700,000 more of our most vulnerable now in poverty, changing that would be good.
Relative poverty, Not absolute poverty. Whilst not a good statistic the reporting of it needs to be balanced. Times of economic stress (i.e. recession) there are lower numbers of relative poverty, coming out of a recession the number widens again to its stable medium to then be effected by Government policy etc.
"Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. Relative poverty is considered the easiest way to measure the level of poverty in an individual country."
So if most people can afford to buy the latest £1k iphone in cash and you can't that means (in theory) you're in relative poverty. Having said that the same can also be said for a standard shopping basket of food which is much more of a concern. Numbers of absolute poverty have remained very low. Relative poverty is a better reflection of widening socio-econonical gaps rather than "poverty" itself. This is to be expected post recession as people have widening degrees of disposable income, and it shouldn't detract from the real poverty stories that need to be told to challenge the government to implement effective policy change for the better for everyone.
700,000 more of our most vulnerable now in poverty, changing that would be good.
Relative poverty, Not absolute poverty. Whilst not a good statistic the reporting of it needs to be balanced. Times of economic stress (i.e. recession) there are lower numbers of relative poverty, coming out of a recession the number widens again to its stable medium to then be effected by Government policy etc.
"Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. Relative poverty is considered the easiest way to measure the level of poverty in an individual country."
So if most people can afford to buy the latest £1k iphone in cash and you can't that means (in theory) you're in relative poverty. Having said that the same can also be said for a standard shopping basket of food which is much more of a concern. Numbers of absolute poverty have remained very low. Relative poverty is a better reflection of widening socio-econonical gaps rather than "poverty" itself. This is to be expected post recession as people have widening degrees of disposable income, and it shouldn't detract from the real poverty stories that need to be told to challenge the government to implement effective policy change for the better for everyone.
Even if "relative poverty" doesn't mean impoverished as those orphans you see in Oxfam adverts it does cause issues. Prices are decided by who has the money. The more people in relative poverty, the wider the gap between the haves and have nots and the higher prices are for basics like food, medicine, heating, transport, housing, books, internet etc.
These all affect life chances and those born into relative poverty are far less likely to grow up to support themselves as someone who wasn't. I know someone on here bangs on about accepting the cards you are dealt and not being jealous of those born into privilege but it is an immensely poor attitude to hold when some people aren't even dealt into the game at all and those who are dealt better cards are actively harming the life chances of those with crap cards with their excesses and political choices.
The other damning indicator of our broken society is that most of those on benefits are already working full time. The jobs offered to those in poverty aren't even enough for them to be able to stay out of debt, let alone climb out of poverty.
700,000 more of our most vulnerable now in poverty, changing that would be good.
Relative poverty, Not absolute poverty. Whilst not a good statistic the reporting of it needs to be balanced. Times of economic stress (i.e. recession) there are lower numbers of relative poverty, coming out of a recession the number widens again to its stable medium to then be effected by Government policy etc.
"Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. Relative poverty is considered the easiest way to measure the level of poverty in an individual country."
So if most people can afford to buy the latest £1k iphone in cash and you can't that means (in theory) you're in relative poverty. Having said that the same can also be said for a standard shopping basket of food which is much more of a concern. Numbers of absolute poverty have remained very low. Relative poverty is a better reflection of widening socio-econonical gaps rather than "poverty" itself. This is to be expected post recession as people have widening degrees of disposable income, and it shouldn't detract from the real poverty stories that need to be told to challenge the government to implement effective policy change for the better for everyone.
Can you expand on the difference between a tosser and a relative tosser?
700,000 more of our most vulnerable now in poverty, changing that would be good.
Relative poverty, Not absolute poverty. Whilst not a good statistic the reporting of it needs to be balanced. Times of economic stress (i.e. recession) there are lower numbers of relative poverty, coming out of a recession the number widens again to its stable medium to then be effected by Government policy etc.
"Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. Relative poverty is considered the easiest way to measure the level of poverty in an individual country."
So if most people can afford to buy the latest £1k iphone in cash and you can't that means (in theory) you're in relative poverty. Having said that the same can also be said for a standard shopping basket of food which is much more of a concern. Numbers of absolute poverty have remained very low. Relative poverty is a better reflection of widening socio-econonical gaps rather than "poverty" itself. This is to be expected post recession as people have widening degrees of disposable income, and it shouldn't detract from the real poverty stories that need to be told to challenge the government to implement effective policy change for the better for everyone.
