When will indyref2 happen?

[Fide]

1 hour ago, madwullie said:

I'm no expert so happy to stand corrected, but is it not the case that not only is the  amount of money that we could save cracking down on those very rich who are able to be creative with taxes substantially more than "benefit cheats" but also that the amount of people who are actively trying to scam the system for a few hundred notes a week is a fair bit less than the public perception?

If so surely then it is a problem of proportionality, probably stemming from the reporting of these issues in the media, and the fact that "we" keep voting for parties who are happy to continue with things as is as it benefits them to do so. It probably ly doesn't help that clamping down on benefit cheats is quite an emotive issue and as a single issue could persuade people to vote for one party ovrr another, whereas clamping down on corporate fraud, no matter how much we want to see it is hardly an issue to get your teeth stuck into and sway you on voting day

The war on the poor and disabled is entirely ideological.

As I posted elsewhere, the savings made from benefit sanctions, PIP assessments, and all the other attacks the poor and disabled is small change compared to the levels of tax evasion and avoidance that the Government umm and aah over.

As you note, the amount of benefit claimants fraudulently claiming is way below 1% of all benefits claimed.  It's almost an irrelevance.

But poor people don't vote Conservative, do they?

[pandarilla]

So glad to hear we don't have 'real' poverty here. Phew.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Oh come on, you must know the point being made here.

Relative terms chief, it's not difficult.

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

 

Oh come on, you must know the point being made here.

Relative terms chief, it's not difficult.

 

No.

Having actually f**k all and relatively f**k all is the same thing.

[Londonwell]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

 

Oh come on, you must know the point being made here.

Relative terms chief, it's not difficult.

 

Got to say I'm missing the point here as well then. It is an absolute fact that we have 'real' poverty in Scotland.

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

So glad to hear we don't have 'real' poverty here. Phew.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Pie and Bovril mobile app
 

Anyone who thinks that there are a significant number of people in Scotland who are underfed and undernourished isn't living in the real world.  Included in this arechildren who have no control over their circumstances and who shouldn't be used as pawns in a political game.

[pandarilla]

No.
Having actually f**k all and relatively f**k all is the same thing.

Got to say I'm missing the point here as well then. It is an absolute fact that we have 'real' poverty in Scotland.

Yes we have poverty. In many cases it is severe.

But the availability of food, shelter, and clean water is higher for people in this country than in the vast majority of countries in the world.

Would you rather be in the bottom 5% (in terms of income) of Britain or in parts of Africa, Asia, or south America?

[Londonwell]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

Yes we have poverty. In many cases it is severe.

But the availability of food, shelter, and clean water is higher for people in this country than in the vast majority of countries in the world.

Would you rather be in the bottom 5% (in terms of income) of Britain or in parts of Africa, Asia, or south America?

 

 

Just because other countries have larger poverty levels than Britain, doesn't take away from the fact that we have people living in acute poverty. The societal safeguards we have in place don't and can't account for everyone. 

Try telling the homeless guy living in a box in Glasgow that he should thank his lucky stars he wasn't born in Africa. Your point about poverty being relative, in context of Oaksoft's argument, is nonsense. 

[williemillersmoustache]

Don't like the idea of "Real" vs "Unreal" poverty and I don't think we can make a fair comparison between different extremes and acute levels of deprivation. 

An old yin choose between eating or heating their house, is little different to someone having to decide if they can risk walking miles for water or food in a developing (fucked) country IMO.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Don't like the idea of "Real" vs "Unreal" poverty and I don't think we can make a fair comparison between different extremes and acute

Economists tend to use the terms "relative" and "absolute" poverty.

I suggest we adopt these terms as well

[ayrmad]

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I have repeatedly said on this forum that both ends of the spectrum need tackling because they are breaking our country.

It really is astonishing how many of you only seem to be able to see problems at the rich end.

This is just nonsense espoused by those that fall for Westminster' diversionary tactics, strip away pensions,over-inflated housing benefits to landlords ,in work benefits that prop up poor paying companies etc and there's not really a huge amount to cut back on at the lower end unless we stop supporting the unemployed and disabled.

The MSM don't really give a f**k when a poor person loses a fiver a week but my god they don't half shout like f**k when somebody on a grand a week loses a fiver a week, like many other areas of life, those at the top and their cheerleaders condition the population to think as they want us to think.

[Baxter Parp]

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

Yes we have poverty. In many cases it is severe.

But the availability of food, shelter, and clean water is higher for people in this country than in the vast majority of countries in the world.

Would you rather be in the bottom 5% (in terms of income) of Britain or in parts of Africa, Asia, or south America?

 

 

You are absolutely correct in this assertion; but as a citizen of this country I refuse to accept that as ANY benchmark for ANY debate on standards of living in Scotland or the UK.

[mjw]

See when this race to the bottom is finished.
Who is going to get the blame for everything then?

[Fide]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

 

 

Yes we have poverty. In many cases it is severe.

But the availability of food, shelter, and clean water is higher for people in this country than in the vast majority of countries in the world.

Would you rather be in the bottom 5% (in terms of income) of Britain or in parts of Africa, Asia, or south America?

 

 

We should not be using every single other part of the world as a benchmark.

[Fide]

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Not an unreasonable point.

So how many people in Scotland fall under your definition of poverty?

Around a million? Thats the figures I read from the government.

Now how exactly are we supposed to afford to get all these people to the £19k suggested by the JRF?

We can divvy up all the pay rises you've missed out on over the years as younger, brighter people than yourself get selected for promotion ahead of you.  Hence your rage.

[Baxter Parp]

[Baxter Parp]

 

HTH

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Not an unreasonable point.

So how many people in Scotland fall under your definition of poverty?

Around a million? Thats the figures I read from the government.

Now how exactly are we supposed to afford to get all these people to the £19k suggested by the JRF?

Tax avoidance by corporations probably covers that.

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Tax avoidance by corporations probably covers that.

UK figures available here:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/FAQ1TaxGap.pdf

 

[Granny Danger]

We are a very rich country where the wealth is poorly distributed to the detriment of the whole society.

The whole tax avoidance/evasion debate becomes murkier where large corporations are concerned.  There are certain practices that are regarded as avoidance (legal) that should not be legal.  Amazon has been an example of this and still is.