Rich little poor kids
-
yeah most of Belgians living on a governement income have a newer and more expensive cell phone then I have. :sigh: And who pays for that stuff you think? Right, the working people... (PS: this does not state I'm against helping people with difficulties, but it's getting really ridiculous here...)
V. No hurries, no worries
hey another belgium resident ;P
V. wrote:
yeah most of Belgians living on a governement income have a newer and more expensive cell phone then I have. And who pays for that stuff you think? Right, the working people...
true true but lets not forget the people who are registred unemployed under several false names, wich leads up to having an income 4,5,6,... times the amount they would normally get. I think it was last year a case was discovered that a man was receiving a income of around 2000 euros (disability income) a month and had registred about 20 times. So you do the math 2000x20= alot of money.
If my help was helpfull let me know, if not let me know why. The only way we learn is by making mistakes.
-
yeah most of Belgians living on a governement income have a newer and more expensive cell phone then I have. :sigh: And who pays for that stuff you think? Right, the working people... (PS: this does not state I'm against helping people with difficulties, but it's getting really ridiculous here...)
V. No hurries, no worries
It's no better here, believe me. Back in the 80's I lived for four years on one of the most run-down sink estates in the entire country, and every one of those kids wore designer trainers and t-shirts; half the houses had Sky-dishes outside their homes; they all had cars; most of them went off to Torremolinos for their annual holiday... and they used to bleat on about how poor they were and moan about rich people keeping them down and how unfair life was... like you say, helping people in genuine need is one thing, but this is something else.
-
It seems to be a fashion at the moment, but about once a week I get a package pushed through my letterbox consisting of a large plastic bag with a request for old clothes etc - it's just an appeal on behalf of one charity or another. Today's one is for Barnardo's, and in big letters across the top of their appeal they state: "One in four children in the UK is living in poverty" WTF ???????????????? An asterix leads to small lettering at the bottom which indicates that "poverty" means living in households with below average income. Good grief - the average income of the UK is about £20,000 p/a after tax - how can anyone claim that living in a household with a post-tax income of, say, £19,000 constitutes poverty? It's utterly ridiculous. Goodness' sake, everyone in this country is entitled to a minimum income which, while it may not afford a great lifestyle, will stop your kids from starving or going barefoot - (providing you don't spend it on cigarettes, drink, drugs, gambling, Sky TV, etc...) Oh well, it's a useful supply of free bin bags, I guess.
Well this is because lefties have managed to define poverty as relative rather than absolute. Even the bloody Tories do it now.
-
It seems to be a fashion at the moment, but about once a week I get a package pushed through my letterbox consisting of a large plastic bag with a request for old clothes etc - it's just an appeal on behalf of one charity or another. Today's one is for Barnardo's, and in big letters across the top of their appeal they state: "One in four children in the UK is living in poverty" WTF ???????????????? An asterix leads to small lettering at the bottom which indicates that "poverty" means living in households with below average income. Good grief - the average income of the UK is about £20,000 p/a after tax - how can anyone claim that living in a household with a post-tax income of, say, £19,000 constitutes poverty? It's utterly ridiculous. Goodness' sake, everyone in this country is entitled to a minimum income which, while it may not afford a great lifestyle, will stop your kids from starving or going barefoot - (providing you don't spend it on cigarettes, drink, drugs, gambling, Sky TV, etc...) Oh well, it's a useful supply of free bin bags, I guess.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's completely absurd when you look at the world as a whole. Especially when you see the levels of obesity among the so called impoverished. I had an argument with my sister over this. She takes the view that it's a relative thing and that seeing people much better off than your self is what makes you a person in poverty. After going through the usual tell that to someone starving to death arguments I decided to take it to the extreme and said. "Well does that mean if everyone alive owned an entire planet and one person only owned a continent, say, the Americas, that that person would have cause for complaint". Beaten she churlishly argued it would depend if they had a large enough telescope to see the other planets. It's no wonder people think every thing's going to shit. When things improve we just move the goal posts.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius -
I couldn't agree with you more. It's completely absurd when you look at the world as a whole. Especially when you see the levels of obesity among the so called impoverished. I had an argument with my sister over this. She takes the view that it's a relative thing and that seeing people much better off than your self is what makes you a person in poverty. After going through the usual tell that to someone starving to death arguments I decided to take it to the extreme and said. "Well does that mean if everyone alive owned an entire planet and one person only owned a continent, say, the Americas, that that person would have cause for complaint". Beaten she churlishly argued it would depend if they had a large enough telescope to see the other planets. It's no wonder people think every thing's going to shit. When things improve we just move the goal posts.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus AureliusIndeed. If you (or your sister) wants to argue that there should be a small(er) gap between the top and bottom incomes in society then by all means argue it, but don't throw words like "poverty" around when the average is £20K p/a and that society is the UK. Hey, Bill Gates, you b*****d, I'm poor! Gimme gimme gimme! :)
-
I agree and think it is an insult to people around the world living in real poverty. How many of these UK families living in so-called poverty have two cars on their drive? or satellite television? or can afford annual holidays in the sun? Of course, people will say poverty is relative, but that doesn't wash with me.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
Of course, people will say poverty is relative, but that doesn't wash with me.
