We can’t go on pretending that poverty is solved by getting a job

[hehawhehaw]

7 minutes ago, jupe1407 said:

 

What the f**k is wrong with you?

 

There can only be one answer to that. "You're daft"

[banana]

47 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Absolute or relative?

However you want, both, either, in the context of 'We can't go on pretending that poverty is solved by getting a job'.

[Baxter Parp]

20 minutes ago, banana said:

However you want, both, either, in the context of 'We can't go on pretending that poverty is solved by getting a job'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom#How_poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom_is_defined_and_measured

[hehawhehaw]

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom#How_poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom_is_defined_and_measured

ffs here was me thinking we would be getting something Gene Roddenberryesque. but naw what do we get a wet fart with lumps in it.

 

[williemillersmoustache]

What the f**k is wrong with you?

At first glance, quite alot.

[sjc]

Does anyone have a sensible suggestion other than "taking from the rich to give to the poor" as that failed miserably in the 1970's.

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, sjc said:

Does anyone have a sensible suggestion other than "taking from the rich to give to the poor" as that failed miserably in the 1970's.

Did it?  How so?

[sjc]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Did it?  How so?

Yes. It ended with Thatcher. getting elected. Is that what you're proposing to solve poverty?

[Shades75]

31 minutes ago, sjc said:

Does anyone have a sensible suggestion other than "taking from the rich to give to the poor" as that failed miserably in the 1970's.

Essentially, there is no other way to end poverty.  We must recognise, firstly, that the poverty we might suffer in the UK is in no way the same as the crushing poverty of third world nations where survival, alone, is a very real goal.

Once we do that then it becomes a relative issue and is about a diminishing of wealth inequalities.  There is enough money, in our economy, for no-one to go hungry and for all to have basic shelter.  But, even more so, that the security of these necessities cannot be withheld.  That they'all always be there.

Beyond these issues we can then look at education, healthcare and stable employment.  All of which represent stability and opportunity.  There is, again, no fundamental reason why they cannot be available to all.

It does, however, take re-imaging of the goals of western societies.  Do they want individualism or a collective good?  I think we all know and can see how our societies are going so while we might get small concessions from time to time, the trend is only going in one direction.

For me, it really is an ideological question.  We can end poverty.  But some of us would have to give something up to do that.

[sjc]

9 minutes ago, Shades75 said:

Essentially, there is no other way to end poverty.  We must recognise, firstly, that the poverty we might suffer in the UK is in no way the same as the crushing poverty of third world nations where survival, alone, is a very real goal.

Once we do that then it becomes a relative issue and is about a diminishing of wealth inequalities.  There is enough money, in our economy, for no-one to go hungry and for all to have basic shelter.  But, even more so, that the security of these necessities cannot be withheld.  That they'all always be there.

Beyond these issues we can then look at education, healthcare and stable employment.  All of which represent stability and opportunity.  There is, again, no fundamental reason why they cannot be available to all.

It does, however, take re-imaging of the goals of western societies.  Do they want individualism or a collective good?  I think we all know and can see how our societies are going so while we might get small concessions from time to time, the trend is only going in one direction.

For me, it really is an ideological question.  We can end poverty.  But some of us would have to give something up to do that.

You could start a new currency from scratch giving everyone the same amount and by the end of the 1st day we'd be back where we are. Some would spend all or some of their money and some would save or make more money.

Or are you suggesting everyone earns the same regardless of what job they do?

[Granny Danger]

58 minutes ago, sjc said:

Does anyone have a sensible suggestion other than "taking from the rich to give to the poor" as that failed miserably in the 1970's.

A progressive tax policy will always be a major part of addressing the issue of poverty.  Greater opportunities for people from deprived backgrounds is a longer-term part of the solution too though an horrendously costly and difficult process.

 

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, sjc said:

You could start a new currency from scratch giving everyone the same amount and by the end of the 1st day we'd be back where we are. Some would spend all or some of their money and some would save or make more money.

Or are you suggesting everyone earns the same regardless of what job they do?

What a childish contribution to this discussion.

[The Chlamydia Kid]

Anything other than redistribution through increasing taxes on higher earners is just window dressing to pretend that you're tackling the issue.

[kirkyblue2]

1 hour ago, sjc said:

Does anyone have a sensible suggestion other than "taking from the rich to give to the poor" as that failed miserably in the 1970's.

Robin Hood, Robin Hood riding through the glen.

[Shades75]

21 minutes ago, sjc said:

You could start a new currency from scratch giving everyone the same amount and by the end of the 1st day we'd be back where we are. Some would spend all or some of their money and some would save or make more money.

Or are you suggesting everyone earns the same regardless of what job they do?

