Poverty rate among working households in UK is highest ever

Minusorange said:
Evidence, because there's been relatively few trials of a Universal basic income in an actual meaningful sense

Benefits create these toxic environments but a UBI is different to benefits
Click to expand...

Not the UBI bit:

"no extra safety nets from breeding

You need to break the toxic cycle, that's how you help them by not helping them"

Not helping them only further hurts the kids and the cycle continues. I'd support a UBI or at least a wide scale trial of one, I don't think it's the answer to idle/NEET parents though.
 
Minusorange said:
Means tested pregnancy licenses could be a thing too, prove you can look after yourself and can afford a child before being allowed to have one, otherwise it's down to the forced abotion clinic,
Click to expand...
What would we do if those parents losing their income after they have those children? Off to the kiddies farm for the children?
 
Minusorange said:
Means tested pregnancy licenses could be a thing too, prove you can look after yourself and can afford a child before being allowed to have one, otherwise it's down to the forced abotion clinic, yes it sounds harsh but it's clear there's a lot of people who lack the responsibility/intelligence to make these choices for themselves and bringing up children in these toxic environments is borderline child abuse to be honest
Click to expand...

I thought Adolf shot himself in a bunker in Berlin ?
 
explicit4u said:
Not helping them only further hurts the kids and the cycle continues.
Click to expand...

If they didn't get any extra money from having kids, maybe they wouldn't have kids ? Kids are getting hurt from these types regardless, you either try to stop them having kids (either by encouragement or force) or you remove the kids, but nobody seems to like these solutions because it's too "mean"

Don't really see anybody else offering solutions, probably because they all know the solutions aren't pretty
 
FoxEye said:
Still a long way to go before people start giving a crap. Especially politicians.

Even if we started sending people to work houses or gulags, most would just say, "Life is what you make of it, if you don't pull yourself up don't expect anyone else to do it for you."

Coz that's what Britain is today. I'm alright, Jack, let's put the Tories back in for 24 more years.

Don't get yer hopes up fella that we'll ever be any different. Anything left of the Tories is dirty socialism, and we don't want none of that.
Click to expand...

when has it ever been any different? Which countries operate a better system then?
 
Tony Edwards said:
What would we do if those parents losing their income after they have those children? Off to the kiddies farm for the children?
Click to expand...

Universal basic income, the kids get it too so there's absolutely no reason why, if a parent lost their income they couldn't afford to care for the child, even if meant cutting back on other luxuries they were once acustomed to, the UBI is enough to live basically so nobody would be going without essentials and if the parents fails to do so then child services removes the child and puts it in care
 
Minusorange said:
If they didn't get any extra money from having kids, maybe they wouldn't have kids ? Kids are getting hurt from these types regardless, you either try to stop them having kids (either by encouragement or force) or you remove the kids, but nobody seems to like these solutions because it's too "mean"

Don't really see anybody else offering solutions, probably because they all know the solutions aren't pretty
Click to expand...

Nope they absolutely would have kids, the kids would just suffer more.

Or because it's not something that you solve with a single solution or because the causes are varied and complex and there's no one simple solution.

You remove the kids and then what, dump them into an underfunded care system where they can end up in even worse situations?
 
Minusorange said:
Universal basic income, the kids get it too so there's absolutely no reason why, if a parent lost their income they couldn't afford to care for the child, even if meant cutting back on other luxuries they were once acustomed to, the UBI is enough to live basically so nobody would be going without essentials and if the parents fails to do so then child services removes the child and puts it in care
Click to expand...
What happened to the breeding licence you were talking about?
 
Jokester said:
But if Furlough impacts it even though the evidence is, people across demographics have been able to save money hand over fist then as you agreed, as a measurement of poverty, “relative poverty” is a fairly useless one.

Think about it like this, are more people living in poverty if another group have become wealthier? Of course not, as a measurement, relative poverty is useless.

Don't get me wrong, working poverty is a problem that needs addressed (along with the benefit trap mentioned above), but measuring relative poverty is completely pointless as it's not something that has a practical solution beyond massaging the figures.
Click to expand...

