Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maximay Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its a forum for crying out loud! you don't have to objectively decipher and analyse everything you post/read on here, you are allowed to just rant (as a lot of people do) sometimes, and he/she should'nt be chastised for doing so.



Exactly f**king right, couldn't agree with you more!

Couldn't agree less. Why should the medium and anonymity make me more inclined to rant pointlessly like a loon than I would down the supermarket or having a discussion with mates down the pub*.

If a bit of a decorum is the norm with all your normal interactions, then why should here be any different.


Besides, there's somewhere to do it now.


*at least before the 6th pint.

Clearly not Keef, likewise for the pub. Just because I don't like twats out to impose their own overinflated egos on people and/or spoiling for a fight, doesn't mean I can necessarily avoid them.


In all respects this forum is merely a mirror of the real world, and just whose line is it anyway...to err..borrow a tv programme title?

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "The Poor"

>

> It doesn't seem to matter how poor 'the poor' are:

> they always seem to be able to budget for Sky and

> a large-ish television.



The Government definition of poverty is having an income of less than 60% of the median income. On this measure, the proportion of the UK population defined as in poverty is roughly one in five. (For those not mathematically inclined the median is the point at which 50% of any sample is above the median and 50% is below it). In UK I believe the median income is about ?23,000 and in London about ?27,000.


On this measure it means not only that "The Poor" will always be with us (unless the range of incomes becomes so tight that, roughly, the highest income is no more than twice the lowest income) but also that as the general population becomes wealthier so the level at which poverty is defined will move upwards and "The Poor" will be able to afford what previous generations would have considered unobtainable luxuries.


If, controversially, poverty were measured on a more absolute, rather than relative, scale then perhaps poverty could be eradicated. Difficulty is to devise a sensible absolute measure. Is it:


a. Sufficient household income to clothe, feed and house a family in relative comfort (insulated accommodation offering warmth, H & C running water, bathroom & WC, and enough bedrooms such that no one has to share with more than one other person) with a small sum left over to allow a choice of "frivolities" such as beer, Sky movies, TV, fags or an occasional cheap holiday?


b. Sufficient income clothe a family in charity shop clothing and prevent them from starving or freezing to death. (The Scrooge definition)


c. Something else - either softer or harsher according to preferences.


I would be in favour of something close to a. above as on that basis once a family gets beyond having to choose between the "frivolities" then they are out of poverty - not rich but off the breadline.

The chancellor in LAST years budget took away the 10 % band (we pay more) and decreased income tax by a couple of % (we gain) last year for implementation this year. There's something I don't like about this delayed implementation, but the two measures seem to more or less cancel each other out. However he hit some higher earners (and to be honest many in London are) by also introducing the delayed increase of the NI higher earnings limuit coming in again about now (that hits many people earning around 40K pretty hard). This NI higher earnings limit is meant to increase for 3 or 4 years yet too - until it joins with the higher tax bracket - that'll hit the 40K earners for a few years.


If I remember the pensioners fuel payment was meant to be a temporary stop-gap until a fairer way of treating pensioners was found.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...