ForumGarden

Being poor is a relative thing dependent on where you live, even within the United States. Today, in the U.S., you can fall into the ranks of the poor and still have a wide screen TV, high speed internet, cable TV, a car, and a multitude of other goodies and be classified as poor. That's a bit different than being poor in the Sudan or many other third world countries. During the late 1940's I lived as a teenager with my mother in a 950 sq. ft. no bedroom apartment, no phone, no TV, ice box instead of a fridge, no car. Mom worked as a waitress and I always had a job for spending money. We never considered ourselves as being poor and neither did anyone else refer to us as being poor. There will always be people at the top of the income and wage scale and that is the way it should be in my opinion, as it provides incentive to many to improve their lot in life. Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.

Hello Lon, nice to see you still popping in after your *cough* post about being fatigued by the interplay here......or similar.......humour me.

I am of the same opinion, when they talk of 'poor' people in the UK.

Granted there are people who are not as well off as they would like to be, there are some that actually have to budget to be able to eat seven days a week, that doesn't make them 'Poor' in my opinion. Even now.......I have to consider where and when I spend money......just in case somebody who I am due to pay might not get what they are due......if what income I have is spent inappropriately.

Better we feed the starving worldwide before we grant High Definition TV to the poor in our own countries..........I am lacking High Definition TV....am I poor ?

Looking at :-

Poverty indicators - The Poverty Site

The "poverty line" used in the UK is :-



The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) British household income in that year. For a discussion of why this is the most commonly used threshold, see the page on choices of low-income thresholds. The latest year for which household income data is available is 2008/09. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: £119 per week for single adult with no dependent children; £206 per week for a couple with no dependent children; £202 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and £288 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment.




There is also an interesting discussion on the adjustments that would be needed to cater for those entering and exiting poverty which includes factors like material and financial reserves etc.

I'd suggest that the deduction should include an allowance for the cost of working - those amounts that MUST be paid in order to hold down any job(s) that provide the income being measured.

Using that measure :-



From the late Nineties onwards, however, poverty began to fall steadily, helped by policies such as big increases in national insurance benefits[19] and the introduction of the national minimum wage.[20] Using the 60% of median income after housing costs poverty line, the percentage of the British population living in poverty rose to 25.3% in 1996/97, compared with 13.7% in 1979. From 1997/98 to 2004/05 (using the same 60% of median income after housing costs measurement), the percentage of the population living in poverty fell from 24.4% to 20.5%. Poverty rose again from 2005/06 onwards, reaching 22.5% of the population in 2007/08, before falling again to 22.2% in 2008/09.[21]




There have been many months when my youngest would have loved to have £119 pw of disposable income - does that make her poor? Certainly "stretched" and "on a constrained budget" but I don't think she's ever considered herself "poor".

Counting everything you have to spend out on, do you think you could survive on the incomes listed?

Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane
Is this something you fear for the near future, or do you think this is happening now? If now, how & where do you see this occuring? In my lifetime (I think we are a generation apart), I have seen income redistribute Upward. I have seen the consolidation of wealth to the detriment of the average person.

"Most people tend to think of themselves as middle class unless they're (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett or really poor," said J.D. Foster, an economist and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Foster regards the upper 20 percent of earners as "upper income" and the lower 20 percent as "lower income." He regards the 60 percent in the middle as middle class, with household incomes roughly between $25,000 and $100,000.

Factbox: What is middle class in the United States? | Reuters



_________

Personally I think that our middle class is not the same middle class as our parents had.

I consider myself middle class. I drive a 97 olds - runs fine. I come out of the grocery store having bought enough to get me to payday. We haven't vacationed in 2 years.

But I am paying for my own health insurance and home, so I feel I am ahead of the game.



Not exactly the American dream I remember from when I was young.

I just cannot see how anyone in the UK can be considered living in poverty when judged on a worldwide scale of poverty.

There are some people at the bottom of the income league, but no one should be shoeless, hungry or lack shelter.

Using the same sort of relative poverty measuring stick many wealthy people might be lacking 'necessities' when held in comparison to other wealthy people.

Sure, there will always be the poor, and I agree that hard work, and cleverness should be rewarded.

I also believe that there are some basic ideas that need to be upheld.

Those who are wealthy owe it to those who enable them to be wealthy to give back and see that they have things like decent health care for their children, and food to feed them, and an opportunity to also work hard and be clever and, perhaps, work their way out of being poor, to one day, see their children or grandchildren become more than they ever dreamed of being.

