Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Not to mention branding Mandela a terrorist...
    Mandela is a terrorist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    Sadly, this example is based on reality. I know these figures because I know this person.
    I suppose she walks 20 miles to work and back every day too :rolleyes:...

    (Original post by css88)
    You may be right, that if she didn't work she would be financially better off. As fullofsurprises said, however, housing benefit is often not as much as rent may actually cost.
    Whether it is or not in all circumstances is not the point. The point is, would SHE otherwise be entitled to full HB in her real actual ex council flat, were she unemployed? If not, how much would she get?

    You provided the example, and I'm trying to find out how much actually better off she would be if she was unemployed and on benefits.

    (Original post by css88)
    I wasn't making claims that the our welfare state is good/bad, I was making the point that poverty exists. I'm not arguing that it only exists amongst those classified as in 'relative poverty' by official statistics. On the contrary, I am saying that many people are vulnerable to poverty and that it does exist.
    In any case, I refer you to post #96, of this thread, second to last paragraph. In your quoted example, the solution is easily arrived at.

    (Original post by css88)
    This is the key point that I have tried to make - that not being able to feed oneself, heat ones home, clothe oneself, house oneself... is poverty. Some people in the UK find that one, or all, of these apply to them. Therefore, poverty, to whatever extent, does exist in this country. You may not personally feel that this is the case, but if an individual meets any or all of those criteria then they are definitionally in poverty. Even just in terms of dictionary definitions.
    We are just going back over ground I already responded to...

    (Original post by css88)
    I have never claimed to belong to any political party. I have never claimed to be Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat.. anything. In fact, I make it my business not to subscribe to any political party. The point I make about Cameron is that he isn't pushing a point, he's talking about British poverty in a casual sense because of the consensus that exists amongst most people that it exists. You are, in my view, quite out of the ordinary to make the claim that it does not. Maybe the term 'relative poverty' is useless because it isn't an accurate measurement and can include outliers. This still doesn't add up to poverty not existing and you still haven't addressed fuel poverty. Why? probably because its sound, agreed upon evidence. You backed yourself into a corner by making a very bold statement that is almost impossible to prove. I accept your points re: definitions/measurements but in no way, that poverty doesn't exist.
    Everyone knows that 'poverty' in Britain is relative. The British 'poor' of today do not starve, do not freeze, do not go without medical treatment – as truly poor people across the world undoubtedly still do. When Cameron talks of poverty, he, like you, means 'relative poverty'.

    Poverty is a myth and doesn't really exist in UK. The problem is when the politicians define the word 'poverty' by using a mathematical formulae that is plain nonsense, and also by using another word before 'poverty' e.g absolute, relative, child, fuel, etc to give different context and different meanings for political purposes. To me the word 'poverty' has one definition and remains the same worldwide.

    However this does not mean that there aren't vulnerable people in the UK who do need assistance to be provided by the state, whether temporarily or for their entire life.

    Benefits can be expected to cover necessities where that person has been assessed as being in need of benefits to provide for necessities, including housing, food, clothing, utilities etc.

    Compared to another person, you can still be relatively poorer in the UK (just as you can be relatively richer), as long as you aren't basing an assessment of whether you are or not on the completely ridiculous definition that hinges on national median income levels. Your quality of life is not based on what other people earn.

    (Original post by css88)
    We can, I think, agree to disagree on this issue but thanks for the debate in any case.
    Welcome, I've had great fun...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    You mean 30 year-old new information?
    The jokes on you, it's only until recently that we've started to understand what really happened. This debate is old and over, get a grip.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    And stillll you are trying to give me a maths lesson. Stop focusing on means, I know what it means! Pardon the pun and reply to my argument instead.
    Your sole argument is based on the allegation that 'relative poverty' is still a relevant benchmark for assessing poverty because:

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    if the mean income has increased, it might be that people will be better off. With median increase, this is not the case necessarily as you seemed to believe.
    Once again, of course it is not the case necessarily. But as I have demonstrated with the last example, the median has increased and people at the bottom are better off, so it is certainly possible.

    9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Median value 5, mean value 5. A contrived benchmark for comparing whether future examples increase or reduce relative poverty.

    20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 4, 3, 2, 1. Median value 12 mean value 10 - median value rises, but people below the median are still the same as before, yet relative poverty has increased without any change in income.

