UK Budget

[rmanx]

You struggle with the definition of relative don't you?

[spook]

You struggle with the definition of relative don't you?

Not when dealing with a black and white thing such as poverty.

[rmanx]

 

You struggle with the definition of relative don't you?

Not when dealing with a black and white thing such as poverty.

 

 

I rest my case.

[Tarne]

"if someone has a roof over their head, food on their table, and clothes on their back - or sufficient income to pay for the basics they are not living in poverty."

 

Ten internet points on this one. Agree wholeheartedly.

 

If they choose to mismanage what they have to put themselves in poverty, it's on them, not the state.

[woolley]

There will always be relative poverty as a simple mathematical fact. Nobody who has Sky TV or a car outside is in absolute poverty. It is absolute poverty that needs to be eridicated in a civilised society.

[Lxxx]

 

You struggle with the definition of relative don't you?

Not when dealing with a black and white thing such as poverty.

 

 

Poverty isn't black and white. In the western world it's more a matter of perception.

[spook]

"if someone has a roof over their head, food on their table, and clothes on their back - or sufficient income to pay for the basics they are not living in poverty."

 

Ten internet points on this one. Agree wholeheartedly.

 

If they choose to mismanage what they have to put themselves in poverty, it's on them, not the state.

All that I would add is that if their mismanagement is adversely affecting any kids they have then those kids should be taken from them.

[spook]

 

 

You struggle with the definition of relative don't you?

 

Not when dealing with a black and white thing such as poverty.

Poverty isn't black and white. In the western world it's more a matter of perception.

It isn't, but that is what people have been lead to believe.

[P.K.]

"if someone has a roof over their head, food on their table, and clothes on their back - or sufficient income to pay for the basics they are not living in poverty."

 

Ten internet points on this one. Agree wholeheartedly.

 

If they choose to mismanage what they have to put themselves in poverty, it's on them, not the state.

And if they don't have enough to mismanage then what?

 

Of course all those receiving benefits are workshy scroungers who need those benefits reduced to 'motivate' them. Especially the weak and vulnerable.

 

Some folks on here need to take a long, hard look at themselves...

[rmanx]

those kids should be taken from them.

 

 

Hmmm I wonder how much more that would cost the state (in the long run), than helping the families of the kids in the first place...

[rmanx]

 

those kids should be taken from them.

 

 

Hmmm I wonder how much more that would cost the state (in the long run), than helping the families of the kids in the first place...

 

 

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf

 

"Looked after children are more than twice

as likely to receive a reprimand, final

warning or conviction as their peers30, and

account for a quarter of the boys and at

least half of the girls who are in custody at

any one time31"

[spook]

 

"if someone has a roof over their head, food on their table, and clothes on their back - or sufficient income to pay for the basics they are not living in poverty."

 

Ten internet points on this one. Agree wholeheartedly.

 

If they choose to mismanage what they have to put themselves in poverty, it's on them, not the state.

And if they don't have enough to mismanage then what?

Of course all those receiving benefits are workshy scroungers who need those benefits reduced to 'motivate' them. Especially the weak and vulnerable.

Some folks on here need to take a long, hard look at themselves...

Basically tough. No one ever said that life is or should be fair. In any case there is absolutelyno excuse for anyone getting the full £20,000 not managing to house, cloth,and feed themselves and their kids, and if they can't provide the basics for their kids then hand them to Social Services in order that the kids will get the basics.

 

I support the principle of if you can't feed 'em then don't breed 'em.

[spook]

 

 

those kids should be taken from them.

 

Hmmm I wonder how much more that would cost the state (in the long run), than helping the families of the kids in the first place...

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf

 

"Looked after children are more than twice

as likely to receive a reprimand, final

warning or conviction as their peers30, and

account for a quarter of the boys and at

least half of the girls who are in custody at

any one time31"

So what? There is no universal panacea. If people realise that their breeding kids will result in kidswho face a bleak future then shame on them for doing so.

[rmanx]

 

 

 

those kids should be taken from them.

Hmmm I wonder how much more that would cost the state (in the long run), than helping the families of the kids in the first place...

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf

 

"Looked after children are more than twice

as likely to receive a reprimand, final

warning or conviction as their peers30, and

account for a quarter of the boys and at

least half of the girls who are in custody at

any one time31"

So what? There is no universal panacea. If people realise that their breeding kids will result in kidswho face a bleak future then shame on them for doing so.

 

 

You know what...I take by my comment about human kindness. You seem incapable of even that basic human concept.

[woolley]

Instead of throwing stones at each other from both sides of the argument, does anyone have an idea of how we should calculate a decent income threshold for those living on benefits so that it is enough for their needs but is not encouargement for a life on benefit and is fair to those who actually work and pay for it? How can we do this?