People don't get wealthy all by themselves. they do so off the backs of those workers and the people who buy the commodities they provide.

They should willingly share their wealth and work to make life better for those around them.

I really don't think we are asking any more than that.

Bruv;1407889 wrote: I just cannot see how anyone in the UK can be considered living in poverty when judged on a worldwide scale of poverty.

There are some people at the bottom of the income league, but no one should be shoeless, hungry or lack shelter.

Using the same sort of relative poverty measuring stick many wealthy people might be lacking 'necessities' when held in comparison to other wealthy people.


There are definitely people living in the UK who cannot put sufficient food on the table which is my personal measure of poor.

Given the basic requirements of living - a roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your stomach - and given the stated definition of disposable income (with or without my suggested addition) there are people in the UK who cannot provide those basics. Would you say that they are not living in poverty?

I agree that there degree of poverty is probably less than that of, say, a landless family in Zimbabwe but I'd suggest that they are still in poverty.

I don't believe there are people who cannot, as you say 'put sufficient food on the table' in the UK.

There might be people lacking in how to fill stomachs on a budget, but that's an education problem.

Bruv;1407899 wrote: I don't believe there are people who cannot, as you say 'put sufficient food on the table' in the UK.

There might be people lacking in how to fill stomachs on a budget, but that's an education problem.


There are - but I'm not sure that, at this moment, I can prove it to you.

I would ask you though, if nearly a quarter of households are living below the income levels, given and from that income have to pay such things as gas and electricity bills (I note that these are not included in the deductions within the definition of disposable income even though heating is an essential and I also note that I'm currently paying over £30 pw which is considered to be below average) and travel to and from work, how much do you estimate that the lowest part of that thirteen million people would have left to pay the food bill even with no other spending?

Personally I think I could feed myself on four pounds a day / thirty pounds a week at a push - below that and it would be a health risk. I'm suggesting that there are many for whom the equation does not allow them even that amount.

AnneBoleyn;1407871 wrote: Is this something you fear for the near future, or do you think this is happening now? If now, how & where do you see this occuring? In my lifetime (I think we are a generation apart), I have seen income redistribute Upward. I have seen the consolidation of wealth to the detriment of the average person.
If you're going to set a standard of proof for someone, you really ought to at least attempt to meet it yourself.

How & where have you "seen income redistribute Upward"?

It's incredible that you deny that the government doesn't practice income redistribution. Isn't it true that (however rare) some people receive a tax refund check larger than the amount of income tax that was withheld? If I recall correctly, this happens with Head of Household or some other child care rebates (not having children of my own, I'm not well-versed).

Also, the federal gov't requires income (wealth) earned by every wage earner in America, in the form of income tax, specifically and expressly to redistribute to each state government, which in turn will redistribute it to those who qualify for benefits. Some states such as Texas send more than they get back, while other states (I would presume Louisiana, for example) profit from the practice.

Classic wealth redistribution.

Bryn Mawr;1407907 wrote: There are - but I'm not sure that, at this moment, I can prove it to you.

I would ask you though, if nearly a quarter of households are living below the income levels, given and from that income have to pay such things as gas and electricity bills (I note that these are not included in the deductions within the definition of disposable income even though heating is an essential and I also note that I'm currently paying over £30 pw which is considered to be below average) and travel to and from work, how much do you estimate that the lowest part of that thirteen million people would have left to pay the food bill even with no other spending?

Personally I think I could feed myself on four pounds a day / thirty pounds a week at a push - below that and it would be a health risk. I'm suggesting that there are many for whom the equation does not allow them even that amount.


That's what I have for shopping, £30 to £40 pounds per week, depending on the weather and whether I need an extra £10 to go towards heating. That's for myself on a celiac diet and three children, luckily the littlest is too little to need big portions!

I've become a master at making a large pack of mincemeat go round three meals :wah:

I've always said, "it's not so bad being poor if you've got cable."

That's said, it's not a good idea for the top 100 families in America to control 95% of all the wealth. When that happens, they get isolated and make decisions and laws concerning themselves to the detriment of the rest. Isolation breeds fear and distrust. don't believe me? See: The French Revolution

When the few have too much, and the many too little...heads will roll.

Saint_;1407916 wrote: I've always said, "it's not so bad being poor if you've got cable."

