Why does the UK have so many poor people?

[KenDodd]

Just that really.
Why do you think?

I agree, the thing is that those who did take up right to buy (my parents couldn't afford it) have an asset to pass onto their children, that helps alleviate some out of the poverty trap. In reality they would have sold off the housing stock they wanted to anyway, it was just a scheme to make it affordable to some people who otherwise would never, ever be able to get on the property ladder. People should be angry at politicians if anything, rather than working class people who were given the opportunity they never thought they would have- I'm sure many would take it up now if they could.

People should be angry at politicians if anything, rather than working class people who were given the opportunity they never thought they would have- I'm sure many would take it up now if they could.

Absolutely right. I don’t believe anyone who says that they would not have taken a legitimate opportunity to improve their lot on principle. Perhaps I am being unfair, but there is a strong sense of sour grapes in the resentment directed at older people. Anybody turning on their own kind on age grounds is playing straight into the hands of the people who have hoarded the real wealth and privilege for years. Better to have the plebs fight amongst themselves than ask difficult questions of the truly rich, eh?

Children should get GCSEs unless they have a significant learning disability. Even then they should be supported to achieve, if at all possible. All to often children are written off as ‘not academic’ when they are actually being damned with low expectations. Five GCSEs is hardly ‘academic

I have 2 children with learning disabilities.
5 GCSEs would have been a miracle

Nowadays you can encourage your children as much as possible but if they fail at one particular GCSE then there is nowhere for them to go.

The ruling is young people have to stay on education or training until they are 18
But then there isn’t anything on offer if you fail to get both your Maths and English GCSE
In our area you can start off doing a level 1 course alongside your Maths and English GCSE but then if you pass the Level 1 course and still haven’t got Maths and English GCSE you can’t progress

A couple of years ago you could have moved onto level 2 and level 3 and had more goes at passing some sort of qualification in Maths and English. Now the way is barred

Are you confusing the over 55s with the politicians of the day? Save your criticism for them.

Except we live in a democracy, we get what we vote for. Do you think it'll be right in years to come for people who voted Leave to say Brexit was nothing to do with them, blame the politicians or will it be as much their fault? This isn't a dig a baby boomers, it's about all voters, we can't just shrug our shoulders and say blame politicians, we put the politicians in place.

As Arnoldthecat said, degrees used to be for the academically gifted only, and the rest of us mortals went on to do HND courses (more practical subjects, architecture, design, engineering) and the others that didn't go to poly did other courses (like catering or building) at the local technical college. AND it was free and we got grants! It was absolutely amazing. I find it really sad that young people have to saddle themselves with debt before they've even left home.
There were also a lot more manufacturing jobs in the 70/80s which don't exist now, and most skilled people could afford a house, or had the option for a council house.

People are selfish. It's a total disgrace how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few and how many people are 'working poor'. And yet we continually vote for governments who have no interest in changing things.

. I don’t believe anyone who says that they would not have taken a legitimate opportunity to improve their lot on principle

No me neither. I cannot imagine many would refuse the chance if they had a letter saying- you have paid x amount in rent, therefore this will be offset against the value of the house and you can buy it for a reduced amount to take into consideration the amount you've already paid. If people had the means, very very few would actually say oh best not because then someone else won't get my council house after.

Because of policies that further enrich the rich and further impoverish the poor. It is far more unequal than it used to be when richer people paid more tax for instance. And food banks have become a major feature of our welfare system and benefits processes by design instead of something that exists for when something goes wrong. Because we have a system where people are exploited to serve the capitalist economy rather than the economy set up to serve human needs.

Except we live in a democracy, we get what we vote for. Do you think it'll be right in years to come for people who voted Leave to say Brexit was nothing to do with them, blame the politicians or will it be as much their fault? This isn't a dig a baby boomers, it's about all voters, we can't just shrug our shoulders and say blame politicians, we put the politicians in place.

I get what you are saying (and FYI I think that you have had a bit of an unfair battering on this thread) but the PP’s specific complaint was that the so-called baby boomers deliberately impoverished future generations in the following ways:

• the Right to Buy scheme

• buy to let

• the flotation of public utilities

I don’t recall any party standing on a platform of those policies (although I haven’t read the Conservative manifestos for 1979 or 1983, so who knows?).

Whilst we all know that people have a tendency to vote according to their own interests or particular hobby horses (Brexit being an excellent example), are you saying that the people who took up the right to buy were all Tory voters and all voted Tory specifically because they thought that they might benefit from a policy that wasn’t necessarily part of the election promises?

I think the point is that the PP appears to consider that ordinary people who took opportunities that were offered were somehow disloyal and had taken those chances knowing that it would make life difficult for people in the future, and that they didn’t care and just did it anyway. I don’t think that’s true.

I’m 48 and I can see what a different country we are to the way things were in the eighties, certainly when it comes to people knowing their place and having low expectations. Ordinary working people in 1987 taking the chance to, say, buy shares in BP or British Gas (and that was the point of those bloody “If you see Sid, tell him” adverts: to tell ordinary people that they, too, could own shares) had the chance to participate in economic benefits that they could not have accessed five years previously. What maintenance fitter would have risked approaching a city stockbroker to ask where he could invest £250? It wouldn’t have happened. Offer that guy a chance to own shares in a public utility and his lot can only improve. Similarly, give a family a chance to own their council house and they get security and a sense of belonging to a group of people who are able to participate in some of the good things in life.

I’m a bit more conflicted over buy to let. However, I think it is unfair to condemn older people who benefited from past opportunities. Not all of them cynically voted in governments who reduced support for future generations. They were given a chance, and they took it. 99% of people would do the same, irrespective of who they voted for.

I don’t think anyone can blame previous generations for taking the opportunity’s given to them. You also need enough people to make that hindsight right choice to make a difference

Like furlough, has anyone with adequate savings gone “no thanks” and handed it back to the government?
I know a few businesses that never took it, but if we are talking on an individual level, probably not.

may I add re the right to buy.

when council houses were sold to the tenants, the sale money never went to the local council it went to central government. meaning the councils could not put the money back into building more houses. They were restricted to what the government gave them in budgets for things like that.

Also I could be wrong but the rent off the council houses went to the local council. So once a house was sold not only did the sale money disappear to CG but they also lost the income from renting.

I'm sorry but no Joe blogs public would have any inkling as to the effects coursed by them personally just buying up the house they called home, when it was offered at a reasonable price to them.

It was a Tory way of restricting income in working class labour councils.

They gave a gift to the working class with one hand, whilst taking away much more from them in the other hand, by financially strangling the local council.

I'm not tory bashing, don't worry I have lots to say about Blair too.

I had wrote a long post on blair about university's, minimum wage and tax credits. but then lost the post, and just can't be arsed to write it all again.

essentially though our inequality is down to 30-40 years of government legislation to changes in our structure of working and education. it is a massive job that will take years to unpick all the different aspects that has lead us here.

I don't think any of our political parties would put the time and effort and detail in, that would be so badly needed.

Corbyn was idealist but was certainly not realistic.

I don't know what the answers are. But blaming previous generations isn't it.

But blaming previous generations isn't it.
No but they could do some sole searching and try to put inequality right. Generally they don't, plenty go on about how they worked all their lives (so what, doesn't everyone) and how young people could buy a house if they didn't eat avocado or have smart phones.
I'm 51 btw (before anyone accused me of just being jealous) but realise I have benefited enormously just by being born at the right time and I'm really not happy with the country we have left for our young to inherit.

they could do some soul searching and try to put inequality right.

What would you suggest? Genuinely. I’m interested.

We can’t have different tax rules for different age groups, and not all of the people in the ‘baby boomer’ generation were able to benefit from the opportunities that came along. @Sandybval tells us that her family couldn’t afford to take up the right to buy. How would you decide which of the people in that age group should now relinquish wealth? How would you do it? Voluntary payments to the Treasury are unlikely to fly.

We have some effective tools already to redistribute wealth from older people to younger people: inheritance tax, the lifetime pension savings limit and councils’ ability to use individuals’ assets to fund long term care. I’m violently in favour of all of those and I have no patience with people who whine about those policies.

plenty go on about how they worked all their lives (so what, doesn't everyone) and how young people could buy a house if they didn't eat avocado or have smart phones.

The ‘avocado and smart phones’ thing is nonsense, and I haven’t heard many people say it in real life. The ‘I worked hard all my life’ thing is a red herring. It’s got little to do with how hard you work. There are people who have grafted hard all their lives and don’t have a light. It’s about having had chances, and having taken them, for which I don’t think that generation can be condemned because anyone would have done the same.

My generation (X) had loads of chances. Loads. Expansion of university places. No tuition fees. Grants. Relatively cheap housing in the nineties, which also happened to be a time when incomes rose. I’m surprised that we’re not the focus of resentment. It would be more warranted than the ire directed at the over-55s.

I never thought I be saying this but I’ve been watching a benefits show on channel 5 and I do think it’s worth a watch.

They show 3-4 people each show and on average I have been of the opinion that at most one of the people each episode has somewhat been to blame for their situation. All the other people you can see why they are stuck on benefits and why they can’t get out of the cycle.

I think for me the key issues meaning people were struggling were:

• lack of jobs in their area, especially ones that aren’t zero hour contracts

• lack of education and I don’t just mean GCSEs etc, I mean for example understanding a pay day loan is a terrible idea (although I understand they are sometimes unfortunately needed). If you’ve never been taught this then why would you know.

• lack of intelligence - now I’m aware this sounds horrible so let me try to explain! Of course no one should be punished for being less bright but they featured a chap who had been offered jobs but to get the job you had to pay £60. Now I know that’s not a legit job but if you don’t know that’s not right then you’re more likely to pay. All these companies and individuals preying on people they know won’t understand fully are awful.

• benefits are too low. If you have nothing spare at the end of the month, how can you afford clothes for an interview or money for a bus to get to work etc.

• mental health issues

• being poor costs more. Monthly gas and electric is far cheaper than topping it up each day like a lot of these people have to. Cheap clothes fall apart sooner and need replacing.

When I thought the person featured was in some way to blame it tended to be because they had made a decision despite knowing it would make everything worse. Eg the family that spent £250 per child on Xmas and then next shot he looked at a loan he owed of £250 and said he had no idea how they could pay that back. I appreciate though that that is not as simple as it sounds and they spent that much to try to treat their kids because they don’t feel they have enough.

I think education is a way out of poverty, but I don’t necessarily mean formal education. I mean understanding budgeting, why a pay day loan is bad, that a job that makes you pay to work isn’t the norm, what abuse looks like, etc etc. Arguably better for some kids than an extra maths class! But that will never happen under a Tory government.

There's a really good social history book called 'Estates', can't remember the author. IIRC it's about life growing up on a council estate and said council estates demise into essentially a deprived ghetto. Struck a chord with me as both sets of grandparents were seen as priviledged to be allocated a brand new council property with indoor loo in the 1930s. I remember visiting them and noticing how quiet and respectable their neighbours and the general environment was. Fast forward 80 odd years and the whole concept of social housing has changed and to a certain extent monetised.

Lack of financial education and budgeting skills often contrive to make and keep people poor along with the easy availability of high interest debt.

Lack of well paid jobs in the right areas and lack of support for training.

High cost of housing.

Having children before being financially secure or single parent families where no child support being paid.

Is it this?

www.waterstones.com/book/estates/lynsey-hanley/9781783783823

It looks good, I’ll get it.

but realise I have benefited enormously just by being born at the right time and I'm really not happy with the country we have left for our young to inherit

A too feel the same.

But the people who shout "you don't work hard enough" are twatbadgers they probably always were and always will be.

knob heads who lord it over other people thinking the gained everything all by themselves, are in every generation and every society. You are seeing people shout this because they have a platform to, the same as people (younger or same age) have a platform and are shouting you are an entitled twat/boomer.

it is divide and Conquer.

how are you or I responsible for the government allowing and helping companies to use zero hours contracts.
for fucking about with education and the curriculum, selling off utility companies and all the other policies that have changed over the years.

I always voted for a party that I thought would be the most responsible in looking after everyone in society. Once they are in (or not) government I can do no more.

Yes I can sign partitions, go on matches. Fat lot of good most of it did. Look at thousands that turn out to march against the Iraq war.

You and me are not the ones with the power. We can try as best we can from the side lines. But at the end of the day we primarily have a load of rich boys from elite families running our country.

most people in every day life just wants to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and have a few nice things in life like holidays. Non of them did anything deliberately to fuck over the younger generation.

Shang My Grandad told me about when they were building the council houses in the village. They had pretty much all been allocated, and my Grandad was known for being a militant left winger and he only had two kids, not 7 or 8 like lots of families (nowadays he would be described as straight edge) so he thought he'd blown his chances.

Then when he was walking past the last one, with the big garden backing onto fields, the foreman called him over and said, "Apparently this one if for you Tink's grandad."

He always put it down to my Grandma being drop dead gorgeous and having the best scrubbed steps . But having that lovely 3 bedroom semi detatched, with an indoor bathroom and wash house, in a village of damp pokey terraces, changed their life.

Iamthewombat - I remember watching an interview on tv when the BT shares were floated. The guy being interviewed was a wealthy public school type, obviously old money. He was appalled that the ‘little people’ were allowed to buy the shares. I understandably can’t remember the exact wording now but he basically said the working classes should be happy with their wage packets and should know their place. It actually prompted me to buy some shares myself (did quite well out of them). That interview as always stayed with me and still makes me angry.

I think poor people in some other countries would swap to be poor here as still so much more

@strugglingwithdeciding I think the problems faced by the poor in developing countries are very different though. a lot of developing countries have double digit economic growths so while the poor have no social safety net, the 'rags to riches' story is a lot more prevalent, esp in countries like China and India. Less regulation also means more business opportunities. They also often have close knit family networks so the family helps out a lot more. In china, the average savings rate is 50%, people can save for things like medicine, education because the cost is small enough to justify it (try saving for medical expenses in the USA when uninsured).

The problem for the poor in the UK is that there is no family network. People pay for childcare even when in abject poverty cos parents don't or can't help out. Costs are high because its a developed country with minimum wage and regulatory standards. Its not as easy to save because of the tax rate (even my grandparents living in 1960s singapore which was a third world country then used to save 20-50 % of their wage in biscuit tins so they could afford medicines and school fees for their kids, as well as a rainy day fund) as the assumption is that the state would provide all the public services at low cost. However, the state keeps cutting back on all the public services and welfare so the poor are left with nothing. They have the worst of both worlds in a way.

I grew up with absolutely nothing and as an adult unless something has a function it doesn’t enter my house. My house is bare.

I am probably an extreme example but what always amazes me in these benefits programmes and going to people’s houses is the sheer amount of stuff people own.

I sometimes wonder if people didn’t buy so much stuff they could manage their money a lot better.

Even if you have the money just thinking twice about what you buy. Does it serve a purpose, do I need it. I think would save the country a whole lot of money and probably go towards saving the planet as well.

The older generation has not screwed anyone over. Mostly we just did the best we could while waiting years in the mortgage queue - yes, there used to be a waiting list! And then paid 17% interest - that's 8 times what most people pay today.

I'm 57 so the end of the baby boomers. I once worked out that I have paid £372,000 in paye in that time. God knows how much in NI, VAT and fuel duty.

I've worked since 13, free school meals family but managed to get some a'levels and go to college - not uni. I've worked 36 years full time, am a single mum to one ds (only one maternity leave). I haven't claimed benefits or had help with housing.

I don't have a final salary pension - no one I know does. I will probably work another 10 years by which time I will have done 46 years full time and 8 part time as a teenager. By then I will hopefully own my home outright.

I haven't screwed anyone over, and it makes me sad that anyone is foolish and ageist enough to think it is that simple.