Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Society & Demographics News and Discussions

society demographics populations trends socioeconomics working class job trends statistics beliefs sociology

  • Please log in to reply
778 replies to this topic

#1
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England
http://www.bbc.co.uk...cation-15242103

Given the discussions we have had previously about ‘what is considered poverty’ this article about poverty increasing in the UK sheds some light and breaks down when someone or a family is considered to be afflicted by poverty in modern Britain. Obviously, the definition of poverty in our developed, first world nations is significantly different to what would be considered poverty on a global scale, though.

Falling incomes will mean the biggest drop for middle-income families since the 1970s, says a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.The IFS forecasts two years "dominated by a large decline" in incomes, pushing 600,000 more children into poverty.

By 2013 there will be 3.1 million children in poverty in the UK, according to the IFS projections.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said benefits changes would tackle poverty by "making work pay".

Squeezed middle

People are considered to be below the poverty line, or living in relative poverty, if they have a household income which is below 60% of the median national income.
The report from the IFS independent financial research organisation said 2.2 million children and two million working age adults were living in absolute poverty - a set standard below which no-one is expected to live - in 2009-10.

In percentage terms, 17% of UK children were living in absolute poverty in 2009-10.

It warns that in the next two years there will be deepening levels of adult and child poverty.

By 2012-13, the IFS predicts this will rise to 21.8% as an extra 600,000 children and 800,000 adults of working age will be in absolute poverty.

The report also issues a stark warning of tough times for people in the so-called "squeezed middle" - with median incomes falling by 7%, after inflation has been taken into account, the sharpest drop in 35 years.

There will also be 2.5m working-age parents and four million working-age adults without children in absolute poverty by 2013, says the report.

It also confirms previous suggestions that targets set in 2010 to cut absolute child poverty by 2020 to 5% are likely to be missed by a wide margin - with the IFS forecasting it will be 23%.

What is considered living in Poverty in the UK?

  • Single adult, no children: £165 per week.
  • Couple, no children: £248 per week.
  • Lone parent, 1 child: £215 per week.
  • Lone parent, 2 children: £264 per week.
  • Lone parent, 3 children: £314 per week.
  • Couple, 1 child: £297 per week.
  • Couple, 2 children: £347 per week.
  • Couple, 3 children: £396 per week.


~Jon

#2
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
That's a really good breakdown!!!!
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#3
Time_Traveller

Time_Traveller

    Master of Time Travel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • LocationTokyo, Japan, August 1st 2019 C.E.

Falling incomes will mean the biggest drop for middle-income families since the 1970s, says a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.


From http://www.bbc.co.uk...cation-15242103

We will have to wait for a decade in 2020-21 until Children and Adults in Poverty will be reduced.
I want to go ahead of Father Time with a scythe of my own.

H. G. Wells

#4
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
Poverty doesn't exist in the UK. Everyone is taken care of.

#5
KingstonDon

KingstonDon

    The Rationalist Monk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • LocationKortrijk, Belgium

Poverty doesn't exist in the UK. Everyone is taken care of.


Mind If I ask you for the reasoning behind this? I'm intrigued.

#6
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts


Poverty doesn't exist in the UK. Everyone is taken care of.


Mind If I ask you for the reasoning behind this? I'm intrigued.

Yeah that's a pretty stupid statement. Shimmy, are you even aware of the London riots less than a couple of months ago?

#7
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England
Threads merged.
~Jon

#8
mic of orion

mic of orion

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Locationlondon
hm, that means all who are out of work, in recipt of benefits and state pension are poor, around 9 million ppl, fu*k that's a lot of ppl.
It's dangerous to be right, when your government is wrong.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

#9
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
I saw the riots, they were 5 minutes from my house, they had absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Nobody who was involved in them lives in "poverty". I've personally spoken to many people who were involved in them and I assure you their motives were not political or involved any resentment about being poor. They rioted for fun and in order to loot stuff. The fact that you're not aware of this I assume means you don't live in the UK? The welfare system of this country assures nobody is "poor" unless they are either a massive drug addict or a massive alcoholic. In fact I lived myself on the benefits that everybody gets for a while and trust me, it's a comfortable life. But yea in conclusion, there is no real poverty in the UK of any concern and whatever media coverage you watched of the riots simply wanted to find a "reason" for them, because they felt uncomfortable reporting on riots that had no cause, especially when there were real riots happening all over the world for real reasons.
  • Chronomaster and jjf3 like this