That's said, it's not a good idea for the top 100 families in America to control 95% of all the wealth. When that happens, they get isolated and make decisions and laws concerning themselves to the detriment of the rest. Isolation breeds fear and distrust. don't believe me? See: The French Revolution

When the few have too much, and the many too little...heads will roll.


Totally agree - that degree of inequality is unsustainable for any society.

Betty Boop;1407915 wrote: That's what I have for shopping, £30 to £40 pounds per week, depending on the weather and whether I need an extra £10 to go towards heating. That's for myself on a celiac diet and three children, luckily the littlest is too little to need big portions!

I've become a master at making a large pack of mincemeat go round three meals :wah:


My estimate of thirty pounds a week was for one adult, not a family

:-2 The top 100 families make laws??

Accountable;1407941 wrote: :-2 The top 100 families make laws??


Their corporations do.

The United States of ALEC

Congress people are invited to sift through over 800 bills pre-drafted by ALEC and all of which allow their corporations to make more money. The bills even have an index page sorting them by subject.

Accountable;1407941 wrote: :-2 The top 100 families make laws??


You didn't know that? You didn't think that controlling virtually ALL of a country's money and resources would give you the power to sway "elections" , or politicians? America is a plutocracy...everyone knows that.

Accountable;1407913 wrote: If you're going to set a standard of proof for someone, you really ought to at least attempt to meet it yourself.

How & where have you "seen income redistribute Upward"?

It's incredible that you deny that the government doesn't practice income redistribution. Isn't it true that (however rare) some people receive a tax refund check larger than the amount of income tax that was withheld? If I recall correctly, this happens with Head of Household or some other child care rebates (not having children of my own, I'm not well-versed).

Also, the federal gov't requires income (wealth) earned by every wage earner in America, in the form of income tax, specifically and expressly to redistribute to each state government, which in turn will redistribute it to those who qualify for benefits. Some states such as Texas send more than they get back, while other states (I would presume Louisiana, for example) profit from the practice.

Classic wealth redistribution.


I wasn't trying to set a standard of proof. I was having a conversation, trying to draw Lon out about his use of the term Income Redistribution, what exactly he meant. Not saying you shouldn't jump in, but conversing with Lon was primary on my mind. Yes, the Feds do indulge in what you describe, but it doesn't come near to the breaks the very wealthy receive. Sorry, but at this time I just wished to respond to you & can't give you links & quotes at the moment. Maybe someone else will oblige you. I especially liked what Saint had to say, of course he forgot quotes & links & gave his opinion which I consider worthy, as I do yours. Don't get me wrong, don't agree with you politically but you are worthy.

My proof is my life. When I was earning well under 10K a year I paid for my own apartment in Manhattan, my own everything. I saw Broadway plays when I wanted to, ate at classy restaurants, took cabs everywhere & flew off to England, etc whenever I damn well pleased. My rent was 25% of my salary as my parents taught me as a young child to always balance my personal books. I had no credit card, they were only just beginning in popularity & necessity back then. I didn't need one, paid cash. I left a $140. a month apartment in NYC in '79, in under 2 years that rent climbed to $1100. a month. It's been downhill ever since.

Fie, Fie, I fear I have dethroned myself in thine eye

Thou dost not seem as smitten with me as in our earlier historie :yh_brokeh

koan;1407943 wrote: Their corporations do.

The United States of ALEC

Congress people are invited to sift through over 800 bills pre-drafted by ALEC and all of which allow their corporations to make more money. The bills even have an index page sorting them by subject.Not denying ALEC (it's actually something I'd like to do more research on), but I always find it funny how these journalists try to lay everything at repubs' feet, as if dems came up with 2000+ pages of "healthcare" legislation at the drop of a hat without any such input. I swear Moyers et al are blind in their left eye. The stupid partisanship is what keeps allowing the abuse.

Accountable;1407971 wrote: Not denying ALEC (it's actually something I'd like to do more research on), but I always find it funny how these journalists try to lay everything at repubs' feet, as if dems came up with 2000+ pages of "healthcare" legislation at the drop of a hat without any such input. I swear Moyers et al are blind in their left eye. The stupid partisanship is what keeps allowing the abuse.


Corporate greed knows no bounds. I don't know how anyone can reasonably claim all corporations are owned by Republicans.

koan;1407975 wrote: Corporate greed knows no bounds. I don't know how anyone can reasonably claim all corporations are owned by Republicans.
Or that corporations only own Republican politicians.

