Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance5 mins ago
Is Poverty A Necessary Evil?
30 Answers
Some say that poverty should be eradicated especially amongst children, which follows that the parents of said children should also be lifted out of poverty. So that means that everyone, whoever they are should have access to decent housing, warmth, food ,clothing etc. If that was the case, where is the incentive to go out to work? It is only the threat of poverty that can force some to get off their backsides and find work. I think it's an unrealistic dream that doesn't account for human nature.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Poverty" needs to be redefined (or at least it needs to revert to its original definition). I prefer the dictionary definition:
“…the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.”
However, the DWP’s definition of poverty is where “…income is below 60% of the median household income (after taxed and benefits)“. This is largely meanlingless as a definition of poverty. It is simply a measure of relative poorness. It just demonstrates that some people have less money than others. They always have and they always will. In recent years pay has increased at a faster rate than prices (although benefits have not risen so much). The majority of people are in work so this naturally increases the median household income. Regardless of how the poorest have fared, this automatically puts more people “in poverty”.
Many of the “poor” (and the latests buzzword “JAMs” – those “Just About Managing”) are not in poverty. Most of them have large flatscreen TVs, most , if not all, have a smartphone (which in many cases seems to take precedence over proper food), many run a car or two, most of their children have their own phones and tablets, many of them eat considerable amounts of fast or “convenience” food (i.e. they pay somebody else to cook for them). These people are not living in poverty. They can scarcely be said to have “…little or no money, goods, or means of support.” They simply don’t have as much money as some other people, but they still manage to scrape enough together to provide life’s essentials such as those I mentioned above.
The benefit “safety net” has become many people’s chosen way of life. It often does not alleviate poverty but encourages fecklessness and idleness. The biggest mistake of the many made by the Blair/Brown administration was Working Tax Credits. I know of at least three people who had full time, reasonably paid jobs but, when they discovered they could work just half a week and have the taxpayer make up their wages to a full time equivalent, reduced the hours they worked. No enquiries are made of them as to why they now only work half a week. So proper poverty is a necessity but very few people in the UK suffer it. Until they do and they receive the encouragement to work a bit harder, the country’s debt will continue to rise.
“…the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.”
However, the DWP’s definition of poverty is where “…income is below 60% of the median household income (after taxed and benefits)“. This is largely meanlingless as a definition of poverty. It is simply a measure of relative poorness. It just demonstrates that some people have less money than others. They always have and they always will. In recent years pay has increased at a faster rate than prices (although benefits have not risen so much). The majority of people are in work so this naturally increases the median household income. Regardless of how the poorest have fared, this automatically puts more people “in poverty”.
Many of the “poor” (and the latests buzzword “JAMs” – those “Just About Managing”) are not in poverty. Most of them have large flatscreen TVs, most , if not all, have a smartphone (which in many cases seems to take precedence over proper food), many run a car or two, most of their children have their own phones and tablets, many of them eat considerable amounts of fast or “convenience” food (i.e. they pay somebody else to cook for them). These people are not living in poverty. They can scarcely be said to have “…little or no money, goods, or means of support.” They simply don’t have as much money as some other people, but they still manage to scrape enough together to provide life’s essentials such as those I mentioned above.
The benefit “safety net” has become many people’s chosen way of life. It often does not alleviate poverty but encourages fecklessness and idleness. The biggest mistake of the many made by the Blair/Brown administration was Working Tax Credits. I know of at least three people who had full time, reasonably paid jobs but, when they discovered they could work just half a week and have the taxpayer make up their wages to a full time equivalent, reduced the hours they worked. No enquiries are made of them as to why they now only work half a week. So proper poverty is a necessity but very few people in the UK suffer it. Until they do and they receive the encouragement to work a bit harder, the country’s debt will continue to rise.
Isn't it all about how you manage what resources you have? When I was teaching we all knew more or less what each other earned because we were paid on publically available scales but I still got a lot of grief because we went on relatively expensive holidays, in their eyes. We rarely ate out, ran a couple of fairly nondescript cars, kept out mortgage low by not constantly moving 'up' etc. to be able to afford the things we wanted. The same people lived month to month on their credit cards because they incurred so much debt on cars, expensive clothes, eating out nightly and yet I was the one criticised. Obviously none of us was not in poverty but the same principle applies, managing what you have. Our daughter who is a single mother is technically living in poverty but she manages her resources well and her daughter is well-fed and happy, others on the same benefits can't or won't manage.
It is entirely unrealistic, and impossible, to lift everybody out of poverty.
But let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that this lofty ideal was seriously attempted.
Firstly, what would be considered to be poverty? Would it be people having to live with an iPhone 4 rather than a 6 and they can only afford a KFC once a week, or would it be true poverty where they cannot afford to eat, do not have a roof over their heads, or where they do have a roof over their heads they cannot afford to heat it?
If the latter, I would be happy to support the idea (but see below) – if the former, I would not – although I suspect with our generous benefit system, and it is generous, that the latter is incredibly rare…if it exists at all.
This, of course, would need to be paid for, and without a single shadow of a doubt part of the way it would be paid for would be to squeeze the middle more than they are already being squeezed. I can only speak for myself, but I think I contribute more than enough to society – I’d even say I contribute more than my fair share. I, and for I read my wife and kids, are net users.
Let’s say I didn’t have personal pensions and when I retire I was reliant on the state. In what warped universe is it correct for somebody who has paid the maximum amount of NI contributions will receive a state pension not dissimilar to somebody who has paid zilch?
Sorry – I digressed. I don’t think it’s a necessary evil. But I do think it cannot be eliminated.
But let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that this lofty ideal was seriously attempted.
Firstly, what would be considered to be poverty? Would it be people having to live with an iPhone 4 rather than a 6 and they can only afford a KFC once a week, or would it be true poverty where they cannot afford to eat, do not have a roof over their heads, or where they do have a roof over their heads they cannot afford to heat it?
If the latter, I would be happy to support the idea (but see below) – if the former, I would not – although I suspect with our generous benefit system, and it is generous, that the latter is incredibly rare…if it exists at all.
This, of course, would need to be paid for, and without a single shadow of a doubt part of the way it would be paid for would be to squeeze the middle more than they are already being squeezed. I can only speak for myself, but I think I contribute more than enough to society – I’d even say I contribute more than my fair share. I, and for I read my wife and kids, are net users.
Let’s say I didn’t have personal pensions and when I retire I was reliant on the state. In what warped universe is it correct for somebody who has paid the maximum amount of NI contributions will receive a state pension not dissimilar to somebody who has paid zilch?
Sorry – I digressed. I don’t think it’s a necessary evil. But I do think it cannot be eliminated.
"In what warped universe is it correct for somebody who has paid the maximum amount of NI contributions will receive a state pension not dissimilar to somebody who has paid zilch? "
In the warped universe that is the UK, dd.
Currently people who have paid full NI contributions all their working lives (but "contracted out" and did not pay into "SERPS" or the many other guises that extra contributions were taken under) receive the basic State Pension and no more. Those who have never worked and paid in absolutely diddly-squat receive more because they are eligible for "Pension Credit" payments to take their income to a guaranteed minimum. They also become eligible for all manner of other services free of charge which the "rich" people have to pay for.
In the warped universe that is the UK, dd.
Currently people who have paid full NI contributions all their working lives (but "contracted out" and did not pay into "SERPS" or the many other guises that extra contributions were taken under) receive the basic State Pension and no more. Those who have never worked and paid in absolutely diddly-squat receive more because they are eligible for "Pension Credit" payments to take their income to a guaranteed minimum. They also become eligible for all manner of other services free of charge which the "rich" people have to pay for.
I agree with NJ that 'poverty' needs better definitions. Unless everyone earns exactly the same amount of money, the Government's 'percentage' definition means that there will always be some people classed as being in poverty even if we'd advanced to a stage where everyone owned a Lamborghini, half a dozen yachts and several mansions. (It would then be that those who didn't also own a private jet or two were classed as being 'in poverty').
The definitions used elsewhere also seem suspect to me. For example, reading a local newspaper in Kent I noticed that the local council's definition of a child living 'in poverty' included any child living in a home without central heating. By that definition, children living a stately home, with teams of servants keeping the blazing log fires roaring while the family eats the finest cuisine are officially 'in poverty'. (That doesn't mean that I don't recognise that their are families in Kent living in genuine poverty. I simply believe that the definition of 'poverty' used by Kent County Council is far too crude).
I'm not noted for my 'caring' nature on AB (largely because I haven't got much of one) but even I can recognise that there's probably something wrong with the system when a 12-year-old boy I taught (whose single parent mother struggled with mental health problems, making it hard for her to find work or budget properly with what little money she'd got) received just a pair of gloves from Poundland as his only Christmas present.
The definitions used elsewhere also seem suspect to me. For example, reading a local newspaper in Kent I noticed that the local council's definition of a child living 'in poverty' included any child living in a home without central heating. By that definition, children living a stately home, with teams of servants keeping the blazing log fires roaring while the family eats the finest cuisine are officially 'in poverty'. (That doesn't mean that I don't recognise that their are families in Kent living in genuine poverty. I simply believe that the definition of 'poverty' used by Kent County Council is far too crude).
I'm not noted for my 'caring' nature on AB (largely because I haven't got much of one) but even I can recognise that there's probably something wrong with the system when a 12-year-old boy I taught (whose single parent mother struggled with mental health problems, making it hard for her to find work or budget properly with what little money she'd got) received just a pair of gloves from Poundland as his only Christmas present.
Its interesting that because poverty has many different definitions, that allows some people to pretend it doesn't exist, or if it does, it must therefore be the persons fault.
I meet any people, on a weekly basis, who are living in what I would describe as poverty. Like the OAPs not being able to turn their heating on, and this is through no fault of their own.
I meet any people, on a weekly basis, who are living in what I would describe as poverty. Like the OAPs not being able to turn their heating on, and this is through no fault of their own.
Just caught your 1800 post, we all know from the time we leave full time education roughly when we will retire. If you don't plan for it and take the appropriate action there is no excuse for being underfunded. The only exceptions I see to this are those who for Medical reasons are unable to fund themselves.
New Judge , I have worked most of my life (age 16 to 59) and paid NI all that time, I have well over the minimum contributions needed to get the full state pension.
Now at 65 I get the full state pension plus £23 'Serps' and two small private pensions but I and my wife still qualify for £76 a week Pension Credit.
My state pension and two private pensions are still under the pension credit guarantee level so I get a 'top up' Your contention that only the those who have never worked and never paid in get Pension credit is completely wrong!
You need to look at the Pension Credit payment level for a couple!
I have worked out that I would need to bring home £350 a week after tax and deductions just to stay at the same income as Pension Credit !
You really need to look at the Pension credit rules and payment levels!
Now at 65 I get the full state pension plus £23 'Serps' and two small private pensions but I and my wife still qualify for £76 a week Pension Credit.
My state pension and two private pensions are still under the pension credit guarantee level so I get a 'top up' Your contention that only the those who have never worked and never paid in get Pension credit is completely wrong!
You need to look at the Pension Credit payment level for a couple!
I have worked out that I would need to bring home £350 a week after tax and deductions just to stay at the same income as Pension Credit !
You really need to look at the Pension credit rules and payment levels!
“My state pension and two private pensions are still under the pension credit guarantee level so I get a 'top up' Your contention that only the those who have never worked and never paid in get Pension credit is completely wrong!”
No that wasn’t my contention, Eddie and perhaps I did not explain myself too well. I didn’t say that only those who pay in nothing get the maximum out. I said that all those that pay in nothing get the maximum out. Others – like you – may also get top-ups but that was not my point.
Deskdiary asked “ In what warped universe is it correct for somebody who has paid the maximum amount of NI contributions will receive a state pension not dissimilar to somebody who has paid zilch?”
You are one of those who has paid in the full whack. But you get the same as somebody who has paid in nothing (well less, actually, because some of your income is made up of non—State pensions). So the circumstances that you are in proves prove my point precisely.
No that wasn’t my contention, Eddie and perhaps I did not explain myself too well. I didn’t say that only those who pay in nothing get the maximum out. I said that all those that pay in nothing get the maximum out. Others – like you – may also get top-ups but that was not my point.
Deskdiary asked “ In what warped universe is it correct for somebody who has paid the maximum amount of NI contributions will receive a state pension not dissimilar to somebody who has paid zilch?”
You are one of those who has paid in the full whack. But you get the same as somebody who has paid in nothing (well less, actually, because some of your income is made up of non—State pensions). So the circumstances that you are in proves prove my point precisely.
Latest Posts
Crosswords10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.