Except that it is. The cost of living varies wildly from place to place. If you can't afford food and basic services, even if you earn $35,000 USD per year, you're going to live in squalor. Here in the DC area, $1000 USD/month will rent you a rat-infested hell hole. Hell, there are homeless in Palo Alto, California who earn in excess of $70k/year. Just because some people live in mud and can't eat, doesn't mean your inability to eat is any less impoverished. True, there's some merit to the argument that "at least these people have access to television, electricity, etc." but on the balance of things, poverty requires some perspective.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." - Frank Herbert
-
I couldn't agree with you more. It's completely absurd when you look at the world as a whole. Especially when you see the levels of obesity among the so called impoverished. I had an argument with my sister over this. She takes the view that it's a relative thing and that seeing people much better off than your self is what makes you a person in poverty. After going through the usual tell that to someone starving to death arguments I decided to take it to the extreme and said. "Well does that mean if everyone alive owned an entire planet and one person only owned a continent, say, the Americas, that that person would have cause for complaint". Beaten she churlishly argued it would depend if they had a large enough telescope to see the other planets. It's no wonder people think every thing's going to shit. When things improve we just move the goal posts.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus AureliusTClarke wrote:
It's completely absurd when you look at the world as a whole. Especially when you see the levels of obesity among the so called impoverished.
Not at all related. High fat, high calorie foods are actually cheaper than healthy foods because they're easier to produce in bulk. This means the poor are maximizing their calories per dollar spent, which obviously results in obesity. In the US, a 1500-calorie, 150-grams-of-fat hamburger will set you back less than $2.00, whereas a very healthy sandwich can cost you upwards of $6.00.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." - Frank Herbert
-
It seems to be a fashion at the moment, but about once a week I get a package pushed through my letterbox consisting of a large plastic bag with a request for old clothes etc - it's just an appeal on behalf of one charity or another. Today's one is for Barnardo's, and in big letters across the top of their appeal they state: "One in four children in the UK is living in poverty" WTF ???????????????? An asterix leads to small lettering at the bottom which indicates that "poverty" means living in households with below average income. Good grief - the average income of the UK is about £20,000 p/a after tax - how can anyone claim that living in a household with a post-tax income of, say, £19,000 constitutes poverty? It's utterly ridiculous. Goodness' sake, everyone in this country is entitled to a minimum income which, while it may not afford a great lifestyle, will stop your kids from starving or going barefoot - (providing you don't spend it on cigarettes, drink, drugs, gambling, Sky TV, etc...) Oh well, it's a useful supply of free bin bags, I guess.
-
hey another belgium resident ;P
V. wrote:
yeah most of Belgians living on a governement income have a newer and more expensive cell phone then I have. And who pays for that stuff you think? Right, the working people...
true true but lets not forget the people who are registred unemployed under several false names, wich leads up to having an income 4,5,6,... times the amount they would normally get. I think it was last year a case was discovered that a man was receiving a income of around 2000 euros (disability income) a month and had registred about 20 times. So you do the math 2000x20= alot of money.
If my help was helpfull let me know, if not let me know why. The only way we learn is by making mistakes.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
providing you don't spend it on cigarettes, drink, drugs, gambling, Sky TV, etc
Guess what? (Oh yeah, chuck in a BMW 3 series too)
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
...just so long as you don't come whining to me about being poor after all that, (which I'm sure you wouldn't) then good luck to you.
-
Rob Caldecott wrote:
Of course, people will say poverty is relative, but that doesn't wash with me.
Except that it is. The cost of living varies wildly from place to place. If you can't afford food and basic services, even if you earn $35,000 USD per year, you're going to live in squalor. Here in the DC area, $1000 USD/month will rent you a rat-infested hell hole. Hell, there are homeless in Palo Alto, California who earn in excess of $70k/year. Just because some people live in mud and can't eat, doesn't mean your inability to eat is any less impoverished. True, there's some merit to the argument that "at least these people have access to television, electricity, etc." but on the balance of things, poverty requires some perspective.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." - Frank Herbert
Patrick Sears wrote:
there are homeless in Palo Alto, California who earn in excess of $70k/year.
If you're earning $70k a year even in Palo Alto, there's no need to be homeless. Just cross 101 and ask the people in East Palo Alto.
Compassionate Conservatism is an Oxymoron. Bush is just a Moron.
-
TClarke wrote:
It's completely absurd when you look at the world as a whole. Especially when you see the levels of obesity among the so called impoverished.
Not at all related. High fat, high calorie foods are actually cheaper than healthy foods because they're easier to produce in bulk. This means the poor are maximizing their calories per dollar spent, which obviously results in obesity. In the US, a 1500-calorie, 150-grams-of-fat hamburger will set you back less than $2.00, whereas a very healthy sandwich can cost you upwards of $6.00.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." - Frank Herbert
Patrick Sears wrote:
hamburger will set you back less than $2.00, whereas a very healthy sandwich can cost you upwards of $6.00.
The only reason the sandwich costs more is it is marketed as "healthy" (which it may or may not be, depending on the who supplies it). The bulk cost is not significantly different from that of the hamburger (certainly not 3x). A healthy sandwich prepared at home (instead of lazily depending on some fast food merchant) would cost significantly less than the $2.00 hamburger. The real problem here is that it's easier to blame the fast food merchants than it is to take responsibility for your own health.
-
It seems to be a fashion at the moment, but about once a week I get a package pushed through my letterbox consisting of a large plastic bag with a request for old clothes etc - it's just an appeal on behalf of one charity or another. Today's one is for Barnardo's, and in big letters across the top of their appeal they state: "One in four children in the UK is living in poverty" WTF ???????????????? An asterix leads to small lettering at the bottom which indicates that "poverty" means living in households with below average income. Good grief - the average income of the UK is about £20,000 p/a after tax - how can anyone claim that living in a household with a post-tax income of, say, £19,000 constitutes poverty? It's utterly ridiculous. Goodness' sake, everyone in this country is entitled to a minimum income which, while it may not afford a great lifestyle, will stop your kids from starving or going barefoot - (providing you don't spend it on cigarettes, drink, drugs, gambling, Sky TV, etc...) Oh well, it's a useful supply of free bin bags, I guess.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Today's one is for Barnardo's, and in big letters across the top of their appeal they state: "One in four children in the UK is living in poverty" WTF ???????????????? An asterix leads to small lettering at the bottom which indicates that "poverty" means living in households with below average income. Good grief - the average income of the UK is about £20,000 p/a after tax - how can anyone claim that living in a household with a post-tax income of, say, £19,000 constitutes poverty?
So only one in four children belongs to a household with below average income? For the mathematically challenged, that means that three in four children belong in a household with above average income. Is that likely?
John Carson
-
Skeptical of what? I have no doubt it's a genuine appeal from Barnardos (a well-know children's charity) - I just have no sympathy with their claim that 1-in-4 children in the UK can be classed as "living in poverty". The only way such a claim can be "true" is by adopting a ridiculous definition of what poverty is.
Hey man, children are animals too. You should be fighting for the safety of ALL animals. And that includes the children. :rolleyes:
-
Hey man, children are animals too. You should be fighting for the safety of ALL animals. And that includes the children. :rolleyes:
I have no problem with childrens' charities per se - but I do object to statements such as 1-in-4 children in the UK is living in poverty. That is my sole point in this post.