    4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1. Median value 3, mean value 3. Median value has fallen, those at the bottom are still earning the same, but apparently are better off because less are assessed as being in relative poverty.

    9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 4, 4, 4, 4. Median value 8, mean value 6.6. Median value has risen, but more are in relative poverty in spite of them earning much more than they were before.
    This covers all possible examples.

    The first example demonstrates how it is possible that the people at the bottom are no better or worse off, yet the median has risen.

    The second example demonstrates how it is possible that the people at the bottom are no better or worse off, yet the median has fallen.

    The third example demonstrates how it is possible that the people at the bottom are much better off, in spite of the median income having risen (putting more in relative poverty).

    All that matters where the proponents of the current definition of 'relative poverty' are concerned is that the median income has risen/fallen, so whether or not people at the bottom are better off or worse off is irrelevant, completely irrelevant.

    And I have aptly demonstrated that it is possible for incomes of people at the bottom to increase when the median falls, just as it is possible for incomes of people at the bottom to decrease when the median falls.

    Yet you assert that this is not possible, and people at the bottom can only be better off when we consider mean incomes, but not medians :confused:

    If you disagree that that is not what you meant, and that those at the bottom can be both better off and worse off regardless of where the median income line lies, then why are you continuing to object to my postings?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Your sole argument is based on the allegation that 'relative poverty' is still a relevant benchmark for assessing poverty because:



    Once again, of course it is not the case necessarily. But as I have demonstrated with this particular example, the median has increased and people at the bottom are better off, so it is certainly possible.



    This covers all possible examples.

    The first example demonstrates how it is possible that the people at the bottom are no better or worse off, yet the median has risen.

    The second example demonstrates how it is possible that the people at the bottom are no better or worse off, yet the median has fallen.

    The third example demonstrates how it is possible that the people at the bottom are much better off, in spite of the median income having risen (putting more in relative poverty).

    All that matters where the proponents of the current definition of 'relative poverty' are concerned is that the median income has risen/fallen, so whether or not people at the bottom are better off or worse off is irrelevant, completely irrelevant.

    And I have aptly demonstrated that it is possible for incomes at the bottom to increase when the median falls, just as it is possible for incomes at the bottom to decrease when the median falls.

    Yet you assert that this is not possible, and people at the bottom can only be better off when we consider mean incomes :confused:

    If you disagree that that is not what you meant, and that those at the bottom can be both better off and worse off regardless of where the median income line lies, then why are you continuing to object to my postings?
    You simply do not understand my simple point. As I said, it is possible that the median income rises and the bottom people become wealthier, but this was not the case during Thatcher. Of those below the MI, many were significantly below the average. They didn't become richer. Add to that the problems income inequality brings.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I never claimed that Hussein was convicted of anything else.
    Yes, you most certainly did.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    No, they are examples of other western nations like Britain with similar systems but smaller social gaps. The result? Less crime!
    Correlation does not equal causation. Clearly, since you like to ignore any country that doesn't fit the trend with arbitrary exclusion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karlito1978)
    No.
    Er, yes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    You simply do not understand my simple point. As I said, it is possible that the median income rises and the bottom people become wealthier, but this was not the case during Thatcher. Of those below the MI, many were significantly below the average. They didn't become richer. Add to that the problems income inequality brings.
    If it is possible that both the median income level rises and the people at the bottom to become wealthier, why does it mean that they poorer when this happens?

    Since you concede that it is possible for the median income to rise and those at the bottom become wealthier, why do you still assert that 'relative poverty' has any meaning whatsoever when the definition of 'relative poverty' says that they are poorer?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Where was her sense of diplomacy when it came to the Falklands? She said she does not negotiate with these kind of regimes, and indeed refused dialogue with the ANC.
    Of course they would help. People with your political philosophy are not opposing sanctions against Iran (or Iraq back then). I wonder the difference.

    **** sanctions.

    At best, infective.

    At worst, morally indefensible through the harm they cause.

    Bowing to a ****ed up regime that was not only posing a threat to our citizens but screwing its own, and 'negotiating', or engaging in a justified defensive war (that ultimately helped bring down said regime)?

    Okay.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If it is possible that both the median income level rises and the people at the bottom to become wealthier, why does it mean that they poorer when this happens?