#10
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

I saw the riots, they were 5 minutes from my house, they had absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Nobody who was involved in them lives in "poverty". I've personally spoken to many people who were involved in them and I assure you their motives were not political or involved any resentment about being poor. They rioted for fun and in order to loot stuff. The fact that you're not aware of this I assume means you don't live in the UK? The welfare system of this country assures nobody is "poor" unless they are either a massive drug addict or a massive alcoholic. In fact I lived myself on the benefits that everybody gets for a while and trust me, it's a comfortable life. But yea in conclusion, there is no real poverty in the UK of any concern and whatever media coverage you watched of the riots simply wanted to find a "reason" for them, because they felt uncomfortable reporting on riots that had no cause, especially when there were real riots happening all over the world for real reasons.


That is a great summary of the riots as i saw them too. US didn't pay too much attention to them, and while we as well tried to find a reason, we soon gave up.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#11
Chronomaster

Chronomaster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts

I saw the riots, they were 5 minutes from my house, they had absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Nobody who was involved in them lives in "poverty". I've personally spoken to many people who were involved in them and I assure you their motives were not political or involved any resentment about being poor. They rioted for fun and in order to loot stuff. The fact that you're not aware of this I assume means you don't live in the UK? The welfare system of this country assures nobody is "poor" unless they are either a massive drug addict or a massive alcoholic. In fact I lived myself on the benefits that everybody gets for a while and trust me, it's a comfortable life. But yea in conclusion, there is no real poverty in the UK of any concern and whatever media coverage you watched of the riots simply wanted to find a "reason" for them, because they felt uncomfortable reporting on riots that had no cause, especially when there were real riots happening all over the world for real reasons.

+1

The welfare state of the UK means anyone can live indefinitely without a job, with access to free healthcare, free education (at every level, since the government pay up front for university tuition fees) and they will have their rent and local taxes paid for them too, as well as being given money to live on. If they have kids they will get extra benefits. Apparently, in the UK, poverty means not being able to afford a second television, a laptop in additon to your desktop or a contract iPhone.

As for the riots, please. They were about kids feeling invincible and trying to get away with smashing some windows and stealing some flat screen TVs whilst people died fighting for freedom from tyranny in Libya. They're jokers, and were roundly condemned as such.
  • Shimmy likes this
Counting down...

#12
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

I saw the riots, they were 5 minutes from my house, they had absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Nobody who was involved in them lives in "poverty". I've personally spoken to many people who were involved in them and I assure you their motives were not political or involved any resentment about being poor. They rioted for fun and in order to loot stuff. The fact that you're not aware of this I assume means you don't live in the UK? The welfare system of this country assures nobody is "poor" unless they are either a massive drug addict or a massive alcoholic. In fact I lived myself on the benefits that everybody gets for a while and trust me, it's a comfortable life. But yea in conclusion, there is no real poverty in the UK of any concern and whatever media coverage you watched of the riots simply wanted to find a "reason" for them, because they felt uncomfortable reporting on riots that had no cause, especially when there were real riots happening all over the world for real reasons.

Okay, that's a respectable position, I didn't realize you lived there. You should understand that poverty in America and poverty in any other first world nation are two very different things. Our higher murder and crime rate isn't because of a lack of gun control, I can tell you that much.

Quick question though: How would you and your fellow citizens react to a Conservative push to privatize the NHS? Could austerity ever get to this point?

#13
mic of orion

mic of orion

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Locationlondon


I saw the riots, they were 5 minutes from my house, they had absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Nobody who was involved in them lives in "poverty". I've personally spoken to many people who were involved in them and I assure you their motives were not political or involved any resentment about being poor. They rioted for fun and in order to loot stuff. The fact that you're not aware of this I assume means you don't live in the UK? The welfare system of this country assures nobody is "poor" unless they are either a massive drug addict or a massive alcoholic. In fact I lived myself on the benefits that everybody gets for a while and trust me, it's a comfortable life. But yea in conclusion, there is no real poverty in the UK of any concern and whatever media coverage you watched of the riots simply wanted to find a "reason" for them, because they felt uncomfortable reporting on riots that had no cause, especially when there were real riots happening all over the world for real reasons.

