"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.

What the Government provide is inadequate and wastes money.

What do people suggest the rich do about it though? I really am interested, DH and I could be described as wealthy, I give to charity and am socially aware - what more should we do with our money? Yes, we live in a large house but we also help our family out. Every week at mass we are told how awful it is to be rich but, quite frankly, I'm not prepared to give up everything we have.

The point about children in poverty is that children are born into what ever society they are born into. In a wealthy modern liberal democracy it should be financially possible to ensure that all children have access to good quality healthcare, high quality schooling and the opportunity to escape the trap of poverty (ie life in a "sink estate") in order to be in a position to improve their ability to "add value" as Anna puts it.

Furthermore, imo, it is not reasonable to compare indicators for poverty in a developed nation with those used to define poverty in a developing nation. The fact that children are not dying daily in large numbers from starvation and disease in the UK is, of course, something to be celebrated. And it is a tragedy and a travesty that it continues to happen in the developing world (often in part due to the protectionist policies of western capitalist democracies.) However, it is ignorant to think that there are not many children in the UK who live in very deprived circumstances relative to AVERAGE population (not relative to the rich, just to the AVERAGE). It is also true that the truly rich have the means to avoid (if not evade) their tax responsibilities where millions of more ordinary tax payers do not. I am sure that the rich "add [some] value" in some broad economic sense, but the divide between wealth and poverty in Britain and the ability of people to attain social mobility is worse than it has been in a very long time. And it is not the fault of a baby born into poverty that society gives them fewer opportunities to add value.

The article I quoted from which is not about what defines poverty, but about modest living.

Yes, but several other posters suggested that they did not believe that there is as much child poverty in the UK, the statistics for 3 million in poverty do not originate in that particular article...

another quote from Bob Holman, the title is a quote from the article. I only discovered him today but I like his thinking... this is from another article.

"The Abbey bank," he muses slowly. "Well! I've just been reading about it. The directors got a bonus of one-and-a-quarter million. And it's a bad year!" Compare that, he asks, with the effort put in by Billy, the hospital porter who we failed to see 10 minutes earlier because he is still in bed at midday. He is "tired out", according to his wife, who is recovering from the news that their nephew was stabbed seven times the night before. "And he's the quietest one of them all," she adds

Bluebutterfly - in the article I quoted from it says

"Compass, currently the most influential pressure group inside the Labour party, agrees. In its recent discussion document, How to Live in the 21st Century, it condemns the fact that "half the UK's population shares just 6% of Britain's wealth, while the top 1% own a quarter of it; 11 million people - among them 3 million children - live in poverty . . . while the rich's privileges seal them off from the rest of society". Compass calls on the government to tax the super-rich more fairly, refuting the myth that "if we do so they will jump ship to another country".

Starlight - lots of companies produce stuff that is bad for people and hence make their shareholders and managers very rich indeed - we can all think of companies whose products we despise/condemn.

But the point is: consumers are completely free to choose whether or not to buy the products. It is not the companies who are harming society, but consumers who are self-harming because consumers are responsible, independent adults, are they not?

Aefondkiss, I am not sure that I fully understand your point...what I am saying really agrees (in many respects) with what the article says...

Anna8888, "consumers who are self-harming because consumers are responsible, independent adults"

Actually, some consumers (particularly some - not all - who grew up in dire poverty with poor health, few opportunities and little education) are less able to make choices about lifestyle and consumption than others.

It appears that the three million figure which I so distrust actually comes from the Labour Party's pressure group, Compass. Compass defines poverty as the inability 'to participate in normal activities.'

It's not quite the same thing to say that three million children can't participate in normal activities as to say that three million children are living in poverty.

Of course, it's sad and unfair, though.

The rich 'create value' my arse! The city wide boys who gamble with real companies and real jobs in order to squeeze as much short-term gain out of them as they possibly can and sod the employees/neighbours/customers create far less of value than your average nurse, for instance.

It's like the concept of 'wealth creation' - just dressing up making money. Nothing wrong with making money if you do it ethically, without exploiting anyone unfairly. But to dress it up as 'wealth creation' makes it sound far more grand than it really is.

Value is created by everyone who contributes. From the shop floor to the boardroom, the supplier to the customer. A very, very few of those people get a disproportionate share of the gains.

But it does, bankers create a shit load of money which benefits us in a whole load of ways.
Gah I wish I felt up to actually entering this debate as I have so much to say but I can't.

Bluebutterfly - I do know that .

But, in our democratic society, an(y) 18 year old is given the benefit of the doubt and deemed an adult capable of making independent decisions (unless he is mentally impaired). And that is how it should be.

Does anyone know the definition/criteria the government classifies as poverty?

I seem to recall reading something along the lines that it was based on a point system where a range of factors were taken into account (having consumer goods, percentage of income on food etc).

Would be interesting to find out...

agree that the definition of 'poverty' is a rather suspect these days. there are a large number of people feeling sorry for themselves for the wrong reasons. we were poor as children and we we not he poorest people we knew. always had food tho -(only once or twice cereal for tea). At one point the only furniture we had was a rolled up piece of carpet. we had holes in our shoes (cardboard regularly masquerading as a sole- nove very effective in the rain tho), we didnt always have electricity or gas, and once we didnt even have water for about a week- its amazing how far you can make a sink and a bath full of cold water last. I was 15 before we even had a kettle or any other consumer luxuries - I had no idea that they were the norm for most people. We slept top and tail on a bed with a big dip in the middle that eventually became a massive hole. christmas present were paid with by 25p per week catalogue items that took my mum all year to pay for even though budget was £5 per child) sindy was £8 so never got one. we had an old black and white telly and we kids were the remote. we never had a holiday and never went to the zoo or anywhere else. whilst we may have wanted a colour tv etc we never thought it was outrageous that we didnt have one or it was our right. We grew up thinking if we wanted things we would have to work for them.

Bridie3, I wasn't saying that I didn't think he should (vaccinate African children) more that it ought to be a more collective responsibility, perhaps the governments of developed, rather than developing, nations should shoulder some of the burden.

Why would that be of more benefit to the children concerned, though? An injection is an injection--regardless of who gives it.

I wish Bill Gates would spend some of his dosh on the NHS.