Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 7723774)

[/B]

Yes, but Kazanne, sorry there is a 'but' my friend,because I really hate disagreeing wth you at any time.
While doing so however you open up some very strong,valid and important facts as to dealing with money,that are not being addressed by any in power, past or present.

I have come across some horrific sights, a Mother left on her own, the Father gone for ages, she has what I would have termed a pittance to live on, no luxuries, just an old radio.

A lot of these people.like her, never have anyone checking up on them to see how they are, they are left to struggle day after day, week after week.
I thought one was bad enough, when I searched further and found a good number living this way,I was sickened.

These are the minorites that should be splashed all over the front pages to shame all govts; and those who seek power to govern, not the odd one or 2 with 10 children or the odd one that claimed x amount of benefits they shouldn't have.
These would not be news however ,and also the only bit of pride they may have left is their sadly 'isolation' from the rest of society.

Now you do make a fair point, some people are not good with money,it is not that they buy things they shouldn't,with respect that is another overpopularised genralisation, however people do get into difficulties I agree with that wholehearedly.

The problem is again, no officialdom is set up help for them to get 'confidential' advice, places like the CAB are bursting at the seams with loads of issues to deal with,so many slip through and are simple lost in the 'system',as politicians call it.

Universal credit from your govt;(had to get that in:joker:),will have housing benefit paid direct to the claimant, not the landlord.
That is going to cause massive problems I can see, in the future,for as you rightly said, some who maybe are poor in dealing with everyday things.

People with dementia for instance will be getting housing benefit paid direct to them,they then have to ensure they have to pay the landlord.
This govt; shows no responsibility at all as to such people.
The pressures will in some cases then fall on carers,or family who are then made to feel responsible for dealing with same.

I,taking on board your point as to some not managing money, well,then I would actually see that payments for all their essentials like Rent, council tax, water, electricity and gas were paid direct from their benefits.so what they had afterwards was what they knew was theirs to live on.
Sadly it seems this govt;particularly is putting the onus on those who receive 'entitlements' to have to struggle on and cope with all that themselves.
With less and less help being in place.

I agree some people are poor with money,that is a great point, leaving them to get on with things is not an answer however and also the answer is not to give them more, which was already paid direct to the source it was meant for however.
For me, it should be to extend that means, to those who would like it, or need it, to cover the other payments I mentioned above too.

What needs to be set in place are people to help claimants with their money,someone who has a good wage for decades, who then comes out of work,suddenly finds themself on a pittance.
really hard to adjust with the same bills and outgoings to have to do.

For those in absolute poverty,it is soul destroying, however they have come to know no different.
For govts; the good thing is likely these people will not have long lives,it is however still a disgrace,in my view, in the 21st century in the 5th or 6th largest economy in the World, that we have anyone in 'real' poverty at all.
Sadder still is that the vast majority of UK citizens neither think or believe it exists simply because they haven't seen it.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 7723804)

I would never fall out with you Joey simply because you have a different opinion to me,that would be very silly of me,I also know you know far more about politics than me,I guess I have to go by my own experiences,I just see people abusing the system all the time and it's so unfair as peoples greed takes away from the very people who really need help,I don't see how the government can be blamed for that,people will always try and get something for nothing whatever help is put in place,I DO think people should maybe help themselves a bit,I know there must be cases that are genuine and they should get help,but the majority are lazy,devious buggars,LOL,now vote for Dave you know it makes sense:dance:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7723803)

Once again I agree with most of what you have to say Joey. Though I would make the correction that Universal credit won't see a change in terms of rent going straight to claimants, that is already the case with "Local Housing Allowance" and has been for many years (it was that way when I was claiming it which would have been 5 or 6 years ago).

The real chaos I can see universal credit causing is being monthly lump sums rather than weekly. It's great for in-work benefits, with it all coming at the same time as a normal monthly pay cheque, makes it more like a wage top-up which is should be and is far more convenient for people who know how to manage a monthly budget.