Can you expand on the difference between a tosser and a relative tosser?
I'm sorry what now @harveys_gardener ? Did you read my post? What on earth has led you down that path to attack me? What have I said that you've found so offensive other than offering a balanced economical view?
700,000 more of our most vulnerable now in poverty, changing that would be good.
Relative poverty, Not absolute poverty. Whilst not a good statistic the reporting of it needs to be balanced. Times of economic stress (i.e. recession) there are lower numbers of relative poverty, coming out of a recession the number widens again to its stable medium to then be effected by Government policy etc.
"Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. Relative poverty is considered the easiest way to measure the level of poverty in an individual country."
So if most people can afford to buy the latest £1k iphone in cash and you can't that means (in theory) you're in relative poverty. Having said that the same can also be said for a standard shopping basket of food which is much more of a concern. Numbers of absolute poverty have remained very low. Relative poverty is a better reflection of widening socio-econonical gaps rather than "poverty" itself. This is to be expected post recession as people have widening degrees of disposable income, and it shouldn't detract from the real poverty stories that need to be told to challenge the government to implement effective policy change for the better for everyone.
So is relative poverty a good thing then?
No - it's not. And I've said that. What I've also said is the reporting of the numbers need to be balanced and not detract from helping the most vulnerable in society first.
Even if "relative poverty" doesn't mean impoverished as those orphans you see in Oxfam adverts it does cause issues. Prices are decided by who has the money. The more people in relative poverty, the wider the gap between the haves and have nots and the higher prices are for basics like food, medicine, heating, transport, housing, books, internet etc.
These all affect life chances and those born into relative poverty are far less likely to grow up to support themselves as someone who wasn't. I know someone on here bangs on about accepting the cards you are dealt and not being jealous of those born into privilege but it is an immensely poor attitude to hold when some people aren't even dealt into the game at all and those who are dealt better cards are actively harming the life chances of those with crap cards with their excesses and political choices.
The other damning indicator of our broken society is that most of those on benefits are already working full time. The jobs offered to those in poverty aren't even enough for them to be able to stay out of debt, let alone climb out of poverty.
Completely agree as per my comment on price of a basket of goods (which is the RPI/CPI stat often used).
Even if "relative poverty" doesn't mean impoverished as those orphans you see in Oxfam adverts it does cause issues. Prices are decided by who has the money. The more people in relative poverty, the wider the gap between the haves and have nots and the higher prices are for basics like food, medicine, heating, transport, housing, books, internet etc.
These all affect life chances and those born into relative poverty are far less likely to grow up to support themselves as someone who wasn't. I know someone on here bangs on about accepting the cards you are dealt and not being jealous of those born into privilege but it is an immensely poor attitude to hold when some people aren't even dealt into the game at all and those who are dealt better cards are actively harming the life chances of those with crap cards with their excesses and political choices.
The other damning indicator of our broken society is that most of those on benefits are already working full time. The jobs offered to those in poverty aren't even enough for them to be able to stay out of debt, let alone climb out of poverty.
Your final paragraph is quite key I think. Over the past 20-30 years the jobs with the lowest salaries have got proportionately lower it feels.
I’m not sure of why or where that pendulum swung but the advent of minimum wage & in particular working tax credits IMHO has took the onus from employers (whether public or private) to provide a decent level of salary/standard of living and pushed it onto the state. It’s probably too late to rewind that without an awful lot of pain other than to increase the minimum wage to a much higher level and put the onus back on employers. However that’s likely to see unemployment rise I would guess.
Making up numbers but if a salary of £18k is needed for the bare minimum why do we let employers pay £13k as a minimum for a full time job?
The only other alternative i can see is much higher taxation and higher benefits but I think we need to find a way of increasing salaries/take home pay at the lower end. I’ve long advocated raising considerably the tax free allowance, some progress has been made on that the last 10 years but more is needed alongside gradually pushing up the minimum wage.
Would be interesting to know from that report how the median income has changed over time (allowing for inflation) and what the level actually is.
Relative or absolute, it's a disgrace that it is rising in 21st century Britain.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
Relative or absolute, it's a disgrace that it is rising in 21st century Britain.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
Although you are probably right the devil is as always in the detail. The report linked above goes into quite a lot of stats/numbers/detail.
