"Greed blunts social compassion. The rich take too much, leaving the poor with too little..."

[Aefondkiss]

An opening paragraph in the Guardian's society section today, about modest living. It was said by a man called Bob Holman.

It also says in the article 3 million children live in poverty in the UK, " half the UK's population shares 6% of Britain's wealth, while the top 1% own a quarter of it".

I know we have heard it before, but .

It is wrong.

Blimey.

However right or wrong, nothing will change.

And some of these definitions of poverty are a joke - like not having a week's holiday every year - are a bit dubious.

And let's not forget the dubious ways most of the wealth has been acquired...!!

Expat you are referring to the Rowantree trust's report?

Do you think people shouldn't have a right to a holiday?

Can it ever be right for children in a country like ours to live in poverty when there is obviously enough wealth in the country to prevent this?

I'm afraid I don't believe that three million children are living 'in poverty'. Living below average standard of living, yes, perhaps, but how could this NOT be the case?

It would be more interesting to slice off the ultra-rich (not really part of society in a way) and look at the differences between those three million and the others.

Look at the wealth in other countries where people are starving.

I think we are doing okay here, no one dies of starvation, unless through choice.

This is a very simplistic argument. Wealth isn't necessarily a zero sum game - one man making a mint isn't directly taking food out of someone elses mouth.

Having said that I always thought this "trickle down effect" was bollocks.

I'm not convinced that 3 million kids live in poverty - again its all about definition and whether these children are having their povery defined in relative or absolute terms. I would suspect the former.

'Do you think people shouldn't have a right to a holiday? '

It's not a right, Aefond, it's a priviledge, like driving or being able to buy alcohol. And in the face of people struggling just to keep a place warm and have adequate hot water and eat news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Inflation-And-Rising-Food-Prices-Force-Poorer-People-To-Miss-Meals/ Article/200807115018973?lpos=Health4&lid=ARTICLE15018973_Inflation%2BAnd%2BRising%2BFood%2BPrices% 2BForce%2BPoorer%2BPeople%2BTo%2BMiss%2BMeals it's pretty far down the list of why someone should be considered in poverty.

Well having moved to the US where having a holiday (as in a break from work, not as in flying off to Ibetha etc) is not a right, I am very glad that most of the western world does consider a minimum break from work as a statutory right. Being able to spend time as a family is hugely important I think.

I mean holiday as in going away somewhere, not annual leave from work.

And the reason we have such an inequitable society is because people choose to believe 'there can't possibly be three million children living in poverty' without actually bothering to find out about it and because other people say 'wealth isn't a zero sum game'. Maybe one person being rich wouldn't impoverish another if we all lived on our own desert islands. But we live in a society with what should be shared resources.

Sadly governments over the past 30 years have chosen to promote inequality, give more to the rich and take from the poor. And this is the result.

I have a friend who raises her son as a single mother, they live in a one bedroom council flat, she makes a living from home doing web developing through word of mouth and making childrens clothes which she sells at craft fairs.

I don't think her DS has ever been deprived of anything, they don't even have a tv , let alone sky and don't miss it. They would be classed as living in poverty because of the tiny amount they live on, but they are not. They often go camping, taking trains and spend barely anything.

She is one of the happiest mothers I know.

The problem is people who live beyond their means and take out loans so they can afford a holiday abroad (as if they are always great) , a new car, designer clothes etc. Probably the same families eat expensive junk food and takeaways. That's not poverty.

But in any capitalist society there will be winners and losers ie the rich and the poor. Beyond giving the poor the means to lift themselves up the social ladder plus money for the basics, food, heat and clothing, what else should be done? I'm not sure that I agree with taxing the hell out of better off people (I'm not talking super-rich here, DP's salary just takes him into the 40% tax bracket which means that we are really struggling now other things have got more expensive) and history shows us that communism, or socialism if you prefer, is innately unfair and open to corruption.

I also agree with Expat - holidays are a luxury not a right.

i blame thatcher privatising everything in site

'An fgs, why shouldn't a child in this situation be entitled to a break away from the home and responsibilities, once a year to paddle in the sea?'

because it's not ESSENTIAL! it's a priviledge.

it won't kill a person to go without it, whereas not being able to heat the home properly, provide enough hot water for good hygeine or decent meals just might.

a lot of these studies are not taking into consideration the chief cause and effect of poverty: cost of accommodation or lack of suitable housing thereof.

there are so many elements of real poverty that need tackled before we start whining about being entitled to a flippin' holiday.

first and foremost the rising costs of energy and food.

not having SkyTV factoring into the definition of poverty?

you have to be joking.

seriously.

SEA - tongue in cheek surely? Labour have far more to answer for these days - they have fucked things up so badly with their ridiculous social engineering attempts that there is higher child poverty and lower social mobility than in Thatchers day.

the super rich don't even pay tax. They have their money in liquid accounts that travel around the world and are therefore not in one country long enough to qualify for tax. They pay their accountants to keep this system going and the government lets them. These people tend to be the biggest political donors - Murdoch is a fine example.

The more rich people there are in any country, the more poor there will be. You cannot have wealth without poverty - that is how capitalism works. They depend on eachother.

The rich do not "take" in a modern, capitalist democracy. The rich create value. The poor create less value than the rich. Society decides collectively to tax the rich proportionately more than the poor in order to redistribute wealth and create less inequality.