Okay, that's a respectable position, I didn't realize you lived there. You should understand that poverty in America and poverty in any other first world nation are two very different things. Our higher murder and crime rate isn't because of a lack of gun control, I can tell you that much.

Quick question though: How would you and your fellow citizens react to a Conservative push to privatize the NHS? Could austerity ever get to this point?


We'd crucify Cameron, they'd lose the elections and never be electable ever again. Cameron's popularity is at all time low as it is, not sure how he'd cope with NHS privatization, suffce t say lib dems (coalition partners) would dissolve partnership and call for new elections would be inevitable.
It's dangerous to be right, when your government is wrong.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

#14
goofydoohdooh

goofydoohdooh

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
hahahahah wtf??? 165 pounds (i dunno the key) a WEEEK??? i don't know the conversions to well (google says its something like 257 dollars) but people are pathetic now a days... i could live off 100 dollars every week easy... i've done it before haha people these days are just so lazy. Welfare is way to god damn high also, especially for people to say they live in poverty haha they just think they are in poverty because they can't afford a new iphone every time one is released. I agree with shimmy... take a look at the occupy wall street protesters nobody really even gets what they want or what they are fighting for other than they just don't want to work for anything and have everything handed to them on a silver plate by the government how pathetic... grow a pair and get with reality higher and higher taxes won't work they never have and never will. but that's just one mans opinion... although I hope I don't stand alone on this one.

#15
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

I agree with shimmy... take a look at the occupy wall street protesters nobody really even gets what they want or what they are fighting for other than they just don't want to work for anything and have everything handed to them on a silver plate by the government how pathetic... grow a pair and get with reality higher and higher taxes won't work they never have and never will.


Posted Image

e.g. Working three minimal wage jobs to get by with no luxuries. In contrast to corporations in America that received bailouts who then gave their employees bonuses.

Edit: And seeing how the former is predicted to rise in UK, we shall see more protests happening in the future.

#16
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

hahahahah wtf??? 165 pounds (i dunno the key) a WEEEK??? i don't know the conversions to well (google says its something like 257 dollars) but people are pathetic now a days... i could live off 100 dollars every week easy... i've done it before haha people these days are just so lazy.

To be fair, the living costs in the UK are considerably higher than in the US so a like for like comparison using currency conversion isn’t really going to paint a true picture. That’s not to say I disagree with the sentiment of your comment though, £165 per week is nothing to be sniffed at, but let’s break that down a little based on a single adult with that income as the article suggests...

In the UK, the minimum wage an adult can work for is £6.08 per hour, or for someone working full time, around £12,000 per year. On a weekly basis, that is £230. Assuming they live alone, someone earning that much per week can then look forward to having to mandatorily pay out the following;

£30 income tax and national insurance
£15 council tax
£75 rent
£25 energy and water bills

Now the figures I have used here represent the lowest levels applicable really, anyone would struggle to find anywhere to live over here alone for less than those figures. Above are just the necessities to have a roof over ones head, and that’s 65% of a person’s weekly income instantly gone. Assuming the person isn’t lucky enough to live within walking distance of work, they would then have to factor in travel costs, we’ll forget about them owning a car because that would just be impossible at this income level for a single person living alone, but let’s add £20 for the use of public transport.

There’s your £165 and we’ve not even factored in *ANYTHING* but living and commuting costs. What about food and other expenses and purchases?

We have though looked at someone on minimum wage paying their rent, bills and commuting costs. They earn just over the ‘poverty line’, at £230 per week before deductions and are left with £65 for the rest of the week. If for some reason they had to own a car, that’d be even less, considering it costs around £5 (~$8) per gallon for petrol here. That £65 buys their breakfast, lunch and dinner for the week and has to cover anything else they need to do. It’s not great to be a single person on minimum wage. Of course, they have got a roof over their head, a job and they can feed themselves but luxuries are rare. So for anyone with an income of less than £165 per week gross, you can see why this is considered poor.

Now, being unemployed means that you can remove the tax, rent and commute costs from the equation, but then you are given around £60/week to live on. So working a minimum wage job and all the extra stress that causes is pretty much the same as not bothering to get a job at all. Unfortunately, many people see it that way and this is why we have a huge problem with youth unemployment at the minute.

Quick question though: How would you and your fellow citizens react to a Conservative push to privatize the NHS? Could austerity ever get to this point?

It might be easier for them to do if plans to merge income taxes with national insurance (the two main deductions from our salaries over here) go ahead, since there is a very conscious link for people between paying their national insurance and having access to services that it pays for such as the NHS and unemployment benefit etc. The conservatives are currently trying to introduce sweeping changes to the NHS which some might say is a semi-privatization of sorts, and it is meeting massive resistance. The institution, and access to universal healthcare, has been part of the national identity for over 60 years now. All sides of the political spectrum have grown up with it and for the most part, continue to support its existence.

The NHS is not entirely free on use, there are set charges to be paid for working adults who make use of certain services, but even then these are severely discounted. I recently broke a tooth, called the NHS helpline on Sunday and was seen the following day, had the tooth removed and it cost me just £17 (~$30). If a doctor prescribes any drugs, no matter the type or quantity, we pay just £7 (~$10) to the chemist for them. The ‘horror stories’ of propaganda you hear about the NHS where people are denied access to care are very rare or only occur in exceptional circumstances (such as in the purchase and application of experimental drugs and therapies). Most people can be seen by their doctor, dentist or any other type of practitioner whenever they need to be. The institution isn’t perfect though, and private dental practices, private hospitals and clinics have been popping up around the country over the last few decades, but the important thing is that the option remains and those who need *any* medical attention can get it regardless of their income or status in society.

As noted, the NHS is paid for as part of the National Insurance tax, which we pay in addition to Income Tax. The rates are as follows for every working adult in the UK;

•if you earn more than £139 a week and up to £817 a week, you pay 12 per cent of the amount you earn between £139 and £817
•if you earn more than £817 a week, you also pay 2 per cent of all your earnings over £817
•In addition to the personal contributions, all employers must also pay 13.8% of your gross salary within the above brackets in National Insurance for you too.


So there is plenty of money for it, the problem really is the excess of bureaucracy and middle management frittering away money on huge IT projects and modernisation. Both are needed, but both have been really poorly managed and cost a hell of a lot more in achieving than they should have. The NHS is just too embedded to ever be abolished or fully privatized, I feel, it would just cause massive and unmanageable upheaval throughout so many sectors of society here.
  • Unrequited Lust likes this
~Jon

#17
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,833 posts
  • LocationLondon

Gallup Poll And A New Study Both Confirm America Is Starting To Lean Left

Good news for the left.

Gallup just released a poll that reveals more and more Americans are shifting in ideological attitudes, and identifying themselves as ‘liberals’ in regard to social and economic issues. At the same time, fewer Americans are describing themselves as ‘conservatives.’

Read more: http://www.addicting...-liberal-views/


vGjfwhU.jpg


  • EVanimations, Cody930 and ddmkm122 like this

#18
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,833 posts
  • LocationLondon

Russia smoking ban comes into effect where 40 per cent of population are smokers
 
 By The Associated Press June 1, 2013 10:15 AM

MOSCOW - A law that bans smoking in public places has taken effect in Russia, a contentious move in a country with one of the highest smoking rates in the world.

The ban, which came into force Saturday, prohibits smoking in workplaces, schools, universities and on public transportation. More restrictions will be applied a year later.

Read more: http://www.vancouver...6378/story.html



#19
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

In regards to that Russia smoking ban, it appears to be great news. Hopefully this will allow Russia's life expectancy to continue increasing at a (relatively) fast rate.


Edited by Futurist, 17 June 2013 - 04:10 AM.

  • wjfox likes this

#20
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

oh good, as an anthropologist I like this thread  ;)


  • wjfox, Cody930 and Practical Mind like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: society, demographics, populations, trends, socioeconomics, working class, job trends, statistics, beliefs, sociology

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users