Why do we hate the poor?

Studies have shown that in the post-Thatcher era, support for the poorest in society has dwindled to the extent that we are blaming the poor for their own poverty. We are currently the third-least sympathetic nation in Europe for our poor, with a majority of the population in favour of lowering the benefit cap. Support for wealth redistribution has also declined significantly, except for cases when it is universal, such as the NHS and education.

There is a huge distinction between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor as well - around 80% of people are in support of a pensions increase, yet only 7% feel that the same should apply to the underemployed.

What I'd like to ask is why has the plight of the poor become pathologised, particularly when inequality is increasing?

Reply 1

Rakas21

21

Original post by St. Brynjar

Studies have shown that in the post-Thatcher era, support for the poorest in society has dwindled to the extent that we are blaming the poor for their own poverty. We are currently the third-least sympathetic nation in Europe for our poor, with a majority of the population in favour of lowering the benefit cap. Support for wealth redistribution has also declined significantly, except for cases when it is universal, such as the NHS and education.

There is a huge distinction between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor as well - around 80% of people are in support of a pensions increase, yet only 7% feel that the same should apply to the underemployed.

What I'd like to ask is why has the plight of the poor become pathologised, particularly when inequality is increasing?

Your example of the benefit cap is why i don't really agree, people earning more than £20k per year are not poor.

Reply 2

Chlorophile

20

I think part of the blame is thanks to the media's (or probably more accurately, the tabloids') "Benefits Scroungers" shaming where they give the impression that everyone on benefits is somehow trying to exploit the system. Obviously, those who do exploit it get a lot more attention than those who don't (and of course, if it's immigrants who are doing the exploiting, that's even better because people love blaming immigrants for their problems) so I think people casually start to assume that this is the norm.

I think it's possibly a cultural thing. This may be grossly wrong, but I do think that people tend to be a lot more 'selfish' in Britain than in, for instance, Scandinavia. Lots of people here still don't really accept the idea of social responsibility.

And obviously, people are very happy to complain about things until it actually requires sacrifice. It's the same thing with the environment - lots of people know that we need to be more eco-friendly but this will suddenly dissolves when they realise that renewable investment means higher energy bills and more taxes. I'm sure people would love to lift the poor out of poverty, but that would require admitting that it's our fault and not theirs (which lots of people wouldn't want to do) and it would require lots of investment (which again, lots of people don't want).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3

MASTER265

As the poor hate anyone else with more money than them, surely people have the right to hate the poor. I am relatively poor btw but too often I see people in my area hating on people with money because of absolute jealousy.

Reply 4

St. Brynjar

OP

18

Original post by Rakas21

Your example of the benefit cap is why i don't really agree, people earning more than £20k per year are not poor.

But that doesn't explain why those who genuinely are unable to meet the standards generally accepted as normal are (incoming buzzterm) socially excluded? The stigmatization of the poorest vastly outweighs that of companies that avoid corporation tax like Starbucks, and even bankers aren't given such a hard ride.

Reply 5

Rebel_Chick

"We" don't hate anyone. But when someone is poor or has no money it might threaten those who are not, their property, their value, their security. That is for classism. Elitism is not wanting anyone who is not wealthy or affluent around you, and that is just bias. Pretentious is if you're not even affluent yourself and you look down on those who aren't. Then there is racism, the idea that a race is generally poor and inferior and being around them will jeopardise someone's reputation or status. As far as social reasons, being poor is just unattractive to some people because they might smell or might not be smart or might be criminals. This is the idea of people who hate the poor and I would know because I'm not rich.

Reply 6

EllieC130

15

Because a couple of cheating ***** ruin it for everyone and older people seem to appreciate what they damn well get.

Reply 7

Per

12

The poor hate the poor. Working class people in jobs resent unemployed working class people for doing nothing and still getting by while they work themselves to the bone in a monotonous job all week for a tiny bit extra money, and those who are unemployed resent those privileged enough to have jobs. The upper classes are more or less indifferent and whatever opinion they may have is probably invalid as they likely have absolutely no idea what it's like to be working class, and they may be shocked to learn that the poor aren't the sole source of all evil in the world.

Reply 8

Weeble33

8

Original post by St. Brynjar

What I want to know is why we seem okay with greater inequality. Indifference? The media? A shift towards more conservative attitudes in the UK?

Because of the right-wing ideology of blame that saturates the media. The poor are seen as being to blame for their poverty (which isn't true for most poor people). The rich are seen as hard working and deserving of their money (whereas a lot of them inherited it and got given loads of other advantages). The media use unrepresentative cases to try to show this e.g. a mum on benefits with loads of children, vs. a self-made rich man. The poor are portrayed as lazy scroungers and the rich are portrayed as hard working. Whereas in reality, most rich people were born rich and most poor people were born poor.

I worked in a factory for a while. The majority of people were on minimum wage. They worked all day, plus overtime into the evenings, plus Saturdays, just to try and pay rent and feed their families. They were incredibly hard working but they were stuck - they couldn't find better paid jobs and they couldn't get qualifications as they didn't have the time or money for college. In comparison, the managing director rocked up at 11am in his Jaguar, sat in an office drinking tea, had a meeting, and left by 3pm.

Reply 9

Weeble33

8

Original post by Rakas21

Your example of the benefit cap is why i don't really agree, people earning more than £20k per year are not poor.

They are if they have rent to pay, and kids to feed and are the only earner. Let's say someone earns £21k a year. After tax and NI, they'll be getting about £17000. In my area, rent on a crappy 2 bedroom flat in a rubbish area is about £1000 a month = £12000 a year. That leaves them £5000 a year (£417 a month) for bills (gas, electricity, phone, contents insurance, water, council tax etc), food, travel, clothing, toiletries for them and their family. That's bugger all.

Reply 10

zippity.doodah

3

I don't think people hate the poor for being poor like they do towards the rich, they hate the system which accommodates idleness that is open to exploitation, which is obviously why people want the benefits system capped so that it can't be so misused in often easy manners - people don't easily trust others with the benefits system because not only is it funded through their tax pounds but it is going towards strangers they've never met or experienced before, which, if you think about it, would never be done if they had any choice in terms of where their money is actually going (e.g. without a welfare state)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 11

Clip

19

Original post by St. Brynjar

But that doesn't explain why those who genuinely are unable to meet the standards generally accepted as normal are (incoming buzzterm) socially excluded? The stigmatization of the poorest vastly outweighs that of companies that avoid corporation tax like Starbucks, and even bankers aren't given such a hard ride.

In what way are Starbucks the bad guys here?

Starbucks employ people, create wealth and pay a huge amount of tax and NI. Ok, they do their best to not pay the maximum tax possible - but that is known as "not being stupid".

Do you try and pay the maximum possible level of taxation?

People on benefits (and this is by no means a criticism) do not pay any taxes except consumption tax like VAT. Not only that, they take out of the system.

So in your mind, Starbucks are bad for providing jobs and paying tax, worse than people on benefits who spend taxes and don't have jobs.

Reply 12

Soph31

7

One word: benefits! I go to one of the most expensive schools in the country and I'm not gonna lie the elitist's despise the poor because they take taxes and often recieve too much. Benefits should pull people just over the poverty line and then more poor people would be inclined to work which creates a better economy and a better view of the poor!

Divide and rule.

Original post by Clip

In what way are Starbucks the bad guys here?

Starbucks employ people, create wealth and pay a huge amount of tax and NI. Ok, they do their best to not pay the maximum tax possible - but that is known as "not being stupid".

Do you try and pay the maximum possible level of taxation?

People on benefits (and this is by no means a criticism) do not pay any taxes except consumption tax like VAT. Not only that, they take out of the system.

So in your mind, Starbucks are bad for providing jobs and paying tax, worse than people on benefits who spend taxes and don't have jobs.

People on benefits pay what the government intended them to, Starbucks do not.

Reply 15

the bear

20

poor people can have fun; they get round the joanna darn the booza and have a real old Cockney ding dong.

Reply 16

Zorgotron

6

Because the poor have been infected by this entitlement mentality where they honestly think the world owes them something. The truth is that rather than a helping hand in times of need, benefits are seen as rights they're entitled to. The poor (and lets face it, the majority of people) despair at self-reliance and actually having to work for a living, because they've become so dependent on government.

They're constantly told that their plight is not their fault, that's it's out of their hands and nothing they do will ever make a difference. This situation is often blamed on the rich and successful - people, who've actually done something of themselves. The blame is bared collectively, it's presumed that if you're rich, then you don't deserve it or you got it freely without any effort.

The truth of the matter is that very few people are poor because of legitimate reasons. In this day and age, with so many resources at hand, it's possible for everyone to live a comfortable middle-class life and for the especially talented a wealthy life. Their work ethic sucks, their priorities are screwed and best of all, they blame everyone else but themselves.

Look, I'm all for charity, but only for the people who at least sincerely try to help themselves. Those who take their benefits and then go to the nearest store to load up their cart with junk food and beer and then hit the strip clubs - let them rot.

Reply 17

Weeble33

8

Original post by Soph31

One word: benefits! I go to one of the most expensive schools in the country and I'm not gonna lie the elitist's despise the poor because they take taxes and often recieve too much. Benefits should pull people just over the poverty line and then more poor people would be inclined to work which creates a better economy and a better view of the poor!

Actually, the majority of people on benefits do work, but they earn too little to live on. Only a very small % of benefits goes to unemployed people.

You're also making the assumption that people on benefits can work - what about those who are disabled? What about those who can't find a job? There aren't jobs for everyone you know. Recently there was a new McDonald's that opened and about thousands applied your just 50 jobs. You're assuming that those on benefits aren't bothering to work, which is not the case at all.

And as for them receiving too much - do you know how much most people get in benefits? Jobseeker's allowance is only £50 a week for under 25s and £70 a week for over 25s. That doesn't pull anyone over the poverty line. According to your argument that benefits should just pull people over the poverty line, then most people on benefits should actually get an increase.

Seeing as you go to one of the most expensive schools in the country, I doubt that you know many poor people. So where does your view of the poor come from? The media?
Go and do a minimum wage job whilst trying to support a family and then see if you still have the same views that you have now.

Reply 18

Clip

19

Original post by n00

People on benefits pay what the government intended them to, Starbucks do not.

Yes they do. They pay what is legally permitted. Just like everyone else.

The only people who intentionally pay the maximum possible level of taxation are idiots.

Putting a certain amount of money in an ISA means you do not have to pay tax on. This is legally permissible, and what the government intended. It is a permissible tax avoidance scheme, yet millions of people do it.

I would also add that Starbucks probably pay £50-60m in VAT alone. Is that not enough for you?

Reply 19

n00

14

Original post by Clip

Yes they do. They pay what is legally permitted. Just like everyone else.

The only people who intentionally pay the maximum possible level of taxation are idiots.

Putting a certain amount of money in an ISA means you do not have to pay tax on. This is legally permissible, and what the government intended. It is a permissible tax avoidance scheme, yet millions of people do it.

Paying into an ISA is not tax avoidance, there is a big difference between using tax reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and trying to bend the rules to avoid tax.

Original post by Clip

I would also add that Starbucks probably pay £50-60m in VAT alone. Is that not enough for you?

No they don't, their customers do and no thats not enough, it gives them a hugely unfair advantage.