'Rich Privilege'

balky12 · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:31

It really annoys me when anyone (press, people, ANYONE) refers to others, who live in the UK, as living in poverty.

Relative poverty annoys me even further.

You don't even have to go back that far (60/70 yeas) and people in the UK had it a lot harder, and they just got on with it.

My great Grandad worked for what is now Dagenham Motors. During the shutdown (6 weeks back then) he would effectively be sacked. He would then either take the family to Surrey to do farm work. Failing that he would cycle down to Portsmouth and work on the docks. When the factory re-opened he would then queue up outside the factory to see if he could get his job back. That was pretty normal back in those days. People moan how hard life is nowadays...

dr_volki · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:33

dirtychinchilla said:
/snip

good for you

but not achievable for everyone, as every bodies situation is different.
i moved over to the UK when i was 21 to live with my fiance with around £5k in the bank. i chose to be unemployed for 6months after i quit my first job and lived off my savings. fast forward a few years still living with the mrs renting a property and it's a lot harder to save money for a deposit now.

cheesyboy · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:34

Tefal said:
which has nothing to do with your point that youd give out more money.

It means that giving money to the poorest doesn't need to mean giving it to the "workshy".

You can even structure it such that more is given to those who work, if that suits your political ideology - to avoid a risk of increasing the number of such "freeloaders". Make it pay to work.

do_ron_ron · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:36

RDM said:
Deprivation and inequality are not the same thing though, inequality in of itself doesn't lead to deprivation.

Not directly although it is one of the contributing factors keeping social mobility down. This can lead to frustration/anger against the system that perpetrates the status quo.

cheesyboy · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:36

balky12 said:
It really annoys me when anyone (press, people, ANYONE) refers to others, who live in the UK, as living in poverty.

Relative poverty annoys me even further.

You don't even have to go back that far (60/70 yeas) and people in the UK had it a lot harder, and they just got on with it.

My great Grandad worked for what is now Dagenham Motors. During the shutdown (6 weeks back then) he would effectively be sacked. He would then either take the family to Surrey to do farm work. Failing that he would cycle down to Portsmouth and work on the docks. When the factory re-opened he would then queue up outside the factory to see if he could get his job back. That was pretty normal back in those days. People moan how hard life is nowadays...

Maybe you need to be more understanding of the effect of the social exclusion side of relative poverty. It is a drag on economic progress for the country if you allows a whole demographic to be disconnected in such a way, and is a major failure to allow it in such a wealthy country.

mid_gen · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:37

dirtychinchilla said:
My girlfriend and I are currently in the process of buying a house.

The property is a new build, £285,000. We're using the help to buy scheme, which means we have a deposit of 5% of the total price, £14,250. The help to buy scheme enables us to have a deposit of 4.5 our combined salaries, £211,500, and the government will own 20% of the equity of our property (which we can buy back at a later date), £57,000. There's then a shortfall in the deposit of about £3,000, which we will be covering. Stamp duty on that is £4,250 (I believe).

All in all, we need about £24,000.

OK, that's a fair amount of money.But we both live with our parents, these figures have to be paid over roughly a 9 month period (looking at moving in in September), but with planning in advance, we are able to pay that. We've had to ask our parents for £5,000, but this is simply because we didn't start saving early enough, not because it's an unachievable amount of money to save. Living at home, combined we save £1,800 per month. That's saving for 13 months to afford a house in Surrey. I really don't think that's too bad.

Ahh, the use taxpayer's money to help people get into debt scheme. #1 reason I won't be coming back any time soon, the property situation in the UK is frankly totally insane....

balky12 · 6 Feb 2015 at 12:47

cheesyboy said:
Maybe you need to be more understanding of the effect of the social exclusion side of relative poverty. It is a drag on economic progress for the country if you allows a whole demographic to be disconnected in such a way, and is a major failure to allow it in such a wealthy country.

Maybe. Maybe not. There is truth to what you are saying, it can be and is a burden on the greater society... the answer?

I bet if you look into every case of people being in 'relative poverty' the majority, or atleast a significant amount would be down to life choices (drugs/ not trying hard at school/ being lazy/ etc.)... harsh as that is they have made their bed.

What I like about this country is that it gives everyone the ability to learn the tools to be successful in some way shape or form. (I'm not talking everyone being rich, or owning a company, etc.)

You will probably disagree with me. If I took all the people I know from school/ college times and people I have met randomly, there is a strong correlation between effort put in and success. Don't get me wrong, no one I know is destitute. But I know people who havent got very much at all to people who never have to worry about money again (either because of their parents or their own hard work).

