living in poverty

[JamesR123 0]

3 hours ago, Mister M said:

I suppose when I responded to this thread, I had in mind those thousands of people between 2012 and 2015 who died within a few weeks of being found fit work by the WCA process of the DWP. 

Over 1 million people have died this year across the world with a few weeks of putting on a pair of shoes.

 

That is a far bigger problem.

[Ms Macbeth 75]

This report suggests that although Relative poverty has increased since the beginning of the decade (which it will as the median rises), Absolute poverty has declined.   If anyone fancies a bit of a read: https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

[Cyclone 10]

5 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

Over 1 million people have died this year across the world with a few weeks of putting on a pair of shoes.

 

That is a far bigger problem.

Are you suggesting that shoes are killing people?  Is that something that the UK state is exacerbating, because if not then I'm not sure how it's relevant.

8 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

Not really. You are telling us from your experience about people in poverty, in very vague emotive terms.

It would be much more useful and convincing to quantify specifically how and why it happens.

I don't deny it exists. I want to understand how and why. Somebody mentioned earlier about uc and its role in poverty. Explaining details would help your cause.

That's been explained hasn't it.  The introduction of UC has been fraught with problems and often results in long delays to payments, 6 to 8 is common, but in the worst cases it's been measured in months, up to 8 I think.

Imagine that you're living on benefits, for whatever reason, disability, single mother with young child, unable to find work and have no assets.  And then the payments stop for 2 months.  You can see how that person is almost immediately reduced to poverty.

[Cyclone 10]

9 hours ago, Pettytom said:

But it doesn’t pay for their education. What actually happens is that most of that money is stolen from the taxpayer on the pretence that it will be repaid.  It ends up in the pockets of University senior managers who are paid incredible amounts of money for doing very little.

 

So, by your own admission, the dishonesty of the loan system is a barrier to working class kids

Whilst there may be a few highly paid university staff, there are of course very many more who need to be paid to teach, and there are large estates that need to be maintained in order to teach.

So in reality a tiny fraction goes to a few members of staff who you might argue are overpaid (although I'd hazard a guess that you know little about their jobs or what they do), the vast majority goes to the institution and a large portion of that is used to provide the education and so is paying for their education.

[Voice of reason 0]

32 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Are you suggesting that shoes are killing people?  Is that something that the UK state is exacerbating, because if not then I'm not sure how it's relevant.

That's been explained hasn't it.  The introduction of UC has been fraught with problems and often results in long delays to payments, 6 to 8 is common, but in the worst cases it's been measured in months, up to 8 I think.

Imagine that you're living on benefits, for whatever reason, disability, single mother with young child, unable to find work and have no assets.  And then the payments stop for 2 months.  You can see how that person is almost immediately reduced to poverty.

So, is the delay in getting uc the problem, or the level of uc?

[JamesR123 0]

59 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Are you suggesting that shoes are killing people?  Is that something that the UK state is exacerbating, because if not then I'm not sure how it's relevant.

I was using absurdity to convey the correlation/causation argument.

 

The handful (certainly not thousands) of incidents I have come across have been very complex.

 

One person commited suicide weeks after being told they were for for work.  However, it was their 6th suicide attempt, 5 of which were before the meeting.  So it wasn't the meeting that caused his death. 

 

Another guy died of malnutrition because he had no feed.  His family went on TV to attack the government, but didn't seem to find the time to take the man to Tesco.  If anyone I love starves to death, I have failed them, not the state.

[petemcewan 27]

Ms Macbeth,

 

Thanks for the link. It makes for very interesting reading-particularly the references to the  SMC.

[I1L2T3 10]

19 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

The first couple of lines are quite funny, were they written to be?.

 

As for the  comfortably off Pensioners, do you mean those who have worked for 50 years and paid into the system for all that time, and receive the magnificent amount of a maximum of £168 a week. £168 is the maximum, many will get much less. Take your rent, council tax, gas, electricity, water rates and FOOD from even the maximum  of £168, and be assured, there isn't much left to gorge yourself on. What a silly post you have written.

 

Angel1.

And if they continue to vote to destroy the economy that £168 a week is not guaranteed.

 

They will get this eventually, when it’s too late

[WiseOwl182 10]

15 hours ago, Mister M said:

The field is open for you to define it

No, the onus is on the OP. If you cite a report that refers to poverty, please define what poverty means, otherwise it's meaningless. To the royal family, I'd be considered as living in extreme poverty. To most of Sheffield, I'd be rich. Both can't be true. What is the definition?

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

30 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, the onus is on the OP. If you cite a report that refers to poverty, please define what poverty means, otherwise it's meaningless. To the royal family, I'd be considered as living in extreme poverty. To most of Sheffield, I'd be rich. Both can't be true. What is the definition?

That some folk have got too much brass. e.g. The Royal Family.

 

Angel1.

[Mister M 1,625]

13 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

Over 1 million people have died this year across the world with a few weeks of putting on a pair of shoes.

 

That is a far bigger problem.

That's right, though I took it that the subject of this thread was poverty in the UK. 

 

[ez8004 10]

19 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Indeed not. 

 

So so why put them £50k in debt?

It’s not a debt. Calling it as such just shows that you fundamentally do not understand how the system works. It is best described as a graduate tax. 

 

What debts do you know can ultimately be written off without paying any of it back and not affect your credit score?