How badly of really off are the "poor people" of the United Kingdom

In the wake of a Conservative majority it seems the nations are up in arms about 5 more years of the poor getting poorer ect.

I would like to ask those that either fit the catogory of "poor" and those that may not be but feel sympathy for them what exactly is a reasonable standard of living for those on the very bottom rung of the ladder and who seem unable to do anything to raise there standard of living but seem to expect it to be raised on there behalf.

As always folks try and keep it civil, all opinions welcome.

I don't believe this vote, which meant as in Canada, manipulating ridings so severely that a minority can elect a majority government that the majority of the citizens doesnt agree with, so that had to be stated. But, don' t believe this has to do with very many endorsing conservative hateful policies, have and have nots.

I believe that the left failed to stand up for the people. It associated with the immigrants and was even going to make it illegal to say anything against immigration and the changing face of UK.

I believe this was a vote against the Islam face of UK.

a reply to: nonspecific

Poor is defined by people with money. People without money are 'poor'.

"Pooor people, they don't have any money."

lulz

originally posted by: Unity_99
I don't believe this vote, which meant as in Canada, manipulating ridings so severely that a minority can elect a majority government that the majority of the citizens doesnt agree with, so that had to be stated. But, don' t believe this has to do with very many endorsing conservative hateful policies, have and have nots.

I believe that the left failed to stand up for the people. It associated with the immigrants and was even going to make it illegal to say anything against immigration and the changing face of UK.

I believe this was a vote against the Islam face of UK.

At want point does that statement have any thing whatsover to do with the question I just asked please?

Did I say please post a completley random point with no relavance to the OP and let's just see what happens??

I suppose in very simple terms you are poor if your income is less than your outgoings, that however is mitigated today by credit and borrowing. If you can only survive by borrowing and credit then you are technically poor although it wouldn't necessarily feel that way in your daily life as you drive to your job in your car that you brought on credit and you manage to pay your monthly credit card bills and still pay your rent/mortgage, and feed clothe yourself and family.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nonspecific

Poor is defined by people with money. People without money are 'poor'.

"Pooor people, they don't have any money."

lulz

So what is your answer to the question please I fail to understand your comment.

originally posted by: hotel1
I suppose in very simple terms you are poor if your income is less than your outgoings, that however is mitigated today by credit and borrowing. If you can only survive by borrowing and credit then you are technically poor although it would necessarily feel that way in your daily life as you drive to your job in your car that you brought on credit and you manage to pay your monthly credit card bills and still pay your rent/mortgage, and feed clothe yourself and family.

I disagree, you can be rich and be in the same situation with incomings and outgoings but with a higher standard of living.

If you are talking about paying a mortgage, paying credit card bills and paying off a car loan could this really be deemed "poor" and give you a right to complain about how bad your life is?

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: hotel1
I suppose in very simple terms you are poor if your income is less than your outgoings, that however is mitigated today by credit and borrowing. If you can only survive by borrowing and credit then you are technically poor although it would necessarily feel that way in your daily life as you drive to your job in your car that you brought on credit and you manage to pay your monthly credit card bills and still pay your rent/mortgage, and feed clothe yourself and family.

I disagree, you can be rich and be in the same situation with incomings and outgoings but with a higher standard of living.

If you are talking about paying a mortgage, paying credit card bills and paying off a car loan could this really be deemed "poor" and give you a right to complain about how bad your life is?

I accept that, and your reply does underscore the point. It is only wealth if you actually own the property, items, or money. So therefore many people who appear outwardly wealthy could in fact of terms of ownership be termed as poor.

a reply to: nonspecific

The question about poor is really not a suitable question and the poverty, inequality, monetary system is just HATE. And its disgusting. Degrees of poverty, like degrees of agony during cancer, is just moot and in the end, the ones who have more may be roping themselves into experiencing things with great regret, those who can't do the math, and think it out.

The election had little to do with a majority of underpriviliged, mainly working poor and eroded middle class, voting for big business and everything to do with how they want their country back.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nonspecific

Poor is defined by people with money. People without money are 'poor'.

"Pooor people, they don't have any money."

lulz

So what is your answer to the question please I fail to understand your comment.

You're only "poor" if you equate fulfillment with wealth.

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: nonspecific

The question about poor is really not a suitable question and the poverty, inequality, monetary system is just HATE. And its disgusting. Degrees of poverty, like degrees of agony during cancer, is just moot and in the end, the ones who have more may be roping themselves into experiencing things with great regret, those who can't do the math, and think it out.

The election had little to do with a majority of underpriviliged, mainly working poor and eroded middle class, voting for big business and everything to do with how they want their country back.

I fail to see your authority on deeming my question suitable and I respect your views on this.

I look further to your input on other threads and thank you for your opinion.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nonspecific

Poor is defined by people with money. People without money are 'poor'.

"Pooor people, they don't have any money."

lulz

So what is your answer to the question please I fail to understand your comment.

You're only "poor" if you equate fulfillment with wealth.

I was asking in the sense of what should be deemed a minimum standard of living at the bottom level of society.

It was an actual question as opposed to an invitation to philosophize although I agree with your sentiment.

Poor-------No cell phone----one change of clothing or no change of clothing------no home or shelter---no internet--no food-----limited education or no means to obtain it . Poor is a term that is not specific in this day and age, many see themselves as poor, but still have that cell phone.

a reply to: nonspecific

There are currently 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. That’s almost a third of all children. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty . In the UK 63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .

These child poverty statistics and facts will help to give you an idea of the scale of child poverty in the UK and the affect it can have on:

a child's education
a child's health
the day to day lives of families.

Three-year-olds in households with incomes below about £10,000 are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000 .
Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average.

Only 48 per cent of 5 year olds entitled to free school meals have a good level of development at the end of their reception year, compared to 67 per cent of all other pupils.
Less than half of pupils entitled to free school meals (just 36 per cent) achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above, including English and Maths, this compares to 63 per cent of pupils who are not eligible.

1.6 million children are growing up in homes which are too cold 41 per cent of children in the poorest fifth of households are in families who can’t afford to replace broken electrical goods, compared with just 3 per cent of children in the richest households.
59 per cent of children in the poorest fifth of households have parents who would like to, but cannot afford to take their children for a holiday away from home for one week a year. This only applies to 6 per cent of children in the richest fifth.

www.barnardos.org.uk...

The UK is the world's sixth largest economy, yet 1 in 5 of the UK population live below our official poverty line, meaning that they experience life as a daily struggle.

Oxfam's vision is for everyone in the UK to have enough to live on, and for all men, women and children to be treated with respect and dignity no matter how much money they have. We believe it is unacceptable that over 13 million people in the UK do not have enough to live on, and most do not have the power to speak out about what this feels like and why it is wrong. We work with others to achieve a fairer and more equal country, in which everyone in the UK can live free from poverty and shame. We do this in three ways:

We develop projects to improve the lives of people living in poverty
We work with policy-makers to tackle the causes of poverty
We raise public awareness of poverty to create pressure for change

Discrimination and prejudice play a large role in the lives of people experiencing poverty. That is why challenging negative attitudes and addressing gender and race inequality are integral parts of our work.

policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk...

originally posted by: Chansi3
Poor-------No cell phone----one change of clothing or no change of clothing------no home or shelter---no internet--no food-----limited education or no means to obtain it . Poor is a term that is not specific in this day and age, many see themselves as poor, but still have that cell phone.

So you would say that having a place to live and the basic means to eat, sleep and keep clean and healthy are the absolute bare minimum requirements for a human being then?

Acess to information maybe, health care? the right to education maybe?

I have to pay council tax, I get help with rent though. I have to pay the standard gas/electric/water bills. I have internet bills too. I have sold pretty much everything of value to cover bills and stuff. Now I am overdrawn and have resorted to credit to buy some essentials (thanks to planned obsolescence - its impossible to buy goods to last now). I have no phone contract. After all the above have gone out, I have barely enough money for food and travel. As for hobbies, I can't do those any more. I haven't bought new music or video games for a long time, just what is available for free. Never go out to clubs or events any more either. Still wearing the same clothes I was 5 years ago.

Before the tories got in with their austerity, I was more comfortable, I could afford to eat more, and have hobbies. I had more help towards rent and council tax, and bills were lower. I have witnessed other people lose out in similar ways to myself, some worse. It is happening to loads of people, and its only going to get worse. I'm still trying to figure out how the country has got better.

Everyone should be entitled to a reasonable standard of living, regardless of where they live or who they are. Adequate,clean housing with power. Good quality food. Ability to enjoy pastimes and hobbies. All things required to be physically and mentally comfortable (as possible for a persons circumstances). Living excessively at the expense of those who live in, or forced into poverty is just plain wrong.

a reply to: nonspecific

I was asking in the sense of what should be deemed a minimum standard of living at the bottom level of society.

The more money you have the more expensive your emergencies are.

I know what you are asking and sorry, I am trolling as usual…

a reply to: nonspecific
What answer do you expect when you load your question with your mind already made up with " they expect it to be raised on their behalf"?
Yes, there are poor people that can only survive on benefits. But what is the answer to that? The people in power now are making it inevitable "work, where ,at what and for minimal money" is their mantra, hence zero hours contracts on less than a living wage.
Yes, there are people starving mainly because they are too proud to accept charity. That opens another question, why should they be that poor that they NEED to go cap in hand for food.
Or is this what you want to hear. Yes there are people living on the benefit system that have no intentions of getting off, but they are certainly in the minority.
UK is one of the heavily taxed nations on earth. Even the poor are taxed when they buy any thing there is VAT. The people in power now have just indicated that they are going to tax benefit payments.
Let me ask you a question. How come in every town and city in the UK there is a proliferation of charity shops selling secondhand clothes?

a reply to: Chansi3

I only have a phone (a cheap throwaway PAYG that only makes calls and texts, no internet or camera or anything like that) because someone gave me one for my birthday. I would not have one otherwise. It still has the credit that was pre-loaded by the person who gave it to me. I am sure that many other people obtained their phones in similar circumstances. Bear that in mind please.

Hmmm, not sure I agree. Many of my clients were working up to the minute of their illness, have paid taxes all that time and tried to save a little.

Nonetheless, when they got ill, the government 'tested' them, saw that they could walk and dress themselves, and thus declared them fit for work and eschewed them disability benefit.

Now they live on food bank donations and the odd money staff illegally slip them.
Food banks equals poor. And I don't appreciate politicians, provably and recently, stating that it is because food bank users spend their money on fags and tattoos instead of their child's meal; or that they don't know how to handle money; or that they spend too much on fast food.

It is also traumatising and depressing and debilitating, mentally, to go to these wonderful places (and thank your god for them) when you've never asked anything of the State before.

These guys don't conflate fulfilment with wealth. They just want their children to eat.
a reply to: intrptr