poverty gap in the UK

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.

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.

I would increase the gap if I could! - that is the gap between the un-employed and employed. People would soon try harder to find a job if it meant living of the absolute basics everyday.

I don't think you quite understand what you're suggesting, do you really want a small group of rich people holding the vast majority of a country's capital and cash? Are you sure? I don't mind people saying low taxes for rich people etc. I have no beef with that, but some of the things being said on this thread is actually disturbing, there's just no economic or social thinking there.

What a ridiculous comment. You really think a society would operate well if all people cared about was getting people to come out of absolute poverty? Relative poverty and social mobility are the most important indicators as to how healthy a society is, that's a fact of life. If the top 1% holds up to 30-40% of a country's income, things will not go down well. There needs to be a thriving middle class. It doesn't matter what economic principles you hold dear, a society will become destructive if it has no/small middle class.

The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations.

I have no sympathy for so-called 'poor' people in rich countries. It all comes down to bad choices made at some time in their lives. Ask them what they were doing when the nerdy kids they laughed at were doing their homework.

I have no sympathy for so-called 'poor' people in rich countries. It all comes down to bad choices made at some time in their lives. Ask them what they were doing when the nerdy kids they laughed at were doing their homework.

The fact is that the way child poverty is defined by a randomly chosen percentage of median income, there will always be child poverty unless the government implements some very extreme income redistribution.

Just to show how stupid the definition is, if Scotland were to become independent, the median income in the rest of the UK would rise and therefore the level of child poverty would rise with no change in living standard. If in a hypothetical 3rd world country the children are starving, but if the families are equally poor, then officially there is no child poverty.

I have no sympathy for so-called 'poor' people in rich countries. It all comes down to bad choices made at some time in their lives. Ask them what they were doing when the nerdy kids they laughed at were doing their homework.

What a ridiculous comment. You really think a society would operate well if all people cared about was getting people to come out of absolute poverty? Relative poverty and social mobility are the most important indicators as to how healthy a society is, that's a fact of life. If the top 1% holds up to 30-40% of a country's income, things will not go down well. There needs to be a thriving middle class. It doesn't matter what economic principles you hold dear, a society will become destructive if it has no/small middle class.

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

What a ridiculous comment. You really think a society would operate well if all people cared about was getting people to come out of absolute poverty? Relative poverty and social mobility are the most important indicators as to how healthy a society is, that's a fact of life. If the top 1% holds up to 30-40% of a country's income, things will not go down well. There needs to be a thriving middle class. It doesn't matter what economic principles you hold dear, a society will become destructive if it has no/small middle class.

Honestly.... how disconnected is TSR from the current world? Why are so many people on this thread suggesting that quality of life for the poor is "steadily improving"? The minimum wage has more or less flatlined since the recession, benefits have dropped and are continuing to drop, while rent, food and fuel prices soar. How can this even loosely be descibed as "steady improvement"?

The fact is that the way child poverty is defined by a randomly chosen percentage of median income, there will always be child poverty unless the government implements some very extreme income redistribution.

Just to show how stupid the definition is, if Scotland were to become independent, the median income in the rest of the UK would rise and therefore the level of child poverty would rise with no change in living standard. If in a hypothetical 3rd world country the children are starving, but if the families are equally poor, then officially there is no child poverty.

Typical bigoted brainiack who was likely bullied at school and now has a superior complex.

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.

I am saying that the concept of “human rights” is not relative. If we intend to operate from the premise that all people deserve a minimum standard based on necessity, then WHAT IS NECCESARY! The idea of relative poverty is the equivalent of saying, “tell me how much you have and I will tell you how much I need.” The size of someone else’s boat or plane does not change human requirements.

Social mobility is available in modern western society as it has never been available in any society before. That statement does not mean it is easy. That statement does not mean it is available to anyone who “works hard”. It means it is possible to those who have ability and who make the right choices. Failing that, you still get a guaranteed minimum human sustenance. That may not seem like much, but it is a damn site better than the previous standard.

Wealth is by definition an extraordinary possession of resources. That means wealth can only be possible if it is availability is limited. I want to be wealthy. I will be wealthy. When an attempt to reduce my wealth is made, I naturally want to know why. If the justification is that I don’t deserve it, then I would have to at least consider the reasoning. However, if the justification is that artery08 feels society would benefit from a smaller gap, then my response would probably be something like……..

“Tell that envious little douche bag to kiss the GAP between my balls and my arse!