More than a million have used UK food banks in the past year

Creaky · Apr 16, 2014

mikeyjh said:
So only those who can afford it should have a family? The poor shall not breed? Now where did I here that before......

In practice the opposite is the case - as income rises birth rates fall.

Herr Tubthumper · Apr 16, 2014

Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:
Just for my information, what's the percentage of home ownership in Germany, compared to the UK?

53% I believe.

Herr Tubthumper · Apr 16, 2014

Mr Bridger said:
Is it ok to buy the council house you have been living in for years? You family home like.....

I don't support the selling of council housing.

mikeyjh · Apr 16, 2014

Creaky said:
In practice the opposite is the case - as income rises birth rates fall.

Yep, just don't like people suggesting that the poor shouldn't recreate....

Herr Tubthumper · Apr 16, 2014

Mr Bridger said:
If you cannot afford to start a family, then maybe wait a while until you can afford to , instead of thinking the state should pay for it.

Did Questions say the state should pay for it? I think he is suggesting employment should come with a fair and decent living wage.

Creaky · Apr 16, 2014

Mustafa said:
If you go to almost any country in the world, the poorest people usually have the largest families - and the same applies in wealthy Western countries too. It's not irresponsible there and it's not irresponsible here either - it's just human nature, those children will one day become adults who can support their parents and siblings.

What would be irresponsible would be for the state to minimise any support for them, but thankfully our country hasn't got to a critical point in that respect (yet)

As you say, this doesn't just apply on a country level, it equally applies within a population.

Where there is no state support for the elderly then I accept your argument about children being the parents future providers - in the UK this simply is not the case and having a family larger than you can support is irresponsible by definition. Those who do so are not taking responsibility for the costs involved in their upbringing but relying on the state to do so.

Herr Tubthumper · Apr 16, 2014

Creaky said:
As you say, this doesn't just apply on a country level, it equally applies within a population.

Where there is no state support for the elderly then I accept your argument about children being the parents future providers - in the UK this simply is not the case and having a family larger than you can support is irresponsible by definition. Those who do so are not taking responsibility for the costs involved in their upbringing but relying on the state to do so.

What if you have a family and then fall on hard times or the breadwinner pisses off? is this also irresponsible? Maybe we should all hedge our bets and not have any children just in case ?

Mr Bridger · Apr 16, 2014

Herr Tubthumper said:
Did Questions say the state should pay for it? I think he is suggesting employment should come with a fair and decent living wage.

not saying he did, but thats seems to be the assumption these days.

Beach Hut · Apr 16, 2014

Quite an interesting debate given the OP no doubt started this in the usual pro leftie rhetoric.....

Barrel of Fun · Apr 16, 2014

Creaky said:
Why? I don't want to use the comparison to reduce assistance for those below the poverty line in the UK but to encourage greater help for those in genuine poverty not just below a theoretical 'poverty line'.

From your link

"The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) British household income in that year"

Statistically in any large random sample there will always be a proportion lower than 60% of the median figure.

I see what you mean, but the median doesn't suggest that it is a comfortable existence.

The poverty line for 2009/10 is as follows...

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/uk-poverty-line

Of course you are always going to get people below the poverty line by choice or by circumstances, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to eradicate poverty (whether possible or not).

*Idealistic view alert* - I would have a global meeting and coerce my fellow countries to tax the hell out of billionaires and ensure that everyone in this world has fresh water, access to education and medicine (plus all the other basic things). You never know, there might be the next Einstein growing up in a hamlet in Mozambique, but he/she never gets to reach their full potential as they were blinded at the age of five and then died of dysentery when they were seven.

Creaky · Apr 16, 2014

Herr Tubthumper said:
What if you have a family and then fall on hard times or the breadwinner pisses off? is this also irresponsible? Maybe we should all hedge our bets and not have any children just in case ?

Not the same scenario.

Starting a family you know you are unable to support is irresponsible - the case you describe is unfortunate.

The bottom line though is that in both cases the welfare of the children is the most important factor and the state does need to support them.

Beach Hut · Apr 16, 2014

Barrel of Fun said:
*Idealistic view alert* - I would have a global meeting and coerce my fellow countries to tax the hell out of billionaires and ensure that everyone in this world has fresh water, access to education and medicine (plus all the other basic things). You never know, there might be the next Einstein growing up in a hamlet in Mozambique, but he/she never gets to reach their full potential as they were blinded at the age of five and then died of dysentery when they were seven.

Quite a lot of billionaires have created a lot of jobs, by taxing them to hell would probably mean less jobs.

Why do you pathologically hate rich people ?

Jealousy perhaps.....

Herr Tubthumper · Apr 16, 2014

Beach Hut said:
Quite an interesting debate given the OP no doubt started this in the usual pro leftie rhetoric.....

Is this is a back handed compliment?

Beach Hut · Apr 16, 2014

Herr Tubthumper said:
Is this is a back handed compliment?

Indeed it is

Herr Tubthumper · Apr 16, 2014

Beach Hut said:
Indeed it is

Thank you.

Westdene Seagull · Apr 16, 2014

Mr Bridger said:
If you cannot afford to start a family, then maybe wait a while until you can afford to , instead of thinking the state should pay for it.

You do realise the state pays for every child just as long as neither of the parents earns £60k+ ? Nothing to do with being poor. Personally I'd rather we paid poor people more to support their children and anyone earning over £30k nothing.

Bakero · Apr 16, 2014

Barrel of Fun said:
I see what you mean, but the median doesn't suggest that it is a comfortable existence.

The poverty line for 2009/10 is as follows...

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/uk-poverty-line

Of course you are always going to get people below the poverty line by choice or by circumstances, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to eradicate poverty (whether possible or not).

*Idealistic view alert* - I would have a global meeting and coerce my fellow countries to tax the hell out of billionaires and ensure that everyone in this world has fresh water, access to education and medicine (plus all the other basic things). You never know, there might be the next Einstein growing up in a hamlet in Mozambique, but he/she never gets to reach their full potential as they were blinded at the age of five and then died of dysentery when they were seven.

What has that Mozambican child done to earn the right not be blinded at five and killed by dysentery? Sounds like communism to me.

Those billionaires deserve every penny of the money they fairly earned and should keep every penny.

Beach Hut · Apr 16, 2014

Herr Tubthumper said:
Thank you.

It is very interesting and perhaps the biggest concern is that food banks have now become an everyday part of life for some therefore will be around for ever now.

There are many divided political thoughts on this however the biggest issue is the enormous burden now placed on the welfare state that can no longer cope. How this can be resolved easily and quickly is a generation away in my view and not actually sure how to do it.

Creaky · Apr 16, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
You do realise the state pays for every child just as long as neither of the parents earns £60k+ ? Nothing to do with being poor. Personally I'd rather we paid poor people more to support their children and anyone earning over £30k nothing.

That would encourage the irresponsible and at the same time discourage the responsible having children.

Is that what you really want?

Nibble · Apr 16, 2014

BigGully said:
But who is living in 'poverty'.

I perhaps accept a void on aspiration, opportunity and financial equity for some and I'll willingly stick the boot into politicians, bankers and footballers but poverty, really ??

If you cannot afford to feed your family or even yourself I would say you are in poverty.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

More than a million have used UK food banks in the past year

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sound of the suburbs

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Abort, retry, fail

Well-known member

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Well-known member

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Languidly clinical

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Well-known member

New member

Share this page