No, I'm not suggesting that.

I'm suggesting that poverty could be eradicated but that it would take a complete reversal of the trends of capitalism and individualist goals.  Not that a micro-biologist should be paid the same as a cleaner but that corporate executives shouldn't be paid the obscene multiples of normal wages that they are.  The structures of corporations are some of the most totalitarian structures that exist.  Yet they exist in so-called modern democracies.  There is also the often referred to methods of minimising risk for the individuals in charge, in the form of bailouts, limited liabilities etc....yet capitalising the benefits.  That transfers more power and wealth to the people at the top of these structures which gives them more influence on governments.  They then lobby for wage restraints and contracts heavily in favour of the employer which are then written into law.  So employment becomes precarious and, at times doesn't lift the employee out of poverty.  That's an abhorrence but is completely beneficial to the CEO and in some respects is necessary if the competitors do the same, which they do. Keep people scared and they'all do what you tell them.

Poverty is a very potent tool used very efficiently in western democracies that have wealth to protect.

Until these people have less power, it won't change.  What I'm saying is that under conservative governments then wholesale change is unlikely, at best.

 

[hehawhehaw]

2 hours ago, kirkyblue2 said:

Robin Hood, Robin Hood riding through the glen.

Thanks for the laugh You know nearly all of the socialist bams contributing to this post actually think their ideas could work in practice or that they have something new to add. 

[The_Kincardine]

26 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

Two cents:

The problem with ideas like this is that our culture of capitalism and individualism is the net result of the independent actions of millions and millions of people, not just some government policy. It's the culture. Sweden is more egalitarian than the UK or USA because they have a more egalitarian culture and more egalitarian population. Put the same government policies in place in Sweden and the USA/UK, and the USA/UK will still end up with more inequality, both because of the differing reactions of the people at the top and the people at the bottom. The government can nudge things one way or the other, but no government could ever turn the UK or USA into Sweden.

Lots of themes here and you're confusing capitalism with egalitarianism with social conformity.

Scotland's essentially capitalistic (we invented it FFS) but also egalitarian: themes such as "we're all Jock Tamson's Bairns" and "A man's a man for all that".  We're also quite hierarchical with large-scale landowners still called lairds in parts of Aberdeenshire and the Highlands.

Sweden is hugely capitalistic and also highly conformist - though this is changing.  It is also fiercely snobbish with 'old' Swedish families looking down on the rest and possessing a 'noble name' being a great introduction to society.  Swedish commerce is dominated by good chaps who went to a small number of fee-paying schools and who graduated from Lund or Uppsala.  Swedes also have snobbery over how you speak English with those having a British English accent looking down on those with an American English accent.

So when you say, " Sweden is more egalitarian than the UK" then I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about.

[Peppino Impastato]

Didn't see you mention the UK once in that post,  instead in typical britnat fashion you conflatedsScotland with the UK when it suited you to do so even though they're poles apart politically. 

 

  In fact,  Sweden clearly is more egalitarian than the UK which usually elects tory governments but not more than Scotland which never does. though obviously we get them anyway cause britnats like you favour furiously masturbating to the union jack while land of hope and glory plays in the background to pursuing social justice. 

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Didn't see you mention the UK once in that post,  instead in typical britnat fashion you conflatedsScotland with the UK

I didn't and I didn't.

[Deplorable]

40 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Lots of themes here and you're confusing capitalism with egalitarianism with social conformity.

Scotland's essentially capitalistic (we invented it FFS) but also egalitarian: themes such as "we're all Jock Tamson's Bairns" and "A man's a man for all that".  We're also quite hierarchical with large-scale landowners still called lairds in parts of Aberdeenshire and the Highlands.

Sweden is hugely capitalistic and also highly conformist - though this is changing.  It is also fiercely snobbish with 'old' Swedish families looking down on the rest and possessing a 'noble name' being a great introduction to society.  Swedish commerce is dominated by good chaps who went to a small number of fee-paying schools and who graduated from Lund or Uppsala.  Swedes also have snobbery over how you speak English with those having a British English accent looking down on those with an American English accent.

So when you say, " Sweden is more egalitarian than the UK" then I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I deleted my post because I realized I'd stepped out on a ledge and didn't really want to defend what I said. I didn't feel like I did the best job explaining my point. Obviously you got to it before I flushed it down the memory hole. I yield to you on the specifics.

My larger point, which I think is correct, is that you can't just say that we need to change the nature of the country in order to eradicate poverty. That is impossible. You can't just change the nature of the country. You have to deal with society as it is. Anything more is utopian nonsense.

For what it's worth, I do believe that society should be more equal economically than it is currently in my country.