For instance the chart on relative poverty (which starts in 94/95) for all groups other than working age adults without children the position now to then is all have positively reduced, which must be a good thing? Of course as you delve deeper the position now to say 5 years ago shows a slightly different picture as in some instances there has been an increase (Child and Pensioner poverty).
The same chart shows increases as well as decreases along the way (04-08 saw an increase in relative poverty for all groups).
I'm sure had Labour got in to government you'd have seen a reduction in relative poverty as if nothing else the median income would have reduced.
Relative or absolute, it's a disgrace that it is rising in 21st century Britain.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
Although you are probably right the devil is as always in the detail. The report linked above goes into quite a lot of stats/numbers/detail.
For instance the chart on relative poverty (which starts in 94/95) for all groups other than working age adults without children the position now to then is all have positively reduced, which must be a good thing? Of course as you delve deeper the position now to say 5 years ago shows a slightly different picture as in some instances there has been an increase (Child and Pensioner poverty).
The same chart shows increases as well as decreases along the way (04-08 saw an increase in relative poverty for all groups).
I'm sure had Labour got in to government you'd have seen a reduction in relative poverty as if nothing else the median income would have reduced.
How do you figure that one out re your last point?
Relative or absolute, it's a disgrace that it is rising in 21st century Britain.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
Although you are probably right the devil is as always in the detail. The report linked above goes into quite a lot of stats/numbers/detail.
For instance the chart on relative poverty (which starts in 94/95) for all groups other than working age adults without children the position now to then is all have positively reduced, which must be a good thing? Of course as you delve deeper the position now to say 5 years ago shows a slightly different picture as in some instances there has been an increase (Child and Pensioner poverty).
The same chart shows increases as well as decreases along the way (04-08 saw an increase in relative poverty for all groups).
I'm sure had Labour got in to government you'd have seen a reduction in relative poverty as if nothing else the median income would have reduced.
How do you figure that one out re your last point?
Higher income tax (I don’t believe it would stop at £80k ultimately), potential land value tax, probable rent caps, higher unemployment etc - just IMHO, the median income will reduce so naturally there will be less people in the ‘of 60%’ bracket.
Relative or absolute, it's a disgrace that it is rising in 21st century Britain.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
Although you are probably right the devil is as always in the detail. The report linked above goes into quite a lot of stats/numbers/detail.
For instance the chart on relative poverty (which starts in 94/95) for all groups other than working age adults without children the position now to then is all have positively reduced, which must be a good thing? Of course as you delve deeper the position now to say 5 years ago shows a slightly different picture as in some instances there has been an increase (Child and Pensioner poverty).
The same chart shows increases as well as decreases along the way (04-08 saw an increase in relative poverty for all groups).
I'm sure had Labour got in to government you'd have seen a reduction in relative poverty as if nothing else the median income would have reduced.
How do you figure that one out re your last point?
Higher income tax (I don’t believe it would stop at £80k ultimately), potential land value tax, probable rent caps, higher unemployment etc - just IMHO, the median income will reduce so naturally there will be less people in the ‘of 60%’ bracket.
The key thing is that it is median. Meaning things like rent caps are likely to be more helpful to those who are on or around the median income (around 25k give or take). Those impacted by those measures targeting higher net worth individuals will have little impact on the median income as defined.
I disagree that a Labour government would tax those on 25k more, or that there would be higher unemployment, or at least the kind of unemployment that would impact the median income, considering the current record low unemployment is largely a fudge since it is made up of those who rely on benefits to survive and those on zero hours contracts or otherwise defined out of the definition of it.
Relative or absolute, it's a disgrace that it is rising in 21st century Britain.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
Although you are probably right the devil is as always in the detail. The report linked above goes into quite a lot of stats/numbers/detail.
For instance the chart on relative poverty (which starts in 94/95) for all groups other than working age adults without children the position now to then is all have positively reduced, which must be a good thing? Of course as you delve deeper the position now to say 5 years ago shows a slightly different picture as in some instances there has been an increase (Child and Pensioner poverty).
The same chart shows increases as well as decreases along the way (04-08 saw an increase in relative poverty for all groups).
I'm sure had Labour got in to government you'd have seen a reduction in relative poverty as if nothing else the median income would have reduced.
