Poverty in Oldham
Discussion
fblm said:
Jimmy Recard said:
I'm surprised that Shropshire is apparently so poor - I lived there most of my life and it always seemed like a prosperous place!
Range Rovers and nice houses everywhere....
Well a Range Rover will make most people poor pretty quickly!Range Rovers and nice houses everywhere....
98elise said:
Agreed. The stupidity of relative poverty as a measure is that if you have everyone a million quid, there would still be a similar number of people in relative poverty.
We don't have true poverty in this country. If you want to see real poverty you need to get on a plane.
I agree with the first part of your post but not the second part.We don't have true poverty in this country. If you want to see real poverty you need to get on a plane.
You would only get on a plane if you wanted to ignore the very real poverty in the UK
menousername said:
I agree with the first part of your post but not the second part.
You would only get on a plane if you wanted to ignore the very real poverty in the UK
Well I've travelled around most of the UK quite a bit, and many foreign countries.You would only get on a plane if you wanted to ignore the very real poverty in the UK
Where in the UK do you believe that 'very real poverty' exists ?
.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Might buy a kids play area but I reckon the charitable trust to which the lucky, and it was luck not skill, who has received the bonus, will have worked out that charity donations are a good tax saving ploy. Best foot forward.
WTF? Paying tax on the bonus would mean he retained 50% of the money. Giving the money to charity means he retains none.Best just to admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to justify your comment.
fblm said:
Derek Smith said:
fblm said:
Derek Smith said:
If these people do pay all their taxes then who's keeping all these islands with more banks than people going?
You seem to be stuck in about 1980. Google FATCA/CRS/AEoI. If the world really is as you imagine it did it not seem very strange that the Appleby/Paradise papers turned up a big fat terrabyte of fvck all? Edited by fblm on Friday 23 March 22:42
There's exposés every week yet you feel that this was 1980? Really?
We all know one name, one of the richest men in this country, who has had court case after court case, who has been the subject of two EU enquiries, who boasts about it. But, I assume, that was all in 1980 was it? His argument is that everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't he. Perhaps he should have used some emoji or such as an argument.
MPs do it. We know this, that is if one reads up on the matter. There’s a favourite of PH who uses a Russian bank, one where the history is such that you’d need a lot of rolleseyes to come up with a suitable comment. Many feel that corrupt might cover it.
We hear of BBC staff being paid in tax avoiding ways. But that was 1980 I suppose.
We are told, by lots of people on here, of how wealth cascades from the top. And you seem to be suggesting that I'm the one talking nonsense.
Corruption is endemic. Read up on it. Buy those books which challenge your prejudices. If it was done in 1980, which it was, it is being done now.
Moonhawk said:
crankedup said:
Relative poverty.
Relative poverty is a nonsense.You can wipe out relative poverty by simply making richer people poorer. Doing so does nothing to elevate the position of poorer people.
Poverty should only ever be defined in absolute terms. You either have enough to live on - or you don't (poverty).
What you earn relative to richer or poorer people is 'relative wealth', not 'relative poverty'.
sidicks said:
Moonhawk said:
crankedup said:
Relative poverty.
Relative poverty is a nonsensePoverty should only ever be defined in absolute terms. You either have enough to live on - or you don't (poverty).
What you earn relative to richer people is relative wealth, not relative poverty.
crankedup said:
But this discussion is concerning relative poverty, because some posters in here cannot accept the definition does not mean it’s not applicable.
Ok - and i'm discussing why it's nonsense.Poverty is defined as "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor."
But you could be in 'relative poverty' based on the '60% below median' definition used in this country, yet have plenty of money, goods and means of support - if that '60% below median' is well above the absolute poverty limit
Explain how an arbitrary percentage below median earnings is in any way an appropriate measure of poverty. It's a perfectly good measure of relative wealth - but poverty?
crankedup said:
But this discussion is concerning relative poverty, because some posters in here cannot accept the definition does not mean it’s not applicable.
And some other posters seem determined to misunderstand the metric and propose resolutions that would make matters worse not better...Is the relative poverty in Oldham exaggerated by having one or 2 wealthy post codes? Could it be that Oldham is a typical Northern town and it is just the statistics that are highlighting an issue that is much more prevalent than people care to admit?
I also think it’s craxy that people are claiming poverty when they get 20k after tax and have little rent to pay.
I also think it’s craxy that people are claiming poverty when they get 20k after tax and have little rent to pay.
menousername said:
98elise said:
Agreed. The stupidity of relative poverty as a measure is that if you have everyone a million quid, there would still be a similar number of people in relative poverty.
We don't have true poverty in this country. If you want to see real poverty you need to get on a plane.
I agree with the first part of your post but not the second part.We don't have true poverty in this country. If you want to see real poverty you need to get on a plane.
You would only get on a plane if you wanted to ignore the very real poverty in the UK
The very worst of what people experience here would be like winning the lottery for more some of the more unfortunate people around the world.
98elise said:
Everyone has access to a free education and healthcare. Everyone has access to shelter, food and clean drinking water if they want it. That is not real poverty.
The very worst of what people experience here would be like winning the lottery for more some of the more unfortunate people around the world.
You are right. Compared to a bad area in Mogadishu, northern sThe very worst of what people experience here would be like winning the lottery for more some of the more unfortunate people around the world.
tholes are not that bad. jjlynn27 said:
98elise said:
Everyone has access to a free education and healthcare. Everyone has access to shelter, food and clean drinking water if they want it. That is not real poverty.
The very worst of what people experience here would be like winning the lottery for more some of the more unfortunate people around the world.
You are right. Compared to a bad area in Mogadishu, northern sThe very worst of what people experience here would be like winning the lottery for more some of the more unfortunate people around the world.
tholes are not that bad. tbh I really f
king hate having to pay for roads.The people in mogadishu don't, yet I have to pay for the roads of selfish people who can't be bothered/afford to look after their own roads. Lets scrap road maintenance.
Whilst we're at it, they don't have schools in mogadishu, lets scrap paying for schools, healthcare, infrastructure, army, navy etc etc.
I can deal with none of these, so you should be able to as well.
A few kids at my sons old school regularly go to school without breakfast and with no lunch money. Not due to poverty just feckless parents.
Around a year ago I was involved in a project that used 999 call centre data. A lady called 999 to report that her daughter was missing and she needed the Police as she was at work and couldn't go look for her. The lady also didn't know the name of her daughters school.
Idiots will always be born regardless on how much cash we pump into social welfare.
Around a year ago I was involved in a project that used 999 call centre data. A lady called 999 to report that her daughter was missing and she needed the Police as she was at work and couldn't go look for her. The lady also didn't know the name of her daughters school.
Idiots will always be born regardless on how much cash we pump into social welfare.
fblm said:
Derek Smith said:
If these people do pay all their taxes then who's keeping all these islands with more banks than people going?
You seem to be stuck in about 1980. Google FATCA/CRS/AEoI. If the world really is as you imagine it did it not seem very strange that the Appleby/Paradise papers turned up a big fat terrabyte of fvck all? Edited by fblm on Friday 23 March 22:42
I happen to know rather a lot about somebody whose affairs appeared in those papers. I also happen to have obtained a great deal of information from other sources (Cyprus, Malta, Jersey, Mauritius, Bahamas, etc). The complete picture is fascinating, most definitely designed to avoid taxes and hide wealth, and *way* too complex to fathom quickly.
Those who intend to hide can hide - they just need to make sure they use a multiplicity of offshore jurisdictions, many different advisors, etc.
I'll give you a specific example of the type of thing I'm talking about. Open a company in Cyprus. Wait until the last minute for reporting, then declare it to be based offshore. Register it as an offshore office in Malta. Get to the filing deadline, apply for a 1 year (!) extension. At the end of that extension, declare the Malta office closed and re-domicile back into Cyprus for 9 months. Then repeat.
Perfectly legally, you can manage to not file any published accounts for years this way. Then sell the company's assets to another company, liquidate your original entity, etc...
That trick is just a very small part of the bigger machine. There's a *lot* more detail.
Every time somebody in authority takes a look, the whole structure will seem legal if convoluted - because it sort of is. But little or no tax will be paid, assets will be kept beyond the reach of creditors, etc.
What the Paradise Papers *did* do for those of us with a particular interest was to validate some of what we thought we knew, and add a few more links into an overall picture. But no smoking gun will be apparent to the casual observer - or even the journalist looking for a scoop without a ton of other legwork.
Robertj21a said:
Moonhawk said:
sidicks said:
Depends if you want to express envy at those who earn (much) more than you or not!
True - but it changes nothing about your position. You either have enough to live on or you dont. That doesn't change just because rich Fred Blogs earns £X rather than £Y.I'm going to assume that 'enough to live' includes a roof over your head - and enough to provide basic food/drink, clothes and warmth. Personally, I'd probably define 'Poverty' as anything below that level.
However, it seems that many would also include a TV, mobile phone, fags, alcohol, nights out etc.
Where could we (in the UK) draw the line ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff