UK faces the highest inequality levels for 40 years

[CartesianFart]

So poor is not having a car or a TV? Aren't those luxuries?

More like neccessary survival to go from point a to point b for the former and the latter being something of a lower form of luxuries.

What about cable? Cigarettes? Booze? Internet? Computer?

Oh, those are Vices. It make poor people mad and crazy with their money for inorder to love being poor.

 

[skadistic]

If it cannot, I'd have no objections to calling that family poor. I

Ummmm you said right there that a family that can't afford a car or tv is poor. So no TV and car = poor. Luxuries are luxuries. If one can not afford them but can afford food and shelter they aren't poor. They just aren't rich enough to afford luxuries. Cigarettes, booze internet and computers are luxuries if people can't afford them they must be poor. But since those luxuries don't define poor no other luxury should either.


Poor is not being able to afford necessities not luxuries.

 

[skadistic]

More like neccessary survival to go from point a to point b for the former and the latter being something of a lower form of luxuries.

Public transportation? Walking? A car is not a necessity to get from point A to point B.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ummmm you said right there that a family that can't afford a car or tv is poor.

Yes, but I didn't say that a family that doesn't own a car is therefor poor.

So no TV and car = poor.

No car, no TV but 1 million on the bank = not poor.

Luxuries are luxuries. If one can not afford them but can afford food and shelter they aren't poor. They just aren't rich enough to afford luxuries. Cigarettes, booze internet and computers are luxuries if people can't afford them they must be poor. But since those luxuries don't define poor no other luxury should either.

They're not poor, they are simply not rich enough to afford luxuries. Right.

Poor is not being able to afford necessities not luxuries.

Actually.

poor (pr)
adj. poor·er, poor·est
1. Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poor

Public transportation? Walking? A car is not a necessity to get from point A to point B.

I see you're in favour of free public transport. Good

Walking .... *shakes head*

 

[CartesianFart]

Public transportation? Walking? A car is not a necessity to get from point A to point B.

In some places, public transportation is not available to some period of the day (such as midnight for the 3rd shift wage earners) or certain days of the week (weekends) and the car is the only means to go from a to b.

This is of course, only applicable to certain corridors in our vast country. Sucks to be whoever they are.

 

[C~G]

Public transportation? Walking? A car is not a necessity to get from point A to point B.

Read this first:

"Well you used to walk without any shoes. Now you've got shoes and a donkey to ride on. What are you whining about?" *drives off in gleaming ferrari*

Now consider that since middle class has started to drive cars public transport has decided to quit to drive certain routes. What poor person can do in that case in order to get into his job?

Car won't be in that case luxury for him but necessity.

You see, capitalism and progress have created logistic problem.

I would also imagine that very soon some form Internet access could be considered to be necessity rather than luxury. Main reason is that the amount of information shared through that and opportunities it offers cannot be missed.

IMO the idea isn't to give all people luxuries, neither it is just provide basic goods to hang on life. It is provide in form or another necessities to be able to keep up with the other people in order them to have opportunity to improve their current situation and offer incentives to really succeed in life. But that just my crazy talk.

 

[Atlas14]

Why cannot the person just move to the darn city where they don't have to use a car?

 

[Whomp]

What is the tax wedge in the UK for the poor? In the US those making less than $40,000 about 40% of the total population or 1/3 of those working paid no taxes and/or received ~$42 billion in tax credits that were paid out. This was primarily given to those under 35, unmarried women, part time workers.

Actually, the Bush administration proposed giving an additional $7500 personal exemption ($15,000 for married couples) and make health benefits taxable (paying pre tax is quite regressive) but Mr. Bush has zero political capital so it was shot down.

PS Ziggy 26% of this group has a wide screen tv.

 

[skadistic]

Yes, but I didn't say that a family that doesn't own a car is therefor poor.
No car, no TV but 1 million on the bank = not poor. Yes yes nice arguing the samantics try arguing the point.
They're not poor, they are simply not rich enough to afford luxuries. Right.
Actually.Actually nothing. Possesions are luxuries. So the deffinition falls lock step into what I said.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poor

I see you're in favour of free public transport. Good Who said free? I didn't. Public transportation is'nt expencive at all. It was it wouldn't be called public.

Walking .... *shakes head*

I know god forbid some one walk to their job. Or ride a bike or carpool. Oh the horror.

In some places, public transportation is not available to some period of the day (such as midnight for the 3rd shift wage earners) or certain days of the week (weekends) and the car is the only means to go from a to b.

This is of course, only applicable to certain corridors in our vast country. Sucks to be whoever they are.

Well if they can't get transportation maybe they should tailor their jobs to times where they can get a ride.

God forbid that people adjust to their surroundings instead of demanding that the surroundings adjust to them.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Why cannot the person just move to the darn city where they don't have to use a car?

Go study just how expensive owning/renting a hosue is in the UK at the moment.

 

[Atlas14]

Go study just how expensive owning/renting a hosue is in the UK at the moment.

So basically everyone should be relatively and statistically poor if owning/renting a house in the UK is so expensive. Or is this about costs of living, and not about whining about not being able to afford a car?

 

[CartesianFart]

Well if they can't get transportation maybe they should tailor their jobs to times where they can get a ride.

In order to do that, they have to have a job to support themselves inorder to change careers. And that is not easy if their circumstances hamper that process.

God forbid that people adjust to their surroundings instead of demanding that the surroundings adjust to them.

God- please forgive the people who are indifferent and shallow to other people circumstances who are incapabale of adjusting in their surroundings.

 

[ComradeDavo]

So basically everyone should be relatively and statistically poor if owning/renting a house in the UK is so expensive. Or is this about costs of living, and not about whining about not being able to afford a car?

You say why can't someone move to the city if they don't own a car? I say because if they can't afford to own a car then there's no chance they'd be able to afford to move!

 

[skadistic]

In order to do that, they have to have a job to support themselves inorder to change careers. And that is not easy if their circumstances hamper that process.

Or they could have started out working a feasible job that they could get to with what they have.

So I can I see a raise of hands of people who have actually been dirt poor (homeless with only a few changes of cloths) ? How about poor and changed jobs? Poor and worked hard not to be poor?

I love how people who don't know what it is to really be poor can be so sure about what it takes to not be poor any more.

 

[Atlas14]

You say why can't someone move to the city if they don't own a car? I say because if they can't afford to own a car then there's no chance they'd be able to afford to move!

It costs maybe $20 at the most to get a ride to the city. If you are talking about housing expenses, then I don't know what kind of crappy real-estate business they are dealing with, but they ought to be able to sell their house and buy a relatively similar piece of property/house in the city.

You don't move without selling your current property...

 

[ComradeDavo]

It costs maybe $20 at the most to get a ride to the city. If you are talking about housing expenses, then I don't know what kind of crappy real-estate business they are dealing with, but they ought to be able to sell their house and buy a relatively similar piece of property/house in the city.

You don't move without selling your current property...

Who says they own their current property? What about first time buyers? People still living with their parents? etc etc

 

[skadistic]

Who says they own their current property? What about first time buyers? People still living with their parents? etc etc

Well if they still live their parents that makes all the more easy. If they rent then unless they are under lease all the more easy. What about first time buyers? If you are buying a house you ain't poor.

 

[Atlas14]

Who says they own their current property? What about first time buyers? People still living with their parents? etc etc

Maybe I'm completely out of the loop, but I would have thought loans/mortgage would be an option. Even if they have to live in essential poverty for a a few years, it would not be completely off from the US. Not everyone is able to afford housing/living expenses right off the bat. Loans are necessary.

 

[Whomp]

I think the people in NYC are likely the few that can relate to the real estate plight of UKers limited space.

The poor in the US have a big advantage that way since they average 1200 sq. feet of living space and nearly half (depending on subprime) own their home. Half of Cook County (Chicago and some near suburbs) home sales were to immigrants over the last 5 years.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well if they still live their parents that makes all the more easy. If they rent then unless they are under lease all the more easy. What about first time buyers? If you are buying a house you ain't poor.

Look - firstly, it's really expensive for a first time buyer in the UK. Go do some gooelisng if you want to know more. It's also very expensive to rent...believe me I still live at home because I know I can't afford to move out with my current job, and not wanting to give that up at the momement and commit to anythign I have to stay at home.

Secondly there's the whole issue of high costs forcing people out of the place they've grown up.

Maybe I'm completely out of the loop, but I would have thought loans/mortgage would be an option. Even if they have to live in essential poverty for a a few years, it would not be completely off from the US. Not everyone is able to afford housing/living expenses right off the bat. Loans are necessary.

Do some googling on the level of British debt at current, then see why even mroe debt isn't a good idea.

Besides, no one should have to 'live on essential poverty'.