Accountable;1407977 wrote: Or that corporations only own Republican politicians.


Exactly. Obama gets funding from Wall St and Walmart too. (Walmart just being a corporate example that seemed poetic)

koan;1407978 wrote: Exactly. Obama gets funding from Wall St and Walmart too. (Walmart just being a corporate example that seemed poetic)


Noticed my sig lately?

AnneBoleyn;1407871 wrote: Is this something you fear for the near future, or do you think this is happening now? If now, how & where do you see this occuring? In my lifetime (I think we are a generation apart), I have seen income redistribute Upward. I have seen the consolidation of wealth to the detriment of the average person.


I see nothing wrong with upward redistribution of income via the tax system and while this may disadvantage some, it does not create poor people, which was the main topic of my original post.

Since when did a large TV mean someone wasn't poor? so not only are you good with people being poor (because all capltalists need the poor to be poor and stop them from getting ahead because if they did there wouldn't be any poor to exploit)_ but you also have to have them dissassociated from the rest of society as well? I'm poor ....I've gone without food so the boys can eat but because there is a big screen TV in the lounge left over from my marital days I must be conning everyone right? And to be on a computer isn't poor? Well I'm sorry but to get a job these days or to transact you need a computer . I'ts not a luxury it's an essential now to be able to communicate. So are we talking poor? or disenfranchised?

fuzzywuzzy;1407990 wrote: Since when did a large TV mean someone wasn't poor? so not only are you good with people being poor (because all capltalists need the poor to be poor and stop them from getting ahead because if they did there wouldn't be any poor to exploit)_ but you also have to have them dissassociated from the rest of society as well? I'm poor ....I've gone without food so the boys can eat but because there is a big screen TV in the lounge left over from my marital days I must be conning everyone right? And to be on a computer isn't poor? Well I'm sorry but to get a job these days or to transact you need a computer . I'ts not a luxury it's an essential now to be able to communicate. So are we talking poor? or disenfranchised?


How about blaming your ex for your poorness instead of those horrible capitalists.

I've eaten some pretty funky stuff between paychecks, but I've never gone without unless I just couldn't stomach whatever my option ended up being.

fuzzywuzzy;1407990 wrote: Since when did a large TV mean someone wasn't poor? so not only are you good with people being poor (because all capltalists need the poor to be poor and stop them from getting ahead because if they did there wouldn't be any poor to exploit)_ but you also have to have them dissassociated from the rest of society as well? I'm poor ....I've gone without food so the boys can eat but because there is a big screen TV in the lounge left over from my marital days I must be conning everyone right? And to be on a computer isn't poor? Well I'm sorry but to get a job these days or to transact you need a computer . I'ts not a luxury it's an essential now to be able to communicate. So are we talking poor? or disenfranchised?


Actually...that was MY point. Most poor people save up their tiny pittance for years to afford something like a nice TV, seeing as how that will be their ONLY entertainment. That doesn't mean that they aren't undernourished, underinsured, with poor health, and little to no long term savings.

Lon;1408014 wrote: How about blaming your ex for your poorness instead of those horrible capitalists.


If things were equitable, wouldn't she have been able to get ahead on her own by now? She seems competent enough.

Saint_;1408020 wrote: Actually...that was MY point. Most poor people save up their tiny pittance for years to afford something like a nice TV, seeing as how that will be their ONLY entertainment. That doesn't mean that they aren't undernourished, underinsured, with poor health, and little to no long term savings.


Do you seriously believe that poor people save up for years to buy ANYTHING? You gotta be kidding.

Saint_;1408022 wrote: If things were equitable, wouldn't she have been able to get ahead on her own by now? She seems competent enough.


If things were equitable then her ex would be paying child support for her boys (maybe he is, but I doubt it).

Lon;1408028 wrote: Do you seriously believe that poor people save up for years to buy ANYTHING? You gotta be kidding.


Are you suggesting that all poor people buy whatever they want on credit or that no poor people buy anything?

I'd suggest that, whilst some people are poor because they buy on credit without regard to their ability to pay, many others cannot and do not buy any luxuries because they're too busy buying what they need to survive.

Bryn Mawr;1408036 wrote: Are you suggesting that all poor people buy whatever they want on credit or that no poor people buy anything?

I'd suggest that, whilst some people are poor because they buy on credit without regard to their ability to pay, many others cannot and do not buy any luxuries because they're too busy buying what they need to survive.


No, what I am saying is that most poor people do not save for anything. If they have the ability and means to save, then they are not truly poor. Also, if they have access to credit they are not poor.

Lon;1408037 wrote: No, what I am saying is that most poor people do not save for anything. If they have the ability and means to save, then they are not truly poor. Also, if they have access to credit they are not poor.


I'd agree with the first.

Over here the second is not really true but using that access is guaranteed to make you poor as the interest rates are crippling - firms *advertising* APR rates well above 1,000% and reports of rates over 1,000,000% being charged (£400 loan repaid after eleven days at a cost of £650 was the last example I saw).

Lon

Do you seriously believe that poor people save up for years to buy ANYTHING? You gotta be kidding. -And-

No, what I am saying is that most poor people do not save for anything. If they have the ability and means to save, then they are not truly poor. Also, if they have access to credit they are not poor.
I don't think you can say what most poor people do. Do you think being poor is a character flaw?

Lon;1408028 wrote: Do you seriously believe that poor people save up for years to buy ANYTHING? You gotta be kidding.


Why not? I'm poor and that's how I do it. There's $167 in my penny jar right now from the last two years.

But you're right, many of them go to rent-to-own places or title loan places and pay outrageous, userous fees to get something like that. Of course, many more were once able to afford those things before deregulation of Wall Street and Home Lending led to the Great Recession.

Oh...BTW Lon. You need to read a book by Ruby Paine Ph.D. called, "A Framework for Understanding Poverty."

It's a real eye-opener. She delineates "Situational Poverty" from "Generational Poverty" and explains many fascinating things such as why you will see kids from poor neighborhoods with grubby t-shirts, hand-me-down-jeans, but $200 sneakers!

Ruby Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty

People in poverty face challenges virtually unknown to those in middle class or wealth--challenges from both obvious and hidden sources. The reality of being poor brings out a survival mentality, and turns attention away from opportunities taken for granted by everyone else.

Saint_;1408058 wrote: People in poverty face challenges virtually unknown to those in middle class or wealth--challenges from both obvious and hidden sources. The reality of being poor brings out a survival mentality, and turns attention away from opportunities taken for granted by everyone else.
In my experience, often the biggest obstacle that people who try to break out of long-term poverty face is opposition from the very people that should be cheering them on. Friends, family, and neighbors accuse them of reaching beyond their station and predict failure. It's one thing for strangers to oppose you. That can be motivating. But to take on such a life-changing challenge without anyone else's support is incredibly draining. I see it almost every day at my school.

Yes AC, we see it everyday at school. It is sad. I feel sad for the kids everday when we let them out to play after lunch-we have a concrete slab, a grassy area and hill-where there is yuchy concrete slab covering a broken pipe. (and one girl broke her arm on it this year, rolling down the hill)

You would think a little of that moola could be spent to give them some activites they like and are safe-I gave them a football, they've used it for years. Always return it-threw it on the roof one lunch when I was doing something inside, they made the coach crawl up there to fetch it. They knew they wouldn't have one thing to play with if they lost it.

How can they understand how not to be poor, when the school itself is poor-the whole neighborhood knows it and throws their beer bottles there on the weekends and don't care about their own kids?

But like AC, we tell them that is not the way is can be, they can always do better. And I have seen it happen, several of my students have done quite well. And then there are the ones we cry about, when we see their faces on the news stories....

I'll be happier when poor people aren't:

Deemed lazy

Laughed at

Made to feel like they don't have worth or quality

Considered to not have a right to decent food and shelter/ or made to panic over being able to provide such for their children

Called burdens on society

Not made poor by race or gender

... I'm thinking there is more to this list but it's a good start.

koan;1408153 wrote: I'll be happier when poor people aren't:

Deemed lazy

Laughed at

Made to feel like they don't have worth or quality

Considered to not have a right to decent food and shelter/ or made to panic over being able to provide such for their children

Called burdens on society

Not made poor by race or gender

... I'm thinking there is more to this list but it's a good start.


I don't think most folks look at the truly poor that way. I do look at the 'poor' who are eating better than me, driving nicer cars than me, getting their doctors visits paid for by me when I can't pay for my own and wonder where we as a nation have gone wrong.



I blame the unions.:guitarist