    Since you concede that it is possible for the median income to rise and those at the bottom become wealthier, why do you still assert that 'relative poverty' has any meaning whatsoever when the definition of 'relative poverty' says that they are poorer?
    I'm saying that was the case under Thatcher. This debate is about Thatcher, not whether the term MI is valid or not.
    You have missed the whole point of my argument. Missed, or ignored it. Probably the latter.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by concubine)
    **** sanctions.

    At best, infective.

    At worst, morally indefensible through the harm they cause.

    Bowing to a ****ed up regime that was not only posing a threat to our citizens but screwing its own, and 'negotiating', or engaging in a justified defensive war (that ultimately helped bring down said regime)?

    Okay.
    She bowed down to the messed up regimes of Saddam and Pinochet
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I'm saying that was the case under Thatcher. This debate is about Thatcher, not whether the term MI is valid or not.
    You have missed the whole point of my argument. Missed, or ignored it. Probably the latter.
    Forget Thatcher. She has nothing to do with the definition of relative poverty. Several times in our discussion I have pointed out the fall in median income and drop in relative poverty which were observed in 2013. Nothing to do with Thatcher...

    So you don't object to me saying that the irony of 'relative poverty' is easily demonstrated?

    Because those at the bottom can be better off, but because the median has also risen, the fact that they have more money is ignored, they are now in 'relative poverty' when the weren't before, even though their incomes are less?

    That you 'don't see the irony'?

    Do you now?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I didn't say it's an excuse, but that is reality.
    I was just making sure everyone's clear on that.
    we also need a more tougher more effective justice system
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    Under Thatcher, the rich became richer, and the poor became richer. She answers this criticism better than I ever could in her last ever Commons Speech:
    It is almost inevitable that if you have economic growth over 10 years that standards of living for the poor will increase if you measure it by income. Hell even the richest lords and kings 150 years ago were "poorer" than the poor today. They had no TV, no planes, no cars, no cinema no smart phones, etc.

    Human beings are relative beings and increasing inequality is not a good thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karlito1978)
    Your flippant post doesn't hide or refute the fact that it was a war crime and dozens of mothers are now without their sons and dozens of children grew up without a dad.
    But surely those people would have been prepared ti do the same to British soldiers or a British ship if they had the chance

    Isn't the saying in war :"kill or be killed"?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Well 47 or 45, really, you either count Q2 1979 and Q4 1990 or you count neither.
    The first budget under Thatcher wasn't even announced until mid-June. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest she had an effect on Q2 1979. And by the same token I'd assume Major as PM couldn't have had much influence on Q4 1990.

    The figures I've given are quarterly GDP figures and their growth, as released by the ONS.
    And mine were the annual figures, that's the difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    One of the myths about Thatcher is that she was a social conservative.

    On some issues, perhaps, but she was also the first and only Prime Minister to have a science degree and this is reflected in the needle exchange programme she introduced:

    http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2...irs-other-war/

    http://www.govyou.co.uk/thatchers-ne...revolutionary/

    There is a 1% HIV rate amongst heroin users in the UK, it's 60% in Russia where needle exchange is thought to "promote" drug use (sigh).

    I consider myself to be politically liberal (a better categorisation that "left-wing" which I would argue is often very illiberal) and am not a Thatcher advocate at all but heroin addicts and those with HIV could literally be the most vulnerable people in our society and Margaret Thatcher did more to help this group than anyone before or after.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldie_2013)
    One of the myths about Thatcher is that she was a social conservative.

    On some issues, perhaps, but she was also the first and only Prime Minister to have a science degree and this is reflected in the needle exchange programme she introduced:

    http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2...irs-other-war/

    http://www.govyou.co.uk/thatchers-ne...revolutionary/

    There is a 1% HIV rate amongst heroin users in the UK, it's 60% in Russia where needle exchange is thought to "promote" drug use (sigh).

    I consider myself to be politically liberal (a better categorisation that "left-wing" which I would argue is often very illiberal) and am not a Thatcher advocate at all but heroin addicts and those with HIV could literally be the most vulnerable people in our society and Margaret Thatcher did more to help this group than anyone before or after.
    It's also worth noting that she made a speech to the Royal Society as long ago as 1988 warning of the dangers of human-induced global warming and urging action on it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    My god this thread is an interesting read for sure.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And mine were the annual figures, that's the difference.
    Except your annual figures still don't correlate.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.