-Boomer-   10 #85 Posted May 15, 2015 It's an invented concept and a self fulfilling prophecy this "relative poverty" measurement. The only way to "cure" it, is to make the wealthier poorer.  It's socialism raising its ugly head again  And here are people thinking socialism is giving people the opportunity to raise themselves up in society and not drag the millionaires down, the latter of which try to keep the poor down Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
SteveJ68   10 #86 Posted May 15, 2015 It's an invented concept and a self fulfilling prophecy this "relative poverty" measurement. The only way to "cure" it, is to make the wealthier poorer.  It's socialism raising its ugly head again  It's not happened though as it? Since 1979 we've lived in a country whose governments have had an ideology that is steadfast in it's unshakeable belief that making the poor poorer and the rich richer makes both groups work harder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eric Arthur   10 #87 Posted May 15, 2015 And here are people thinking socialism is giving people the opportunity to raise themselves up in society and not drag the millionaires down, the latter of which try to keep the poor down  It's worth keeping you down as a very special case.  The truth is that social mobility has to work in two directions while ever there is a fixed point where measures are made. It's like squeezing a balloon. The current definition of poverty is an income of 60% of the national average. No matter what GDP does there will ALWAYS be people in poverty because it is a statistical certainty no matter how big the flat screen TV is in the lounge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #88 Posted May 15, 2015 It's not happened though as it? Since 1979 we've lived in a country whose governments have had an ideology that is steadfast in it's unshakeable belief that making the poor poorer and the rich richer makes both groups work harder.  But are the poor poorer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Berberis   10 #89 Posted May 15, 2015 What's real money?  Well real money as a real amount instead of as a percentage of mean salary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
SteveJ68 Â Â 10 #90 Posted May 15, 2015 Well real money as a real amount instead of as a percentage of mean salary. Â I don't get it, educate me! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #91 Posted May 16, 2015 And here are people thinking socialism is giving people the opportunity to raise themselves up in society and not drag the millionaires down, the latter of which try to keep the poor down  No. Why would they want that?  ---------- Post added 16-05-2015 at 07:32 ----------  It's not happened though as it? Since 1979 we've lived in a country whose governments have had an ideology that is steadfast in it's unshakeable belief that making the poor poorer and the rich richer makes both groups work harder.  No they haven't. The poor indeed virtually everyone, has become much wealthier in general. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bob Arctor   11 #92 Posted May 17, 2015 I'm sorry I haven't had time to read the whole thread. I refer to food banks sometimes as part of my job - as far as I know all food banks in Sheffield require someone to be referred to them, at least all the ones we use do.  When referring someone we have to make a judgement about whether someone is in genuine need or not. I'm sure it's not possible to get that right 100% of the time but I would never refer someone to a food bank just because they wanted it but didn't need it. To be honest, it's hard to imagine someone requesting a referral just for the sake of it anyway, the food you get isn't that great. The main reasons I would refer someone would be that they have had their JSA sanctioned (fairly or unfairly - both happen), have got to wait for benefits to start being paid, have had exceptional costs (e.g. been spending more on bus fares to visit someone in hospital) or overall debts. The latter is the most common in my experience - there are lots of people who owe their utility suppliers, Council Tax, rent, doorstep lenders and others and just can't make ends meet. We refer them to food banks while we help them get on top of their debts. There have been people who I have refused to refer to food banks because they have knowingly wasted their money on other things that they didn't need.  Lastly, re: addicts. In my lengthy professional experience, people are addicted for a wide variety of reasons. The most common in my experience are long-standing mental health problems for which people self-medicate with alcohol or other drugs, and childhood sexual abuse, the long-term effects of which people try to suppress with drugs or alcohol. Don't be too judgmental about addicts - I bet that a proportion of the sex abuse victims in Rotherham that everyone is rightly so sympathetic to will sadly end up addicted as a way of trying to cope with what's happened. And addicts still need to eat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...