How do you figure that one out re your last point?
Higher income tax (I don’t believe it would stop at £80k ultimately), potential land value tax, probable rent caps, higher unemployment etc - just IMHO, the median income will reduce so naturally there will be less people in the ‘of 60%’ bracket.
The key thing is that it is median. Meaning things like rent caps are likely to be more helpful to those who are on or around the median income (around 25k give or take). Those impacted by those measures targeting higher net worth individuals will have little impact on the median income as defined.
I disagree that a Labour government would tax those on 25k more, or that there would be higher unemployment, or at least the kind of unemployment that would impact the median income, considering the current record low unemployment is largely a fudge since it is made up of those who rely on benefits to survive and those on zero hours contracts or otherwise defined out of the definition of it.
I don't disagree rent caps would be more helpful to the lower earners, that stands to reason if your rental takes up a fair/medium/large proportion of your income. Rent caps would lower income but agree that in most cases that is higher earners although I wonder how many pensioners now own BTL's for their Pension income? many of those may be middle of the road/median or below.
I don't think Labour would raise tax at 25k either. The only median reference I could find on income was high 30'sk which would mean gross 45/50k for a worker and I can see tax at that level being increased which would then reduce the median.
Median income could conceivably reduce and therefore the relative poverty reduce. Doesn't necessarily mean those in that relative poverty would actually be any better off in fact it could be the opposite. Thats all I was trying to show, it's just a measure against a single number, but no reference to the single number.
I do think unemployment would increase, the alternative will be the price of goods go up to cover the additional wage costs, which will effect the lower earners most. Many small businesses would lay off staff as they simply couldn't afford it, that will add people to the relative poverty group.
You couldn’t have watched him being interviewed about the conservative manifesto in the run up to the last election then. It was about the same time as the press were laying into Diane Abbott.
Hammond came across as a stumbling incompetent then. ‘Nothing has changed’ indeed
You couldn’t have watched him being interviewed about the conservative manifesto in the run up to the last election then. It was about the same time as the press were laying into Diane Abbott.
Hammond came across as a stumbling incompetent then. ‘Nothing has changed’ indeed
I didn't but it shows how bad the rest of the Tories are that I (did) think he is one of the better ones.
I really dislike Toby Young so what a surprise that the Tories appoint this jumped up know-nothing to an influential post. I am assuming it is well paid too.
This is from Toby Young's Spectator article circa 2012, I have highlighted what he has to say about disabled/SEN pupils.
Inclusive. It’s one of those ghastly, politically correct words that have survived the demise of New Labour. Schools have got to be “inclusive” these days. That means wheelchair ramps, the complete works of Alice Walker in the school library (though no Mark Twain) and a Special Educational Needs Department that can cope with everything from Dyslexia to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. If Gove is serious about wanting to bring back O-levels the government will have to repeal the Equality Act because any exam that isn’t “accessible” to a functionally illiterate troglodyte with a mental age of six will be judged to be “elitist” and therefore forbidden by Harman’s Law. (See note at foot of this column.)
I am obviously not a Tory but this appointment appears to be Trumpesque in the sense that whomever hates a 'department' the most gets appointed to it. We really are having this piss taken out of us.
Amazing he sets the bar so high that the target of his venom is disabled children. Guess he couldn't find any orphaned kittens to stamp on or a crash test dummy to arm wrestle?
Boris Johnson has thrown his support behind this appointment, praising amongst other things Young's 'caustic wit' as justification for him getting the job. Ever get the feeling politics has basically turned into trolling the public to see if they notice what they can get away with?
Toby young, like Katie Hopkins, basically makes a career out of saying offensive stuff. I suppose the left wing equivalent like owen jones makes a career out of being as offended by everything as possible. I can't be done with either, though I'm obviously more inclined to one direction on the political spectrum over the other since I'd happily slap Young down a staircase.
So they knew there would be pressure on the NHS at this time of year, as there was last year, so they made a plan and things are much better this time. They have improved the way they tell you your appointment is cancelled.
Comments
"Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. Relative poverty is considered the easiest way to measure the level of poverty in an individual country."
So if most people can afford to buy the latest £1k iphone in cash and you can't that means (in theory) you're in relative poverty. Having said that the same can also be said for a standard shopping basket of food which is much more of a concern. Numbers of absolute poverty have remained very low. Relative poverty is a better reflection of widening socio-econonical gaps rather than "poverty" itself. This is to be expected post recession as people have widening degrees of disposable income, and it shouldn't detract from the real poverty stories that need to be told to challenge the government to implement effective policy change for the better for everyone.
These all affect life chances and those born into relative poverty are far less likely to grow up to support themselves as someone who wasn't. I know someone on here bangs on about accepting the cards you are dealt and not being jealous of those born into privilege but it is an immensely poor attitude to hold when some people aren't even dealt into the game at all and those who are dealt better cards are actively harming the life chances of those with crap cards with their excesses and political choices.
The other damning indicator of our broken society is that most of those on benefits are already working full time. The jobs offered to those in poverty aren't even enough for them to be able to stay out of debt, let alone climb out of poverty.
I’m not sure of why or where that pendulum swung but the advent of minimum wage & in particular working tax credits IMHO has took the onus from employers (whether public or private) to provide a decent level of salary/standard of living and pushed it onto the state. It’s probably too late to rewind that without an awful lot of pain other than to increase the minimum wage to a much higher level and put the onus back on employers. However that’s likely to see unemployment rise I would guess.
Making up numbers but if a salary of £18k is needed for the bare minimum why do we let employers pay £13k as a minimum for a full time job?
The only other alternative i can see is much higher taxation and higher benefits but I think we need to find a way of increasing salaries/take home pay at the lower end. I’ve long advocated raising considerably the tax free allowance, some progress has been made on that the last 10 years but more is needed alongside gradually pushing up the minimum wage.
Would be interesting to know from that report how the median income has changed over time (allowing for inflation) and what the level actually is.
It should be an absolute priority to reverse the rise (if only other unnecessary crap wasn't taking up all the time energy and resources of government!)
There is a history of reduction, so it cant be too hard.
For instance the chart on relative poverty (which starts in 94/95) for all groups other than working age adults without children the position now to then is all have positively reduced, which must be a good thing? Of course as you delve deeper the position now to say 5 years ago shows a slightly different picture as in some instances there has been an increase (Child and Pensioner poverty).
The same chart shows increases as well as decreases along the way (04-08 saw an increase in relative poverty for all groups).
I'm sure had Labour got in to government you'd have seen a reduction in relative poverty as if nothing else the median income would have reduced.
I disagree that a Labour government would tax those on 25k more, or that there would be higher unemployment, or at least the kind of unemployment that would impact the median income, considering the current record low unemployment is largely a fudge since it is made up of those who rely on benefits to survive and those on zero hours contracts or otherwise defined out of the definition of it.
I don't think Labour would raise tax at 25k either. The only median reference I could find on income was high 30'sk which would mean gross 45/50k for a worker and I can see tax at that level being increased which would then reduce the median.
Median income could conceivably reduce and therefore the relative poverty reduce. Doesn't necessarily mean those in that relative poverty would actually be any better off in fact it could be the opposite. Thats all I was trying to show, it's just a measure against a single number, but no reference to the single number.
I do think unemployment would increase, the alternative will be the price of goods go up to cover the additional wage costs, which will effect the lower earners most. Many small businesses would lay off staff as they simply couldn't afford it, that will add people to the relative poverty group.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/philip-hammond-causes-storm-with-remarks-about-disabled-workers
Hammond came across as a stumbling incompetent then. ‘Nothing has changed’ indeed
I really dislike Toby Young so what a surprise that the Tories appoint this jumped up know-nothing to an influential post. I am assuming it is well paid too.
Inclusive. It’s one of those ghastly, politically correct words that have survived the demise of New Labour. Schools have got to be “inclusive” these days. That means wheelchair ramps, the complete works of Alice Walker in the school library (though no Mark Twain) and a Special Educational Needs Department that can cope with everything from Dyslexia to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. If Gove is serious about wanting to bring back O-levels the government will have to repeal the Equality Act because any exam that isn’t “accessible” to a functionally illiterate troglodyte with a mental age of six will be judged to be “elitist” and therefore forbidden by Harman’s Law. (See note at foot of this column.)
I am obviously not a Tory but this appointment appears to be Trumpesque in the sense that whomever hates a 'department' the most gets appointed to it. We really are having this piss taken out of us.
They have improved the way they tell you your appointment is cancelled.