to not understand why so many poor people...

[nybom]

...are being called "poor" if they can afford:

• cigarettes/drugs
• dogs
• large amounts of takeaways/ready meals
• ready cut fruit, brands, air freshners and other superfluous crap, kids drinks/other products specifically tailored to kids
• to go out drinking
• FF babies
• to leave lights on, have electrical appliances on standby, not to use energy light bulbs, to keep the water running, to put on half a load of washing, to leave heating on at night
• to maintain artificial nails, to have hair extensions
• buy loads of beauty products
• to leave their car engine on whilst going shopping/standing in a traffic jam
• to have themed children's birthday parties with loads of props
• and most of all: have CREDIT cards so they can overdraw

i'm talking of regular habits not just occasional behaviour...

several of my friends are on benefits, so the observations are firsthand and not just assumptions.

a friend of mine (single mum on benefits) got a party bus for her DSs last birthday party (besides loads of presents), this year he's getting a wii (and loads of other presents). WTF?

why don't these people simply save more?

i on the other hand spend less than 100 pounds on a family of four (whilst buying high quality, fresh, organic products) by buying 50% of my shopping reduced/offers, at local markets and a lot of things (like toiletries) from pound shops or discounters. we buy value toilet paper (amongst other things); and i go to the hairdresser twice a year, and only to the beautycian for special occasions such as weddings. the children don't get any toys or clothes from us, as there are enough family and friends who don't know what to buy for christmas/birthday parties. so the kids basically don't cost us anything. we have one credit card and we make sure NEVER to overdraw because of the high interest rates.

i simply don't get it...

about the child benefit not the booze

lol Elie

Mezley - I suspect so

Of course, i am NOT the OP, so I don't know for sure - but I could understand the recentment if that were the case and so that's how I interpretted it.

All of the things you list, OP, are actually relatively "cheap" in comparison to paying a mortgage, paying into a pension, etc.

If your point is, it's a shame that some "poor" people do not budget sensibly and secure their long term futures, then obviously I agree with you (though of course, on constrained incomes, long term security is hard to come by); and like pagwatch, I would point out that many people, on different incomes, have also not made financially sensible decisions.

If, OTOH, as I suspect, you are simply angry that "poor" (again ) people choose to buy material goods, which - by implication - they don't "deserve", then YABU. People are free to spend their money as they choose; and as I pointed out, it is much cheaper to spend your money on relatively inexpensive "luxury" goods, than to live a more prudent life. E.g. large tv = £500, say. A once off. That is a couple of months of pension contributions to some people. Etc.

LOL Elie. Just take it one day at a time

I have no idea what the op thinks thats why i was asking for her to give a better example if what she means, but i expect she can't as i think she is just generalising

I'm struggling to make out the OP's point... is it that people claiming benefits and never work, through choice, should not afford the things she's talking about? Or people that work their arses off and claim they don't have any money for essentials? Who are the poor? People in the poverty trap? Homeless? Children?
My inkling is that it's people claiming any benefits top up or otherwise that then get their nails done and hair extended (do these people also wear juicy tracksuits?) that the OP feels the state shouldn't support to buy non essentials.......I could be wrong.

skyblu - the person you describe is irresponsible. Obviously. That has little to do with being poor. There are plenty of MNers who will tell you about their well-off exHs and exDPs who pay not a penny in maintenance to their children. Poor or irresponsible?

Slightly off the point, but - Pagwatch, I've got one of those apple slicer things - that you push down through the apple and core/slice it at the same time. If you push it almost all the way down, then pull it out again, you're left with the apple equivalent of a Terrys choc orange, which you can wrap in clingfilm, doesn't go brown, and from which your dc can break off the segments.

OP - you should apologise for the horrendously judgemental and offensive tone of your posts - you have caused huge upset to people here. You don't seem to care about the way you have offended many other people, yet bleat that you won't answer the valid and reasonable points that others have raised because your feelings have been hurt.

This Lynch Mob atmosphere is horrid. .

