Poverty in Oldham
Discussion
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Ah the old envy routine always makes an appearance,won’t be long before the dear old ‘chip on shoulder’ makes its return. Very sad, very very sad
You are indeed.And that is coming from the person that is yet to explain how reducing the tax take (by artificial pay caps on executives) will help the poorest in society, who might well be worse off in absolute terms but will potentially be a minute amount better off in relative terms.
Moonhawk said:
crankedup said:
Ah the old envy routine always makes an appearance,won’t be long before the dear old ‘chip on shoulder’ makes its return. Very sad, very very sad
How do you explain the Yougov poll above. What possible "moral reason" could there be for taxing people knowing it'll raise no more money?
Moonhawk said:
crankedup said:
What utter garbage. Another poster makes an attempt to move the goalposts.
overtly is ‘relative’ to the standards of living that surround the examples.
Erm - no it isn't. overtly is ‘relative’ to the standards of living that surround the examples.
The definition of "relative poverty" in this country is any household with an income below 60% of median household income.
If the income of top earners (or above median earners) drops - so does the relative poverty line despite the fact that people at or below the line may have seen no change in their circumstances.
It's quite possible to reduce relative poverty whilst absolute poverty is increasing if the income of your highest earners is dropping faster than that of your lowest.
That's why it's nonsense. You are defining a poverty line based, not on the circumstances of the people who may actually be in poverty, but on the earnings of the people well above the poverty line. It makes absolutely no sense.
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 24th March 17:54
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
More nonsense trying to cover yourself makes you look a lesser person.
No, it really was already explained. The fact you didn't read it or understand it isn't my problem.I guess it depends if you care more about manipulating a flawed metric or about actually making a genuine difference to real people.
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th March 17:15
fblm said:
crankedup said:
sidicks said:
If people were less obsessed with the top earners relative to the bottom and instead focussed on the gap between the middle earners and the bottom, they’d have much more chance of improving the situation and making a genuine difference.
Please explain how that bit of nonsense would work?Personally I am more concerned with a fairer Society in the U.K.
The word obsessing seems to be the new ‘must include’ word in posts.
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....
Sticks. said:
AW111 said:
crankedup said:
I’m never wrong, never. Sometimes I make a mistake or judgement error, never ever wrong.
You are sidicks AICMFPBest apologise to the sensitive amongst us for my surge of posts, been out all day and now needed to catch up.
crankedup said:
WTF are you on about, dragging those at the top down? Down to the level of what or who?
Personally I am more concerned with a fairer Society in the U.K.
The word obsessing seems to be the new ‘must include’ word in posts.
Define ‘fair’...Personally I am more concerned with a fairer Society in the U.K.
The word obsessing seems to be the new ‘must include’ word in posts.
And yet you seem to be ‘obsessed’ with a nonsense metric and the politics of envy, rather than things that might actually make a difference.
crankedup said:
Fair point, but one poll does not mean sacrocent reality. We all know how accurate or otherwise polls can be.
They can and do vary by a few percent (which can be critical especially when polling about marginal events like Brexit) - but have there been many polls that have been inaccurate by 50% or more?crankedup said:
That may be the Governments definition, I haven’t looked that up so I could be incorrect. Look up the dictionary definition for a non biased definition.
It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is. The definition being applied in the article cited in the OP is the UK government's definition of it. That's what we are discussing."A household is in relative poverty (also called relative low income) if its income is below 60% of the median household income."
Efbe said:
which makes everything perfectly ok then doesn't it.
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.
That sounds like a Pistonheads People's "Democratic" Party political manifesto -so long as party members can have their favourite roads maintained for free.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.
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.Moonhawk said:
crankedup said:
That may be the Governments definition, I haven’t looked that up so I could be incorrect. Look up the dictionary definition for a non biased definition.
It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is. The definition being applied in the article cited in the OP is the UK government's definition of it. That's what we are discussing."A household is in relative poverty (also called relative low income) if its income is below 60% of the median household income."
crankedup said:
WTF are you on about, dragging those at the top down? Down to the level of what or who?
...
I'm the fvck on about the current Labour party, not you! If you haven't noticed EE Corbyn has put quite a number of sectors of society 'on notice'; dragged down to what level I don't know, working the fields seems to be a favourite with his kind. On the short list of things we seem to agree about government subsidy of companies to top up their miserable insufficient wages is one......
skwdenyer said:
...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....
Very interesting (genuinely not being sarky). It's also notable that both are EU countries and not the much maligned ''islands with more banks than people'' bogeyman.
fblm said:
Very interesting (genuinely not being sarky). It's also notable that both are EU countries and not the much maligned ''islands with more banks than people'' bogeyman.
Indeed. So it all seems more "above board" because of it.This trick of closing companies before filing is due is used a *lot* in the uk too - and not just for big wealth. I know at least 1 shop that has a different "owner" every 6 months. Never files, never registers for VAT, etc...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff