The Politics Thread

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think there could be a better system whereby those earning certain amounts pay more, as AT says, without having to kick folk out of their houses.

But steady on, it's not his fault that's the system. He's no more obligated to feck off out of his house, legally or morally, than Amazon and Google are to pay more tax than they had to. It's the systems fault in both cases - and one costs more than the other!

I believe Baroness Uddin is a case in point where she (and her family) are resident in what is not only a council house but vastly subsidised at that, and she owns other properties and she oops sorry, her husband owns a goddam palace in Pakistan. Now she is taking the piss.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If I walked into the council office and asked for [a house] I'd be laughed out of there.

That's because AT, Dubai council only does Council Tents. (and motability camels...)

They do houses alright, though I couldn't afford the AC bill even if they gave me one. They're usually big enough to house a herd of camels

[Harry Genshaw]

Thought this was a great article on the beeb today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26254706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Thought this was a great article on the beeb today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26254706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trouble with that article Harry is that he sinks (no pun intended) his own argument, when he says "not because of a genetic predisposition..." really, 90% of those he's describing wouldn't have a fckin clue as to what that means, and, I'd argue, precisely because of a genetic predisposition.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

[William the White]

Is that a reductio ad absurdam argument?

I see the problem you identify, but I think, in real life, you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...

I note that Cameron is currently boasting about being in the 10th most prosperous society on the globe... When talking to Scots...

But not when talking to bishops asking him about poverty and the contribution he has made to it...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Is that a reductio ad absurdam argument?

I see the problem you identify, but I think, in real life, you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...

I have always thought it's a profoundly unhelpful blending of concepts in people's minds to measure poverty like this.

If, over a few years, the poorest in society become better off in material 'standard of living terms', but the richest in society become better off by a slightly higher %, then what you have is increasing inequality which is more helpfully discussed in those terms.

The arbitrariness of the 60% doesn't appeal to me either.

No - I'd rather have a proper debate about inequality - what it is, where it is harmful and when it isn't.

And then I'd rather have a separate but related debate about absolute poverty - how people's basic material needs are being attended to and how this is changing over time.

[Prufrock]

I read your initial post before, then came back on here to reply, but don't need to now as I agree with that ^.

I think financial inequality is a massive problem, and it pisses me off no end. I don't think it's helpful to use the word 'poverty' though, and think any attempt to start a discussion about 'relative poverty' is doomed before it begins to end in an argument regarding what that phrase means, rather than the issue itself.

[Beefheart]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

[Worthy4England]

So I think there are two problems here - one is around financial inequality and one around poverty. I agree they're separate problems, but whilst we're pointing to the problems in defining what "relative poverty" means, what does "financial inequality" mean?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

I don't think a tenfold overnight increase in incomes would see a tenfold increase in demand for, say, bread.

Anyway, it's understood that we're already talking about real income, isn't it?

I am interested in William's idea that the reality is "you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...".

You are not a poor person from Kensington if you are on 59% of the median income in Kensington.

[Beefheart]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

I don't think a tenfold overnight increase in incomes would see a tenfold increase in demand for, say, bread.

Anyway, it's understood that we're already talking about real income, isn't it?

I am interested in William's idea that the reality is "you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...".

You are not a poor person from Kensington if you are on 59% of the median income in Kensington.

Demand isn't the only determinant in setting a price though. Does stuff in London cost more because people have more money, or do people in London have more money because stuff costs more?

[Bruce Rioja]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

I don't think a tenfold overnight increase in incomes would see a tenfold increase in demand for, say, bread.

Anyway, it's understood that we're already talking about real income, isn't it?

I am interested in William's idea that the reality is "you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...".

You are not a poor person from Kensington if you are on 59% of the median income in Kensington.

Demand isn't the only determinant in setting a price though. Does stuff in London cost more because people have more money, or do people in London have more money because stuff costs more?

Does London Weighting still exist?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

I don't think a tenfold overnight increase in incomes would see a tenfold increase in demand for, say, bread.

Anyway, it's understood that we're already talking about real income, isn't it?

I am interested in William's idea that the reality is "you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...".

You are not a poor person from Kensington if you are on 59% of the median income in Kensington.

Demand isn't the only determinant in setting a price though. Does stuff in London cost more because people have more money, or do people in London have more money because stuff costs more?

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

[Worthy4England]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

I don't think a tenfold overnight increase in incomes would see a tenfold increase in demand for, say, bread.

Anyway, it's understood that we're already talking about real income, isn't it?

I am interested in William's idea that the reality is "you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...".

You are not a poor person from Kensington if you are on 59% of the median income in Kensington.

Demand isn't the only determinant in setting a price though. Does stuff in London cost more because people have more money, or do people in London have more money because stuff costs more?

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

What's that then? Real income, as opposed to say unreal income?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

What's that then? Real income, as opposed to say unreal income?

Income adjusted for inflation.

[Beefheart]

60% of median income is a bizarre measure of poverty, isn't it? It means that if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd still have the same number in 'poverty' the next day. That can't be right?

Well, in theory if you multiplied every household's income by 10 overnight, you'd see a similar increase in prices, so yeah, you probably would have the same number in poverty the next day.

I don't think a tenfold overnight increase in incomes would see a tenfold increase in demand for, say, bread.

Anyway, it's understood that we're already talking about real income, isn't it?

I am interested in William's idea that the reality is "you are in poverty within the society you actually live in...".

You are not a poor person from Kensington if you are on 59% of the median income in Kensington.

Demand isn't the only determinant in setting a price though. Does stuff in London cost more because people have more money, or do people in London have more money because stuff costs more?

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

Exactly, so if everyones income was 10 times greater, in all likelihood they would end up with the same 'real' income due to inflation and so would still be in the same position they were previously? So the median might not be that bad of a measure?

[Worthy4England]

I'd agree Beefy.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Exactly, so if everyones income was 10 times greater, in all likelihood they would end up with the same 'real' income due to inflation and so would still be in the same position they were previously? So the median might not be that bad of a measure?

Given that 'income' in this context is shorthand for 'real income', I was talking about 'real income' being ten times greater.

[Beefheart]

Exactly, so if everyones income was 10 times greater, in all likelihood they would end up with the same 'real' income due to inflation and so would still be in the same position they were previously? So the median might not be that bad of a measure?

Given that 'income' in this context is shorthand for 'real income', I was talking about 'real income' being ten times greater.

That is however a purely hypothetical scenario, so not sure how it could be used as an argument against using a median? (not that I'm necessarily saying it is a good measure)