However, for people who as you say have no skills with managing money, monthly will be a disaster. People will be broke by the 15th of the month and then getting themselves into serious issues, not eating properly or accumulating debt. It's all very well to say that it'll be their own fault, but real world skills are not taught to youngsters AT ALL in school, it's no surprise that people are bad at it. I've said before that I think there NEEDS to be a mandatory practical skills class introduced at schools for 14+ year olds. Managing a budget, paying bills, understanding and being responsible with credit, etc.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7723822)

As for whether or not poverty exists in this country - it definitely does. Is it relative poverty on a global scale? No, probably not, but in terms of having a liveable existence in this country it is. 5 and a half years ago, we had a newborn, I only had a part time minimum wage job, and we were poor. There's no two ways about it. We were "poor people". My personal rock bottom was walking down the street in the pouring rain, feet soaked through because my shoes had massive holes in them, ripped coat, probably holes in my jeans as well and I could not - literally COULD not - afford to replace any of them. Our daughter was first priority, then rent, bills and food. There was nothing left after that. We don't smoke, we don't drink, we weren't wasting a penny but at the end of any week that's what there was: pennies. Was I starving and dying of AIDS in a war-time country? No... But I challenge anyone to live like that and not consider themselves to be struggling. Financially, emotionally, existentially.

Situation has changed immeasurably since. No debts, a respectable sum in various savings account, and I'm almost disgusted to say that we probably (definitely...) waste more money on frivolities now than we used to have for basics.

I won't ever forget what it was like to live like that though and it's why I would never condemn anyone who is stuck in that situation and I definitely wouldn't shame and embarrass them by forcing them to pay for everything with vouchers.

I'll be brutally honest and say that both me and my wife are competent, intelligent and well educated and so weren't stuck for too long. Some people just aren't so lucky and are genuinely stuck, for decades or forever. I actually genuinely understand why so many end up addicts, actually.

Originally Posted by arista (Post 7723827)

"why so many end up addicts, actually. "


Yes they need Treating , Correcting


Sign Of The Times

Originally Posted by Nedusa (Post 7723740)

I think if you want to carry out a proper comparison of poverty now and in the 1940's you need to compare living standards. If you look back at life for working class and below in those times and compare with today you would be shocked at how little we had back then.

With sometimes huge families they would be housed in small substandard housing sometimes with no bathrooms and outside toilets . To have all the children in shoes would be an achievement in itself.

Ill health , malnutrition were commonplace as was rickets and scurvy, polio and TB.

Holidays were few and far between and pawnbrokers were a way of life.

Working conditions were awful with low pay and terrible conditions leaving people in some industries with chronic conditions like miners lung and asbestosis .

Yet compared to today's world the lower working classes are certainly not in the same situation . Most people have bathrooms and inside toilets , all children are fed some might say considering the access to cheap junk food, rather too well fed. In fact considering the levels of childhood obesity access to food is certainly not a problem.

Also the general health and well being of children has improved vastly with innoculations for most children's diseases and screening program's to assess children's health generally.

We collectively take more holidays home and abroad have far more leisure time and children are not allowed to be exploited for work with legislation regulating the hours Children can work.

So I think because food banks have pricked the public's conscience due to their use as a political tool, we should not be fooled into thinking that as a Nation we have regressed to the poverty levels of the 1940's when clearly we haven't .

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 7723804)

I would never fall out with you Joey simply because you have a different opinion to me,that would be very silly of me,I also know you know far more about politics than me,I guess I have to go by my own experiences,I just see people abusing the system all the time and it's so unfair as peoples greed takes away from the very people who really need help,I don't see how the government can be blamed for that,people will always try and get something for nothing whatever help is put in place,I DO think people should maybe help themselves a bit,I know there must be cases that are genuine and they should get help,but the majority are lazy,devious buggars,LOL,now vote for Dave you know it makes sense:dance:

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 7723817)

[/B]


With total a full respect for you Kazanne,:joker: never in a million years would I vote for him,never ever, I think he is beyond all trust.