I am ignoring the disabled/ people with medical conditions because I feel that the state should help these people, and life is harder for them, and I have no problems with my money going towards helping their lives. But my money going to people who couldn't even be bothered to help themselves just to bridge the gap between rich and poor? **** no.

robgmun · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:00

balky12 said:
I bet if you look into every case of people being in 'relative poverty' the majority, or atleast a significant amount would be down to life choices (drugs/ not trying hard at school/ being lazy/ etc.)... harsh as that is they have made their bed.

people would jump on you for this but i completely agree.

cheesyboy · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:06

Have you guys ever really met poor people?

Judgeneo · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:10

cheesyboy said:
Have you guys ever really met poor people?

What are you getting at with this question? and yes, I and many others here have, and call some of them our friends.
My school had a 73% GCSE faliure rate, and comes in near the bottom of the deprevation tables, I know plenty of poor people.

mattyg · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:27

drakioned said:
So... don't? I don't necessary see a problem with a tax system that discourages 80 hr weeks. Somebody else can pick up the extra work and the economy can have 1 more job available.

Any job that requires 80 hours should already be disallowed by working time directive anyway (having an opt-out completely defeats the purpose of the law).

Its my company. I could always drop down to 40hrs. And half my workforce to free up more of my time. Then I'd pay less tax. Have more time for myself and family.

Oh and put 15 guys on the dole.

Zethor · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:33

balky12 said:
Maybe. Maybe not. There is truth to what you are saying, it can be and is a burden on the greater society... the answer?

I bet if you look into every case of people being in 'relative poverty' the majority, or atleast a significant amount would be down to life choices (drugs/ not trying hard at school/ being lazy/ etc.)... harsh as that is they have made their bed.

What I like about this country is that it gives everyone the ability to learn the tools to be successful in some way shape or form. (I'm not talking everyone being rich, or owning a company, etc.)

You will probably disagree with me. If I took all the people I know from school/ college times and people I have met randomly, there is a strong correlation between effort put in and success. Don't get me wrong, no one I know is destitute. But I know people who havent got very much at all to people who never have to worry about money again (either because of their parents or their own hard work).

I am ignoring the disabled/ people with medical conditions because I feel that the state should help these people, and life is harder for them, and I have no problems with my money going towards helping their lives. But my money going to people who couldn't even be bothered to help themselves just to bridge the gap between rich and poor? **** no.

Just a clarification, are you saying that poverty is a choice, when factors such as disabilities and other medical conditions are excluded?

dirtychinchilla · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:36

mid_gen said:
Ahh, the use taxpayer's money to help people get into debt scheme. #1 reason I won't be coming back any time soon, the property situation in the UK is frankly totally insane....

Actually, the government will profit from this. When I sell the house, no matter what the value is, they will receive 20% of the sale price. So any increase in the value of the property they will take 20% of.

I can choose to buy, in 10% chunks, the 20% of the property that the government owns, and it's in my interest to do so. Having said that, I've no way of gaining £57,000 on top of what I already need to pay.

How else do you think I'm supposed to afford a house?!

McGray · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:41

£285,000 is a huge mortgage for a FTB.

dirtychinchilla · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:42

Well it's £211,500 because of the help to buy scheme. If we were better paid, then we might be able to get that size mortgage without help.

drakioned · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:45

mattyg said:
Its my company. I could always drop down to 40hrs. And half my workforce to free up more of my time. Then I'd pay less tax. Have more time for myself and family.

Oh and put 15 guys on the dole.

Seems unlikely.

If you believe your staff are incapable, why are you employing them?
If you believe your staff are capable and hard working, then by your logic, they'll find some other employer and be successful anyway.

McGray · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:46

dirtychinchilla said:
Well it's £211,500 because of the help to buy scheme. If we were better paid, then we might be able to get that size mortgage without help.

Why not buy a property you can afford?

mattyg · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:50

drakioned said:
Seems unlikely.

If you believe your staff are incapable, why are you employing them?
If you believe your staff are capable and hard working, then by your logic, they'll find some other employer and be successful anyway.

Not as black and white as that I'm afraid. We work in a very small market.
But one that needs constant managing.

Not everyone works in an office

An orchestra needs a conductor. Does that mean the musicians are no good

mattyg · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:51

McGray said:
Why not buy a property you can afford?

Because not everyone can save up a quarter of a million quid to buy a house

McGray · 6 Feb 2015 at 13:52

mattyg said:
Because not everyone can save up a quarter of a million quid to buy a house