Poverty in Oldham
Discussion
That info graphic has a text box that is revealing for a couple of reasons. It states that the U.K. has more poverty than comparable neighbours in Northern Europe and that this is because the U.K. is a more unequal society.
First off this is relative poverty. If the U.K/EU mean is distorted by lots of rich bankers then that will mean by definition there is more relative poverty. Dropping a nuke on London would immediately reduce overall poverty as a relative measure. A bit pointless though unless you are Agent Cob.
The second thing to note is that the selection is of one of the richest places on the planet. Why not Southern Europe? Why not North Africa since it might give a better idea of why so many are willing to try a rubber dinghy across the med?
The info graphic is a classic piece of statistical presentation that is intended to frame a debate towards a particular destination (the horror of income inequality and the b
d bankers). That may be the case with an awful lot of this kind of presentation and it’s not unique, but it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.
First off this is relative poverty. If the U.K/EU mean is distorted by lots of rich bankers then that will mean by definition there is more relative poverty. Dropping a nuke on London would immediately reduce overall poverty as a relative measure. A bit pointless though unless you are Agent Cob.
The second thing to note is that the selection is of one of the richest places on the planet. Why not Southern Europe? Why not North Africa since it might give a better idea of why so many are willing to try a rubber dinghy across the med?
The info graphic is a classic piece of statistical presentation that is intended to frame a debate towards a particular destination (the horror of income inequality and the b
d bankers). That may be the case with an awful lot of this kind of presentation and it’s not unique, but it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.Ridgemont said:
That info graphic has a text box that is revealing for a couple of reasons. It states that the U.K. has more poverty than comparable neighbours in Northern Europe and that this is because the U.K. is a more unequal society.
First off this is relative poverty. If the U.K/EU mean is distorted by lots of rich bankers then that will mean by definition there is more relative poverty. Dropping a nuke on London would immediately reduce overall poverty as a relative measure. A bit pointless though unless you are Agent Cob.
The second thing to note is that the selection is of one of the richest places on the planet. Why not Southern Europe? Why not North Africa since it might give a better idea of why so many are willing to try a rubber dinghy across the med?
The info graphic is a classic piece of statistical presentation that is intended to frame a debate towards a particular destination (the horror of income inequality and the bd bankers). That may be the case with an awful lot of this kind of presentation and it’s not unique, but it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.
YupFirst off this is relative poverty. If the U.K/EU mean is distorted by lots of rich bankers then that will mean by definition there is more relative poverty. Dropping a nuke on London would immediately reduce overall poverty as a relative measure. A bit pointless though unless you are Agent Cob.
The second thing to note is that the selection is of one of the richest places on the planet. Why not Southern Europe? Why not North Africa since it might give a better idea of why so many are willing to try a rubber dinghy across the med?
The info graphic is a classic piece of statistical presentation that is intended to frame a debate towards a particular destination (the horror of income inequality and the b
d bankers). That may be the case with an awful lot of this kind of presentation and it’s not unique, but it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.98elise said:
crankedup said:
When a CEO of a building Company can receive a bonus payment of £110 million and his co worker Board of directors receive life changing sums of money in a bonus payment, I cannot help but think something has gone very wrong in the values we consider important.
In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
That's a very unusual case, however 110m would generate 50m tax. That aside if we took the 110m and distributed it to the workers we would all get £2 each as a one off.In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
Very soon you will run out of rich people.
If I were alone in my pov we would not be seeing the rise of the far right and left side of the political spectrum in the U.K. and increasing parts of Europe.
In fairness I understand that the boss of persimmon has donated a significant % of his bonus to a charitable trust. However I still feel that the pendulum has swung to far in favour of big business in the UK
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
When a CEO of a building Company can receive a bonus payment of £110 million and his co worker Board of directors receive life changing sums of money in a bonus payment, I cannot help but think something has gone very wrong in the values we consider important.
In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
Maybe the taxes paid on those bonuses will support the planned economic development in those poorer areas.In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
crankedup said:
When a CEO of a building Company can receive a bonus payment of £110 million and his co worker Board of directors receive life changing sums of money in a bonus payment, I cannot help but think something has gone very wrong in the values we consider important.
In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
Yes. Spot on I feel.In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
The dad who gave up his job to look after his four children says he is losing £340 a month due to the £20k benefits cap.
So before this cap he got £20k + (£340 * 12) = £24080 Which is £463.07 a week.
Don't forget this is tax free so is equivalent to a £30k a year salary (£457.32 a week), plus I am sure they get council tax exemption and numerous other benefits.
No wonder he wanted to give up his job and nobody forced him to have four children. Personally I have zero sympathy for him, the reason they are in (apparent) poverty is the way they live and the fact they have no ambition to better themselves. They are quite happy to sit on their bum watching the full Sky package moaning about their situation.
Decorate the house for goodness sake, he could buy 10 litres of paint from B&Q for £12.
So before this cap he got £20k + (£340 * 12) = £24080 Which is £463.07 a week.
Don't forget this is tax free so is equivalent to a £30k a year salary (£457.32 a week), plus I am sure they get council tax exemption and numerous other benefits.
No wonder he wanted to give up his job and nobody forced him to have four children. Personally I have zero sympathy for him, the reason they are in (apparent) poverty is the way they live and the fact they have no ambition to better themselves. They are quite happy to sit on their bum watching the full Sky package moaning about their situation.
Decorate the house for goodness sake, he could buy 10 litres of paint from B&Q for £12.
