26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Redmike"Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01".
There are apparently about 13 million people living in poverty in the UK, according to oxfam. http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm
By this method 1 in 4 people are in poverty 😕
I prefer to use an absolute definition, since by the above method you can never eradicate poverty.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargSo what absolute definition do you prefer?
"Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01".
By this method 1 in 4 people are in poverty 😕
I prefer to use an absolute definition, since by the above method you can never eradicate poverty.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Redmikebut as they themselves say
There are apparently about 13 million people living in poverty in the UK, according to oxfam. http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm
"These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it."
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by aging blitzerI agree, and I'm not even attempting to defend the oxfam definition.
but as they themselves say
"These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it."
I'm really just trying to point out that it is a huge problem, but that there's no agreement on how to measure it.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Vargif Redmike has 100 gold Rolls Royces and you only have 10, he gets to call you a scrounger.
I'm not sure, but an absolute definition is surely better.
Otherwise we could all be sat here living like kings but I could be in poverty because I have less gold Rolls Royces than you.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargAlthough this seems more logical I'm not sure it is. Starvation is absolute but poverty IS relative. If you have a roof over your head and enough food in your belly but nothing else and yet live in a society where everyone else has all mod cons, champagne breakfasts and holiday in the Bahamas every second week then all the problems of poverty apply to you, even though you are fed well enough.
I'm not sure, but an absolute definition is surely better.
Otherwise we could all be sat here living like kings but I could be in poverty because I have less gold Rolls Royces than you.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by WheelyTrue enough, but then to what level should welfare fund someone?
Although this seems more logical I'm not sure it is. Starvation is absolute but poverty IS relative. If you have a roof over your head and enough food in your belly but nothing else and yet live in a society where everyone else has all mod cons, champagne breakfasts and holiday in the Bahamas every second week then all the problems of poverty apply to you, even though you are fed well enough.
To survival levels or to luxury lifestyle levels?
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargNot really - you'd need to have less than 60% of the median number of gold rolls royces.
I'm not sure, but an absolute definition is surely better.
Otherwise we could all be sat here living like kings but I could be in poverty because I have less gold Rolls Royces than you.
I think these kind of relative measures can help a bit, but they really only measure relative poverty.
There are, I think, UN measures of absolute poverty, based on dollars per day income, I think.
I guess it depends what you are trying to measure.
Relative poverty measures are useful if you are trying to establish to what extent people are being left behind, whatever the wealth of a particular country.
26 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by VargFYI
"Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01".
Total income is gross income plus tax credits.
Net income deducts National Insurance contributions and income tax from gross income.
Disposable income deducts National Insurance contributions, income tax, childcare costs and travel to work costs and takes account of deductions and additions which are potentially shared in different ways across families/benefit units/households (e.g. housing and maintenance payments)
OR:
Low income - the threshold generally adopted to define low income is 60 per cent of contemporary median equivalised household disposable income.
Equivalisation – in analysing the distribution of income, household disposable income is usually adjusted to take account of the size and composition of the household.
...
Still trying to find some actual numbers
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargFor me it is survival level. However, by survival, I don't mean hardship. There should be enough money for the odd luxury. However, I believe that's pretty much where the level is now.
True enough, but then to what level should welfare fund someone?
To survival levels or to luxury lifestyle levels?
I very much agree with you regarding minimum wage though. I think raising that goes a long way towards reducing unemployment.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by WheelyThis would be fine by me if the benefit was for a limited time.
For me it is survival level. However, by survival, I don't mean hardship. There should be enough money for the odd luxury. However, I believe that's pretty much where the level is now.
Practically everyone I see leaving the job centre lights up a fag on the way out.
To me, this is a luxury and shouldn't be funded by the tax payer, certainly not long term.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargIt's not a luxury if you are a smoker, particularly as people used to be encouraged to smoke. However, even if we do consider it a luxury and I were on benefit and my benefit money allowed me to feed myself, as a smoker, I might forego the odd meal to buy a packet of fags.
This would be fine by me if the benefit was for a limited time.
Practically everyone I see leaving the job centre lights up a fag on the way out.
To me, this is a luxury and shouldn't be funded by the tax payer, certainly not long term.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargExploiting the system is a problem in Australia, and if someone is caught doing this, the money they received in benefits becomes a debt which they have to pay off. I personally believe that anybody who scams in this way is a serious criminal, and should be persecuted for fraud and theft, and that substantial gaol time should not be out of the question. These people are scum, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Benefits should be reserved for those who truly need it.
As I understand it, the benefits/welfare systems are there to assist those who cannot help themselves for some reason.
In the case of disability benefits, people who are not able to work for some reason are assisted so that they do not end up destitute and starving (leave aside the "long term sick" with such ailments as depression, stress, "bad backs" and othe ...[text shortened]... fact that most of the ones addicted to drugs are contibuting to the local crime figures.
B.