poverty gap in the UK

.....

(edited 12 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Why is the emphasis always on the gap between rich and poor instead of quality of life of poor. I actually believe many social equality activists would be happier with a diminished quality of life for all as long as the disparity between classes are diminished as well. That would reflect a premise based in envy instead of humanity.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 2

Freiheit

Original post by lalala1

The gap between the rich and the poor is very high in the uk.

If you could change this, how would you?

It seems money is being spent on enriching education. Would education alone solve this? Do primary school teachers in particular, have an effect on changing young children's future aspirations and ambitions?

What are your views on this topic?

Better comprehensive schools, more grammar schools.

Reply 3

Steevee

Why is the gap a problem?

Surely the only concern is the quality of life of the poor, which is steadily improving in this country.

Reply 4

IB_19

Why are some people so obsessed with the apparent gap between the rich and the poor? I don't really see the problem as long as the poor have a somewhat decent standard of living.

Reply 5

lalala1

Original post by IB_19

Why are some people so obsessed with the apparent gap between the rich and the poor? I don't really see the problem as long as the poor have a somewhat decent standard of living.

well, I wouldn't call it an obsession. But what i'm trying to get at in this thread is the issues around children having low aspirations because they live in poor areas etc (this may not be the case for EVERY child) but I think that is the problem.

Reply 6

ForKicks

A lot of people in the UK have a fantastic quality of life in comparison to 3rd world and developing countries. It is just that people look to their neighbour and increase their perceived 'fundamental' needs and desires based on what the average person is getting. We could spend lots of money making things better, but there will never be full equality. Even if everyone is equal, tiny differences would get blow out to be 'unfair'.

Reply 7

ForKicks

Original post by lalala1

Poor aspirations stem from the family in most cases. Although those parents won't take kindly to being called 'bad parents'

Reply 8

Imayormaynotexist

It's not the gap between the rich and poor that is worrying, it's the gap between the poor and a decent standard of living.

Reply 9

ForKicks

Original post by Imayormaynotexist

It's not the gap between the rich and poor that is worrying, it's the gap between the poor and a decent standard of living.

What is a decent standard of living? :confused:

Reply 10

IB_19

Original post by lalala1

The main problem is the family they have been brought up in. A lack of wealth does not mean that a child should lack ambition. If a parent recognises that their child has potential, then that parent must do their best to improve their child's life - it's not the state's responsibility. Failing that, you have to ask why they are having children; surely it's unfair that they are bringing a life into the world that they have do not have the intention of looking after?

A first step would be making working seem more attractive. You should not be able to make more money on benefits than by working if you are able to. There is only so much the government can do to "redistribute wealth" and if it is not just a short term fix, it will turn into long term dependency and those traits will be carried on by the child, if they view it as normal.

Reply 11

Aequat omnes cinis

I hate the word poverty. Absolutely not one single person in the entire United Kingdom is in real absolute poverty. $1.25 a day is the international poverty line. Not one single person in the UK lives on less than that.

Relative poverty should not be an issue; as long as someone has the basic nessecities to survive, really anything above it is up to them to obtain. It doesnt matter a jot whether some people are rich. Unless you are going to be morally corrupt and suggest that you take their money by force, it is up to the rich to decide without pressure whether they are charitable.

As most others in this thread have mentioned, the quality of life for the poorest in society has only been improving. To improve it further, we need to reform welfare so that people do not languish on benefits, improve education standards so that everyone has the skills to be productive and promote economic growth so that the living standards of everyone rise. The World Bank agrees that the reduction in global poverty is largely due economic growth. Look at Africa, no growth, no increase in living standards. Reforming welfare, improving education and promoting growth are the central ways the UK can reduce relative poverty. They apply to all countries really, make sure it doesn't pay not to work, improve education and promote growth and rising living standards come with it.

Reply 12

MTR_10

Original post by Aequat omnes cinis

Relative poverty should not be an issue; as long as someone has the basic nessecities to survive, really anything above it is up to them to obtain. It doesnt matter a jot whether some people are rich. Unless you are going to be morally corrupt and suggest that you take their money by force, it is up to the rich to decide without pressure whether they are charitable.

Typical ignorant right wing view.

Reply 13

LipstickKisses

Original post by IB_19

Why are some people so obsessed with the apparent gap between the rich and the poor? I don't really see the problem as long as the poor have a somewhat decent standard of living.

Agree with this, example, if you had a country of millionaires with a few billionaires, the millionaires would be in 'relative poverty'. But would their quality of life be bad? Of course not. That's where the focus needs to be, not on the gap.

Reply 14

MTR_10

Original post by LipstickKisses

Then the average property price would be £100m + surely? and food prices would go through the roof...

Reply 15

Herr

Original post by lalala1

The gap between the rich and the poor is very high in the uk.

If you could change POVERTY in the uk, how would you?

It seems money is being spent on enriching education. Would education alone solve this? Do primary school teachers in particular, have an effect on changing young children's future aspirations and ambitions?

What are your views on this topic?

I rather the rich were richer regardless of the income disparity. There will always be income disparity in any society and it should not be viewed as a bad thing simply because there are poor people.

Reply 16

LipstickKisses

Original post by MTR_10

Then the average property price would be £100m + surely? and food prices would go through the roof...

Depends on the circumstances of the country and how they got to be so wealthy, whether it was purely down to inflation or something else.

Reply 17

Aconcernedparent

Original post by Steevee

Why is the gap a problem?

Surely the only concern is the quality of life of the poor, which is steadily improving in this country.

This.
People must also remember that there are different ways of defining poverty. In undeveloped countries you define poverty as living on less than $1 a day, which obviously wouldn't apply to the developed countries. However, in most Western countries there has been a certain limit to what one would define as a decent standard of living. But the EU changed this and wanted poverty to be defined as the distance your family has to the average standard of the country.
Take Norway as an example (as I did a thesis on it)- the health care and education is free and very accessible, the benefits for those unable to work are high and easy to receive and all in all, it's a great country to live in for those less fortune (and underachievers as well, I might add). The poverty in the country is basically non-existent, scientists have argued that there is practically no working class anymore. Michael Moore shot some of his scenes in Norway for a documentary to present the benefits of a social democracy, yet he said it would be useless to show Americans, as they simply would not believe it.
The Norwegian middle and upper middle class is huge, with a great standard of living. In the traditional sense of measuring poverty, Norway had almost none, measuring after EU's standards, they do. Because if there is a great distance from your family to one that is the national average - a salary of 40,000 pounds per person, then you are poor. Norway is not a member of the EU, but as we know EU rules have a way of applying to all, irregardless of whether you want to be part of it or not.

Gaps are not important. That way of thinking is based on envy and not necessity. This way of measuring poverty says that a person is poor if the other children at school have more than you. Although that is unfortunate, it is not poverty. And it is an insult to the actual poor, to say that it is.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 18

IB_19

Original post by LipstickKisses

Agreed, relative poverty is not a problem in the sense that the govt needs to do something about it.

Reply 19

Snagprophet

I could not give a flying if the gap between 'rich and poor' is huge. All I do care about is that everyone gets more money. I'd rather our poorest got more and there be a huge gap between them and the richest than a tiny gap and rich and poor being poorer. Wanting a small gap is just jealousy.