Joey Deacon said:
The dad who gave up his job to look after his four children says he is losing £340 a month due to the £20k benefits cap.
So before this cap he got £20k + (£340 * 12) = £24080 Which is £463.07 a week.
Don't forget this is tax free so is equivalent to a £30k a year salary (£457.32 a week), plus I am sure they get council tax exemption and numerous other benefits.
No wonder he wanted to give up his job and nobody forced him to have four children. Personally I have zero sympathy for him, the reason they are in (apparent) poverty is the way they live and the fact they have no ambition to better themselves. They are quite happy to sit on their bum watching the full Sky package moaning about their situation.
Decorate the house for goodness sake, he could buy 10 litres of paint from B&Q for £12.
Quite ! - the world has gone mad (or at least the UK has). So before this cap he got £20k + (£340 * 12) = £24080 Which is £463.07 a week.
Don't forget this is tax free so is equivalent to a £30k a year salary (£457.32 a week), plus I am sure they get council tax exemption and numerous other benefits.
No wonder he wanted to give up his job and nobody forced him to have four children. Personally I have zero sympathy for him, the reason they are in (apparent) poverty is the way they live and the fact they have no ambition to better themselves. They are quite happy to sit on their bum watching the full Sky package moaning about their situation.
Decorate the house for goodness sake, he could buy 10 litres of paint from B&Q for £12.
Joey Deacon said:
The dad who gave up his job to look after his four children says he is losing £340 a month due to the £20k benefits cap.
So before this cap he got £20k + (£340 * 12) = £24080 Which is £463.07 a week.
Don't forget this is tax free so is equivalent to a £30k a year salary (£457.32 a week), plus I am sure they get council tax exemption and numerous other benefits.
No wonder he wanted to give up his job and nobody forced him to have four children. Personally I have zero sympathy for him, the reason they are in (apparent) poverty is the way they live and the fact they have no ambition to better themselves. They are quite happy to sit on their bum watching the full Sky package moaning about their situation.
Decorate the house for goodness sake, he could buy 10 litres of paint from B&Q for £12.
Not much else to say really,So before this cap he got £20k + (£340 * 12) = £24080 Which is £463.07 a week.
Don't forget this is tax free so is equivalent to a £30k a year salary (£457.32 a week), plus I am sure they get council tax exemption and numerous other benefits.
No wonder he wanted to give up his job and nobody forced him to have four children. Personally I have zero sympathy for him, the reason they are in (apparent) poverty is the way they live and the fact they have no ambition to better themselves. They are quite happy to sit on their bum watching the full Sky package moaning about their situation.
Decorate the house for goodness sake, he could buy 10 litres of paint from B&Q for £12.
except in his case we don't know if he lost his wife/partner or they split up,if they were together he may have carried on working and the wife/partner would probably be doing the child caring role?
I know a few people with 3-4 kids that earn just about that amount and carry on.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
When a CEO of a building Company can receive a bonus payment of £110 million and his co worker Board of directors receive life changing sums of money in a bonus payment, I cannot help but think something has gone very wrong in the values we consider important.
In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
Maybe the taxes paid on those bonuses will support the planned economic development in those poorer areas.In my opinion, our taxes are being wasted when we need to use them as a top up to low wages from employers.
Difficult to comment upon the examples used in the film clip, to understand the true situation only being in the life that these people find themselves. However, for decades the Northern sectors of England seem to have been unfairly disadvantaged through lack of central Governments forward thinking in terms of infrastructure and industry.
I'd be amazed if that £110m in bonuses even comes anywhere near 45% tax.
AB said:
CoupeTeddy said:
Not wishing to be harsh, but most of that money is in benefits and she has 4 children, I thought benefits were supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle. Am I completely wrong?
I'd question whether she should have 4 children. The poorest and those that take benefits as a lifestyle rather than a safety net breed the quickest. It's a recipe for disaster.oyster said:
Aren't they paid as shares though?
I'd be amazed if that £110m in bonuses even comes anywhere near 45% tax.
You think shares don’t get taxed? I'd be amazed if that £110m in bonuses even comes anywhere near 45% tax.
When I was in investment banking my bonuses paid in shares were basically taxed as income, locked in for a minimum 3 year period. I think that’s normal?
sidicks said:
For a start:
1. Focussing on the extremes, which can be volatile from year to year, isn’t helpful or meaningful
2. These people are the most mobile and hence it is much harder to actively target them on a sustainable basis
1. So how is focusing on one extreme and the median anymore helpful or meaningful?1. Focussing on the extremes, which can be volatile from year to year, isn’t helpful or meaningful
2. These people are the most mobile and hence it is much harder to actively target them on a sustainable basis
2. Target them? For what?
AB said:
CoupeTeddy said:
Not wishing to be harsh, but most of that money is in benefits and she has 4 children, I thought benefits were supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle. Am I completely wrong?
I'd question whether she should have 4 children. The poorest and those that take benefits as a lifestyle rather than a safety net breed the quickest. It's a recipe for disaster.oyster said:
AB said:
CoupeTeddy said:
Not wishing to be harsh, but most of that money is in benefits and she has 4 children, I thought benefits were supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle. Am I completely wrong?
I'd question whether she should have 4 children. The poorest and those that take benefits as a lifestyle rather than a safety net breed the quickest. It's a recipe for disaster.Door to door provident loans, car loans for long gone cars at 29.9% , credit cards at 34.9% APR, pay day loans this is the real issue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff