|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 10:26:34 GMT
My stance, as said before, is that everybody should have a good basic standard of living. Those who wish to laze around end up with that basic standard. Those who work/study/are active, etc. get more. This seems to be the reasoning behind the basic universal income that keeps getting talked about and I believe is being trailed at the moment by four Scottish councils. The owners of the means of production are perhaps beginning to realise that it's okay having robotic factories run by ai turning out goods for a fraction of the price of human manufactured goods. But who is going to buy the products if two thirds of the worlds population are in poverty? By continuing to use this undefined word “poverty”, which I’m sure you do to be intentionally emotive and sensationalist, you reveal that you are just repeating a mantra you’ve heard elsewhere, and haven’t given it any of your own thought.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 10:31:54 GMT
100% of the people I know who live in finland are migrants taking homes from hard working finns. Something should be done. Pirkko was living in this house alone. And now there are two of us in this house. I'm not taking a home from any hard working Finn. As someone who gets out of bed at 0520 on weekdays to go to work and pay taxes, I see myself as a net contributor to Finnish society. The downside is that I send 75 litres/day diesel exhaust gases into the atmosphere + 15 litres of petrol fumes using our car to get to work. We also contribute handsomely towards the UK with all the money we send that way, in the form of our CRT licence, all the VAT we pay on almost everything in the UK, mooring fees, blacking costs, hull surveyor costs, BSS costs. We will die fairly skint, but we have a lot of happy experiences behind us, and memories and photos to remind us of it all.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 10:34:04 GMT
'Basic Universal Income' is just some old bollocky catchphrase to get people to think there's a Brighter Future ahead. The Future is NOW. And what have we got? Don't kid yourselves, that everything is going to get better. The Rich know who you are and what your position is in Their World.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 11, 2018 10:53:02 GMT
This seems to be the reasoning behind the basic universal income that keeps getting talked about and I believe is being trailed at the moment by four Scottish councils. The owners of the means of production are perhaps beginning to realise that it's okay having robotic factories run by ai turning out goods for a fraction of the price of human manufactured goods. But who is going to buy the products if two thirds of the worlds population are in poverty? By continuing to use this undefined word “poverty”, which I’m sure you do to be intentionally emotive and sensationalist, you reveal that you are just repeating a mantra you’ve heard elsewhere, and haven’t given it any of your own thought. Yes it a very old politicians trick to argue over the definition of the problem. Or maybe you think there is no problem with poverty in this country? This is the last link I'm going to provide to a definition of poverty fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/dont worry there aren't many words. Personally I don't want to live in a country where there is so much poverty intrinsic in the structure of society. But again I say maybe you think there isn't a problem?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 11, 2018 12:16:58 GMT
it is the difference between those barely surviving and the obscene wealth of some, that appalls and offends me. How can anyone be worth over £300,000 A WEEK
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 12:29:21 GMT
"Because I'm worth it."
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 14:45:32 GMT
By continuing to use this undefined word “poverty”, which I’m sure you do to be intentionally emotive and sensationalist, you reveal that you are just repeating a mantra you’ve heard elsewhere, and haven’t given it any of your own thought. Yes it a very old politicians trick to argue over the definition of the problem. Or maybe you think there is no problem with poverty in this country? This is the last link I'm going to provide to a definition of poverty fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/dont worry there aren't many words. Personally I don't want to live in a country where there is so much poverty intrinsic in the structure of society. But again I say maybe you think there isn't a problem? Yes I looked at that link already. It confirms my points about relative and absolute poverty. Good to see that despite the wailing and whining, both metrics are reducing over time.
As it says, poverty is a measure of people's abilities to do the normal things that most people do. Have a huge colour telly, central heating, a car, a smartphone per person, eat processed food and go on foreign holidays. So when I were a lad, we didn't have a colour telly, didn't have central heating, we didn't have a smartphone each, we didn't eat processed food and we never had a foreign holiday (we did admittedly have a car). Does that mean that in retrospect, we lived in poverty?
This is the thing about the emotive word, it is designed to make people wail and sob and say "Oh how awful" (whilst of course doing bugger all about it). The fact is that I don't live in poverty because I got off my arse and worked hard all my (working) life, and now live on the money I saved up. I am a net contributor to the state, big time. Does that make me a bad person? Can someone who has slobbed around all their lives living on benefits, smoking and drinking and injecting whatever spare cash they have, have a right to the same standard of living as me? I'd say not and if that means that by the definition of the silly emotive and slightly hysterical word, they live in "poverty" - which I think is an insult to people in this world who really do have nothing including fresh water, education and health care - then so be it. I find the silly hysterics quite irritating to be honest. You can wail on about it all you want, but since you do bugger all about it, it is just a lot of hot air and virtue signalling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 16:03:25 GMT
Yes it a very old politicians trick to argue over the definition of the problem. Or maybe you think there is no problem with poverty in this country? This is the last link I'm going to provide to a definition of poverty fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/dont worry there aren't many words. Personally I don't want to live in a country where there is so much poverty intrinsic in the structure of society. But again I say maybe you think there isn't a problem? Yes I looked at that link already. It confirms my points about relative and absolute poverty. Good to see that despite the wailing and whining, both metrics are reducing over time.
As it says, poverty is a measure of people's abilities to do the normal things that most people do. Have a huge colour telly, central heating, a car, a smartphone per person, eat processed food and go on foreign holidays. So when I were a lad, we didn't have a colour telly, didn't have central heating, we didn't have a smartphone each, we didn't eat processed food and we never had a foreign holiday (we did admittedly have a car). Does that mean that in retrospect, we lived in poverty?