Please note I'm not part of the witch hunt, Nybom. But who is labelling these people poor? The govt. when they get benefits? Themselves? Since they have (or can access) money for the many things you listed, they obviously aren't poor according to the thesaurus definition you cited. So then by what criteria are they "poor"?

I agree with PosieParker and SkyBlu. I suspect that the OP was referring to those people that declare themselves to be poor, and yet have more disposable income than most. Liked the school shoe example.

Badly worded by the OP, though, with no real indication of what she meant or why.

It's not just the poor who are irresponsible...myself and DH had a massive income and we frittered it away so that now his wage is more realistic we feel 'poor'.

Surely the only way nybom can be sure Pai does not know her is if she lied in the op, lets face it she must have done.
Who would be friends with someone who checks to see how much washing you put into your machine or what kind of light bulbs you use.

she used a thesaurus to define poor??

omg - what a twat

I prefer this website to define poor. The whole section (including the measuring poverty bit) makes interesting reading.

Also this page on UK poverty is interesting on a national scale.

Ok, alardi and MotherPi - but the criticism extends to firmly "middle-class" families who complain about being poor (ie. not being able to afford non-essentials like big tvs, holidays, etc.), when - if you scratch the surface - you find that they are actually investing quite a lot of money in, say, their mortgages or pensions, or other - more recognisably "middle-class" - priorities. It's all about our own economic ideologies: what we think it is appropriate to spend money on.

People talk about having or not having disposable income, but in reality that's a red-herring. It is a luxury to be able to invest in your long term future by, for instance, paying a mortgage.

pagwatch- have heard putting a little lemon juice on apples stopa them going brown. haven't tried it but apparently it does.

Oh I knew you'd get a slagging for this OP. Because you are not allowed to wonder any such thing you know.

It annoys me that people jump down the throat of anyone who dares ask such a thing. Because it's an interesting question. I am really socialist, pro-welfare state and basically a bleeding heart liberal and I do not have it in for "scroungers" or any such thing. But I still do actually wonder how people can afford stuff. Why is that a crime? I wonder it about people on benefits who seem to smoke, drink, do drugs, have a car, eat takeaways and buy designer stuff. I also wonder it about other people eg OH's colleague and his partner who somehow have a massive expensive flat on one small income, or my friends who have one income and a big mortgage to pay, and yet all day long they give their DC those individual organic smoothie things that cost about £1 a go. I feel like OH and I with two well-paid professional incomes can afford less than what some other people seem to have. I'm not seething with resentment, just baffled.

But I guess people get money from other places - parents, working when claiming benefits (no need to flame me, it's fairly common), and debt, and maybe crime in some cases.

I did sociology A-level (oooh get me) and there was a lot of literature on this issue and why poorer people do in general (and often are forced to) spend more on essentials such as food, and also often spend a lot of money on inessentials like smoking. Not in a judgmental way, but attempts to explain and understand it. It is a valid sociological discussion so why is it so bad to ask about it? Just because the OP sees it happening doesn't actually mean she is saying everyone on benefits is the same - obviously that's not true.

By TiggyR on Wed 05-Aug-09 10:08:15
Are the dogs staffies perchance? Worry, just wondered....

What???

FAQ and I thought we drunk loads of milk

Your point about the car was a good one. We do have a car (a gift from my mum I hasten to add but I need it for work, late shifts and no buses. But it nearly kills us to tax and insure it. My ds has special needs as well..

having no money is not a walk in the park and I'm in debt (my ex fault mainly)

But alardi, the whole point of benefits is to alleviate poverty to (ideally) a manageable level (and in fact many people claim UK benefits aren't even enough to do that). They are given to people who would be poor otherwise and so that is why you would not expect someone on benefits to have tons of spending power. I can't see what's controversial about that.

Whose criticism "criticism extends to firmly "middle-class" families" Penthesileia - your's or the OP's?

I agree, and as I said, to me this reads as though she is referring to ALL those who complain they are poor, middle-class or not.

FAB post LadyoftheBathtub!!!

it is what she means.

She can be found on another post about what makes someone working or middle class