I don't know more about politics than others really, I surprisingly got an eye opener at UNI, when I got involved in many things that took me out of my sort of protected bubble and into others lives of those far less fortunate than myself.
I then found I wanted to really help and learn far more than what was just on the surface.
Something my Grandmother always taught me was never take for granted what those in power say, search out the real answers and things for yourself.

I actually really don't find many people abusing the system really, I have found many people however 'abused' badly by the system.

Originally Posted by Nedusa (Post 7723740)

I think if you want to carry out a proper comparison of poverty now and in the 1940's you need to compare living standards. If you look back at life for working class and below in those times and compare with today you would be shocked at how little we had back then.

With sometimes huge families they would be housed in small substandard housing sometimes with no bathrooms and outside toilets . To have all the children in shoes would be an achievement in itself.


Have you ever been to Blackpool, Jaywick or merthyr?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/s...st-deprived-uk

Ill health , malnutrition were commonplace as was rickets and scurvy, polio and TB.

All of these seemingly eradicated diseases with the exception of polio are on the rise today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...n-the-war.html

Holidays were few and far between and pawnbrokers were a way of life.

If people are too poor to put electric in the meter it's safe too say they can't afford a holiday.

'When Finch started working for the National Pawnbrokers Association of the UK 22 years ago, there were 70 shops in the country – now there are 2,500.'
(2013)[/B]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...s-8558926.html


Working conditions were awful with low pay and terrible conditions leaving people in some industries with chronic conditions like miners lung and asbestosis .

Advances in health and safe working practices would have accommodated the difficulties associated with heavy industry. Outsourcing was an ultimately more costly solution.

Yet compared to today's world the lower working classes are certainly not in the same situation . Most people have bathrooms and inside toilets , all children are fed some might say considering the access to cheap junk food, rather too well fed. In fact considering the levels of childhood obesity access to food is certainly not a problem.

We are not discussing the world, the only comparison being drawn in the OP is the UK then and now.

Also the general health and well being of children has improved vastly with innoculations for most children's diseases and screening program's to assess children's health generally.

'HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
Similarly, temporal patterns of child health reflect differences in income and material wealth. Over the past 70 years the differences in infant and child mortality between the social classes have been wider during periods when income and material differences were wider, and narrower during periods of greater social equality'

http://adc.bmj.com/content/76/5/463.full

We collectively take more holidays home and abroad have far more leisure time and children are not allowed to be exploited for work with legislation regulating the hours Children can work.

'6. Zero hour contracts
Zero hour contracts are also known as casual contracts. Zero hour contracts are usually for ‘piece work’ or ‘on call’ work, eg interpreters.

This means:

they are on call to work when you need them
you don’t have to give them work
they don’t have to do work when asked'

https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-an...hour-contracts

So I think because food banks have pricked the public's conscience due to their use as a political tool, we should not be fooled into thinking that as a Nation we have regressed to the poverty levels of the 1940's when clearly we haven't .

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 7723873)

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 7723905)

I read the study kaz. The level of poverty in some areas is dropping to levels not seen since the 40s, if you're wanting to see images of people 3rd world stylee starving before you admit there's a problem that's your issue. It is not however the measure of poverty in the UK.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 7723872)

:joker:I was only joking Joey,I know you wouldn't,it's funny how we see things differently but I guess that makes for a good debate,so if Labour get in ,they better do a bloody good job Joey otherwise I will be blaming you:joker:

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 7723873)

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul (Post 7724034)

I bet without the food banks some people literally would be starving.I'm not comparing now to the 1940's because i see that comparison as too extreme and there are alot of lazy *****ers about who get too much money for doing nothing but i've seen programmes where mothers have enough money to feed their kid but not themselves and can't even afford a Christmas present for the kid.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 7724040)

Dont mean to sound unfeeling here ,but,a bag of potatoes is a £1,tin beans 30p and maybe pack fishfingers for a quid,or similar,that would be roughly £3,that would feed more than one,so are people REALLY saying people aren't eating?