This is the thing about the emotive word, it is designed to make people wail and sob and say "Oh how awful" (whilst of course doing bugger all about it). The fact is that I don't live in poverty because I got off my arse and worked hard all my (working) life, and now live on the money I saved up. I am a net contributor to the state, big time. Does that make me a bad person? Can someone who has slobbed around all their lives living on benefits, smoking and drinking and injecting whatever spare cash they have, have a right to the same standard of living as me? I'd say not and if that means that by the definition of the silly emotive and slightly hysterical word, they live in "poverty" - which I think is an insult to people in this world who really do have nothing including fresh water, education and health care - then so be it. I find the silly hysterics quite irritating to be honest. You can wail on about it all you want, but since you do bugger all about it, it is just a lot of hot air and virtue signalling.
Some might say that your view of poverty that relates to all of the world is very unrealistic as a measure of poverty in the UK. Things are more expensive here than in many places ( a CRT licence is more than an average annual income in some countries) and that your view puts down/aside the many difficulties that the poorest in the UK have just trying to house and feed themselves with a bit of dignity.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 16:35:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 16:36:00 GMT
Nick is right to be honest, until he wanders into insulting opponents territory.
Poverty is a relative term and impossible to define.
It is surely wrong to attack those who commit and work hard to improve their lot as 'haves' whilst sympathizing with those who merely sit back and hope for assistance as 'have nots'.
That said, it is only right and fair that we each assess our own situation, and seek to help others less fortunate.
Sadly, this is where some are prone to fall down.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 17:37:59 GMT
Nick is right to be honest, until he wanders into insulting opponents territory. Poverty is a relative term and impossible to define. .... I disagree on both these points.
Nick has failed to show recognition that absolute poverty is just as flawed as relative poverty.
It is important to try to define poverty to help show whether things are improving or not, a balanced mix of absolute and relative can provide this, therefore I don't believe poverty is impossible to define - it just needs an understanding of the measures and how you combine them (quite possible in my opinion if people would stop using the different ways to measure poverty to support 'their' cause).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 17:44:23 GMT
It is a difficult balancing act. On the one hand, yes as a civilised society we should help those unable to help themselves due to illness, old age, young age etc, and I’m glad we live in a country that spends my taxes on such things.
On the other hand, the more the State provides a safety net and the higher standard that net is, the less incentive there is to provide for oneself, take responsibility for oneself and family. Due to the nature of humans, it is untenable to raise the standard of living of those reliant on the state, to that of people prospering through their own diligence, because if that were the case an increasing number of people would be disincentivised to work and contribute. A society where everyone is a taker and no-one is a giver, can’t survive.
So yes a difficult balancing act and one that undoubtedly we haven’t yet come close to optimising. Really difficult to ensure that those who actually need help receive it, whilst those who simply can’t be bothered to get off the sofa, aren’t incentivised to continue that behaviour. However using emotive words like “poverty” without making any attempt to define what it means, is unhelpful and drama-queenery.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 17:47:43 GMT
Yes I looked at that link already. It confirms my points about relative and absolute poverty. Good to see that despite the wailing and whining, both metrics are reducing over time.
As it says, poverty is a measure of people's abilities to do the normal things that most people do. Have a huge colour telly, central heating, a car, a smartphone per person, eat processed food and go on foreign holidays. So when I were a lad, we didn't have a colour telly, didn't have central heating, we didn't have a smartphone each, we didn't eat processed food and we never had a foreign holiday (we did admittedly have a car). Does that mean that in retrospect, we lived in poverty?
This is the thing about the emotive word, it is designed to make people wail and sob and say "Oh how awful" (whilst of course doing bugger all about it). The fact is that I don't live in poverty because I got off my arse and worked hard all my (working) life, and now live on the money I saved up. I am a net contributor to the state, big time. Does that make me a bad person? Can someone who has slobbed around all their lives living on benefits, smoking and drinking and injecting whatever spare cash they have, have a right to the same standard of living as me? I'd say not and if that means that by the definition of the silly emotive and slightly hysterical word, they live in "poverty" - which I think is an insult to people in this world who really do have nothing including fresh water, education and health care - then so be it. I find the silly hysterics quite irritating to be honest. You can wail on about it all you want, but since you do bugger all about it, it is just a lot of hot air and virtue signalling.
Some might say that your view of poverty that relates to all of the world is very unrealistic as a measure of poverty in the UK. Things are more expensive here than in many places ( a CRT licence is more than an average annual income in some countries) and that your view puts down/aside the many difficulties that the poorest in the UK have just trying to house and feed themselves with a bit of dignity. I’m not sure that a valid measure of poverty is whether you can afford a CRT licence or not!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 18:26:05 GMT
Due to the nature of humans, it is untenable to raise the standard of living of those reliant on the state, to that of people prospering through their own diligence, because if that were the case an increasing number of people would be disincentivised to work and contribute. This is why 'Communism' is never going to work. Why study and work hard if all of the fruits of your labours just gets taken away from you and dished out to the lazy sods camped outside Greggs the bakers? But to maintain sensibilities, giving a good basic starting-point standard of living for everyone means control and rules - and we have seen here how well rules go down with a photo competition! Humans will take the piss as soon as any scheme to help them is set up - there will always be a black market, blackmail, protection rackets, prostitution and all kinds of other corruption. I still advocate a good 'security net', but after that it's dog-eat-dog and let the struggle to get to the top commence! Socialism has brought to Europe decent railways, decent sanitation, drinking water, relatively safe streets, good working conditions, and a pretty high standard of education.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 11, 2018 21:15:29 GMT
"Poverty" is when you spend all day grubbing around on a rubbish dump in Brazil or wherever, hoping to find a bit of gristle that somebody spat out last week in order that your children might have something to chew on today.
|
|