistics" is really unhelpful and comes across as highly dismissive. Rude, even. Deary me. I said statistics are just that meaning numbers can be manipulated to suit an argument or a point of view. If for a moment you dismounted from your high horse you would see that my suggestion on the redistribution of wealth to tackle social inequalities are pretty radical. All you have done is taken one sentence read it out of context and battered on about me being Atilla the Hun. Not once have added to the debate on what you’re view or solutions would be to change society for the better. Dreary you. I've learned over a couple of years of this place, that there's a significant subset of people on here who would prefer that the poor might die, and decrease the surplus population. They ask, are there no workhouses etc? Anyone putting forward possible solutions to the issue of poverty are decried as snowflakes, "woke" and anyone female putting ideas forward are dismissed as probable benefit scroungers, who are frightened to lose their "free" house and money. So, I had intended to thread watch last night, but your statement of "they're just statistics", in response to a comment about children, was too much and I decided to jump in. I have no regrets. I have my own views on what might benefit society but I'll be keeping them to myself for now. There were enough PMs with abuse last time this topic came up. " Where did I say they are just statistics? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did I say they are just statistics?" Inconceivable shared some data on children and poverty, she asked: "Did these children not work hard enough?" She stated that: "Statistics from the Child Poverty Action Group" You (Ted) replied: "Statistics are just that ........." You also asked: "What is your answer to the rising levels of poverty in the Uk?" The fact your statement "statistics are just that...." was in direct response to a series of quotes about real children, real examples, smacked of dismissiveness about children in poverty. It wasn't just me who had a strong reaction to that comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Society as seen in this thread is very divided. I also prefer the beach to the lakes. If more than a fifth of the UK live in poverty yet the Chancellor, the PM and other ministers are millionaires - yes, I think divided is a good word for society. Why is it a crime to be a millionaire? Simple question, no statistics. Why? Where did I call it a crime? Simple question. You word wealth and success as a negative. I'll re-phrase, why do you have an issue with their personal wealth? I said that society was divided because of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I didn't attach any negatives. You first used the word divided. The Chancellor and the Health Secretary have both benefitted from non-Dom status to increase their wealth. I think many people are questioning that. Personal taxation is actually a specialism. In the case of Rishi I believe it was his wife who legitimately claimed non dom status. You also have various allowances you can utilise legitimately. I assume an ISA contribution or tax relief on a pension is acceptable? It is within the rules. They just have better advice. I know it is within the rules - did I say otherwise? You keep putting words in my mouth. Why is that? I said the Chancellor benefitted from non-Dom status which is accurate. I am hardly the only person questioning the ethics of that situation. I’m really surprised how his wife managed to get non Dom status , if you spend more than 91 days in the U.K. you’re almost certainly resident and all your foreign and U.K. income is taxed at 45%. The loopholes to allow up to 180 days here are complex & require minimum ties and a home a family and 2 definite ties. Two ties allows you to be here between 91 and 120 days only All I can assume is her tax accountant lied on the forms Residency and domicile are different things." Yes but all that matters is the statutory residence test status for tax. A non Dom pays no tax because the test deems them non resident for tax purposes. There is only one test | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The last paragraph is just histrionics. I am sorry if that offends but you comparisons are ludicrous. Where have I made comparisons?! I stated that people would like to think poverty is something that occurred historically (in the era of children up chimneys etc). I didn't say that now, today, children were going up chimneys etc. In fact, poverty isn't something consigned to the Victorian history books (hence my selection of Victorian era examples). It's something still very much impacting on 21st century people and condemning "mere statistics" is really unhelpful and comes across as highly dismissive. Rude, even. Deary me. I said statistics are just that meaning numbers can be manipulated to suit an argument or a point of view. If for a moment you dismounted from your high horse you would see that my suggestion on the redistribution of wealth to tackle social inequalities are pretty radical. All you have done is taken one sentence read it out of context and battered on about me being Atilla the Hun. Not once have added to the debate on what you’re view or solutions would be to change society for the better. Dreary you. I've learned over a couple of years of this place, that there's a significant subset of people on here who would prefer that the poor might die, and decrease the surplus population. They ask, are there no workhouses etc? Anyone putting forward possible solutions to the issue of poverty are decried as snowflakes, "woke" and anyone female putting ideas forward are dismissed as probable benefit scroungers, who are frightened to lose their "free" house and money. So, I had intended to thread watch last night, but your statement of "they're just statistics", in response to a comment about children, was too much and I decided to jump in. I have no regrets. I have my own views on what might benefit society but I'll be keeping them to myself for now. There were enough PMs with abuse last time this topic came up. " I can debate with people on their politics and see both sides , even quite strong capitalists or socialists. Most people are reasonable and decent who think it’s wrong when people suffer. But then there’s ideologs, you’re wasting your breath , their views are so fixed and bike and they are are not just the uneducated jobless or st George flag brigade racists , JR Mogg and Ash Zakour are two examples of right and left very educated I’d put in this category | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