It depends on whether one group is becoming wealthier at the expense of another, e.g. whether there is a transfer of wealth between groups, or whether a group has now increased expenses due to the increased wealth of another. The answer to both of those is a resounding yes in this country, with wage stagnation and the costs of housing, education and childcare increasing at 10x the rate of inflation, and 15x the rate of wage growth.
 
explicit4u said:
Well providing massive levels of expensive support is the answer, it just appears to be unpalatable with the current electorate. The irony being that it's infinitely more expensive to let social problems like this pass from generation to generation, than it is to invest in the solutions to the problems.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to just give all the work shy benefit claimants as much as they want for their maccies, beers, smokes, 4KTV’s or whatever? Because that’s what your post sounds like.
 
We do love to throw the word poverty around in the UK.
Very few are actually poor.

A roof over your head
Double glazing
Kids in school with free meals
University opportunities
Central heating
Electric
Running water
TV
Internet
Free healthcare
Police & Fire cover
Clean clothes
A bed to sleep in

Doesn't sound too bad to me.
If the children are living in poverty, it is the parents of said children who are to blame. The state does more than enough to pay for other people's lifestyle choices.
 
robfosters said:
So your solution is to just give all the work shy benefit claimants as much as they want for their maccies, beers, smokes, 4KTV’s or whatever? Because that’s what your post sounds like.
Click to expand...

What about the post gives that impression?

I said expensive support, not cash in hand/more benefits. I'm talking a functional social service, early years care and support, easily accessible mental health services, actual work coaches and helping people find jobs and careers suited for them.

I personally don't care if benefit claimants want to spend their money on those things. The fact that's what some people jump to when talking about more support for poor people is a perfect example of what I mean when I say the electorate don't seem to want help people (or maybe they've been convinced those things aren't helpful, who knows).
 
Pipe & Slippers said:
My OH, a lifelong Labour supporter, worked @ CAB for 8 years followed by a 4/5 years for 2 national charities, and she came to the conclusion that there are many folks who, for whatever reason, just can't function in society. How high a %age that represents, I don't know

I heard a shocking story from one of her friends. She was doing a pilot scheme to help families identified at some sort of risk (I think it was a government initiative of some kind). 5 days a week she visited the same family. The routine was arrive @ 7:30, get the 2 kids out of bed, get them dressed and fed, and off to school by 8:45, and then chuck yesterday's clothes in the washing machine so the kids had clean clothes for the next day. All the while the mother was sat in the kitchen, smoking, and looking out of the window. The father was sat in his boxers and a vest on the sofa, playing on the xbox, also smoking. After that she's sit with the parents (if they were talking to each other) and try and help them plan the rest of their day in terms of shopping, cooking, cleaning, managing their money, paying their bills etc. She'd leave by 10. After 10 weeks the support stopped because nothing was changing. The parents were quite happy to let her do the kid stuff and breakfast in the morning and listen to her advice for another hour or so, but apart from that, they didn't want to change. What did they do during the day? Window and smoking for her and xbox and smoking for him. She felt like she was providing free home-help for them, while her own kids were getting themselves up, fed, and off to school without her - she thought it was only rich people who had a nanny for their kids!

How do you help people like that? Throwing more money at them is not the answer, but neither is providing massive levels of v expensive support, so you are left with muddling along as we have been for years, because there are no easy answers

[I realise this is all slightly off-topic]
Click to expand...
Are you tarring everybody with that brush?
 
The kids thing is super hard.

It's not great to punish the kids for parents poor life choices.
But at the same time it's basically impossible to help kids without giving **** parents a free ride.

In a perfect world I would fully support licences for having kids. Unfortunately mostly everyone can make kids. However there's a good percentage who can't bring up kids.

Obviously this (for now) is impossible and would be frowned upon. But really. It's the most responsible job anyone could have.

When the state supports peoples bad choices. If people can't improve and learn, it's isn't ridiculous for that to licenced.


I'm of the opinion we have moved past the point where its a right to be able to have kids.

This isn't even a financial thing. These kids often have no hope Kent environment they've been brought into.
 
HACO said:
It depends on whether one group is becoming wealthier at the expense of another, e.g. whether there is a transfer of wealth between groups, or whether a group has now increased expenses due to the increased wealth of another. The answer to both of those is a resounding yes in this country, with wage stagnation and the costs of housing, education and childcare increasing at 10x the rate of inflation, and 15x the rate of wage growth.
Click to expand...
Even so, the relative poverty measurement literally takes none of this into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom