Perception of poverty and persecution

harrigran, I was explaining how easy it is for some to make assumptions

This is an interesting thread. Thanks gracesgran for starting it. Poverty/comparative poverty is nothing new. The Victorian viewpoint of the "deserving or undeserving poor" would illustrate that. The churches poorhouses, work houses etc were in the not so far distant past judging by the "Who do you think you are?" programme.
I know many people on benefits of various sorts. The system is complicated (as I'm sure you know) so its not just a matter of handing out huge sums. Some benefits are relatively small, others open doors to further benefits. No wonder they're trying to simplify things. Most of the people I know that are on benefits couldn't dream of owning a car.
Another thing to consider when thinking about who is being hard on the poor of our times is the age group of many of the complainers: eg my MiL worked since she was 14 and up until a few years before her death in her 90s. We were appalled to find out how little she had been living on for years. She wouldn't have dreamt of applying for any form of benefit or top up. She perceived what she had as income in her 90s as a huge amount and I suppose that it was compared to what she earned in the 1930s, 40s 50s etc but it most certainly was not. We'd happily have helped her if she'd let on. The other aspect for her and for many elderly people is just plain pride. The shadow of the workhouse/poor relief was not so far back in their memories. Their parents would certainly have spoken about it in negative terms. Scary prospects.
At the other end of the age scale are the youngsters who are having a hard enough time as it is. It must be hard for those struggling along on minimum wage without much prospect of improvement ahead to see others not apparently very busy but with the most up to date mobile phone (the big badge of success!!) all paid for as they se it by their benefits. We're human! Its not politics its just plain people!
So, perhaps its the perspective of these people I was hoping to try to summarise. Even the Bible said it -the poor are always with us!

Surely one of the really thought provoking things about the current crisis is that so many of the refugees are what we would consider normal, comfortably off families. It's easy to believe that things aren't too bad when the refugees are are the very poor and powerless and life seems to go on as normal for the rest of the population. The realisation that it is people "like us" living on the streets and being herded onto trains reminds us how quickly civilisation breaks down - and didn't those trains crammed with people conjure up memories!

harrigan really!!! I never mentioned Germany or the UK. I meant Germany as well when I said there are people living without hope. Have you seen photos of parts of Berlin? We have so many foodbanks here.
Please go back and read my post again. I was not telling the UK how to act I was generealizing as there are the same people here in Germany gong on about the poor cheating. I work for a charity organisation here and know all about that side of things. People are told they have to leave their flats because they are too big and there are no smaller ones available. We get a lot of people in the shop who are down to their last Euro

Its not for me to tell the UK how to do things better. I can imagine if your sister is always going on about how everything is better over here then you must be overly sensitive about it. I at least did not mean that in my post.

I do not think harrigran realised you live in Germany, MargaretX. At least I hope not.
I did actually wonder, briefly, if you were her sister!

I think most people know the difference by now between he refugees and economic migrants. And to assume that others can't understand this could be seen as arrogant.

Poverty, however, is much more subjective. Many of us on these forums had much less as children, but did not regard ourselves as living in poverty. Neither did our families. That doesn't mean everyone should be content with their lot and be quiet, but living within your means could sometimes be seen as a virtue. So long as those means are within reasonable limits.

I am glad you think it is useful Jane. I think benefits are slightly different when you come to pensioners (re the car). The person concerned has fairly comfortably off family who might have given it as she is very much a carer within the family or, as I think (not sure) that the lowest amount you may have in savings when claiming benefits is £10,000, she may have had sufficient savings. Of course not many people on benefits will have that amount but it is just possible that if she had tiny private pensions she may just have had enough to buy the car from a small lump sum - it was neither new or flashy . I am sure you can imagine the tone of the "how did she do that" from our other friend - it was not pleasant, but what hit me was the assumption that she should not, in any way, have been able to.

My issue with the deserving and the underserving poor is that this should not be relevant in this day and age. That is why we started the National Insurance system. I appreciate that some changes are needed as life has changed so much since its originally implementation but it would surely be better to move more towards a system that is paid for and therefore relevant than one that sees benefits as charity.

I think you are right about the system being far too complex and I know you will have probably heard me "say" this before but one of the simplest things that could be done is to take all pensioners out of benefits by paying a living pension. Yes we would have to find a way to fund it, and tax it back from the highest earners, but I cannot but believe the savings in administration - and in health care and social care that is needed by those who, like your MIL live not only on so little but often less than they should get - would hugely cut the cost of doing this. Also this money is likely to go straight back into the economy.

More than anything I believe it is not a hand-out, or charity, but an insurance we have paid for.

durhamjen, I thought Margaret was my sister too.
I apologise to you Margaret as you have explained the situation and you have first hand knowledge. My sister maintains that there is no problem and everything is hunky dory, maybe she needs to take her head out of the sand.

Green Party policy, Gracesgran. They call it the living pension.

I know Jen. It didn't get much of a hearing at the last election, sadly.

I know a few pensioners who have a small car. Many have downsized and bought the car with the cash in hand. Then they don't drive much just to the supermarket or out at night if they visit friends.
Cars last so much longer than when we were young. There are cars going well which are 14 years old and actually worth nothing if sold.

It is not the business of onlookers to decide what a pensioner or person on benefits does with their money. A lot smoke and drink and with that money you could easliy keep a car in petrol.

I suspect much of this attitude dates back to the idea of meritocracy embraced by one Mr Blair. His interpretation of this idea, which was never intended to be aspirational, is that those at the top deserve to be there – and stay there – because they are brighter, better educated, more industrious and all together better people. The, usually unspoken, converse is that those at the bottom deserve to be there because there are thick, uneducated, lazy and all together second rate. Back, as previously mentioned to the deserving and undeserving poor – mostly these days, the latter apparently.

they are thick… not there are thick.

You are right Margaret - it is no one's businesses about a particular person but I go back to my original question. What do we think is "poor enough" to be helped and what should that help provide.

It is contentious as some use stats - a proportion of the mean income - and some use a list of necessities, and some use a mixture of both.

I also wonder what people would see as "enough" for a living pension, i.e., one on which you could reasonably live, with no extra benefits (you always have to leave housing benefit out of this as that is another can of worms ) and no other pension.

I am dwelling on pensions here but the same applies to out of work benefits. What does someone need and for what period (if you treat it like an insurance) in order not to claim any other benefits (excepting housing again) for that period?

I wonder Gracesgran if there is also a difference in poverty or the ability to cope on small incomes in different parts of the country. London of course is somewhere it is virtually impossible to live on a small income or benefits. Accommodation is unaffordable. Would a living pension have to take account of these differences? What about the rural poor and the city poor?
I agree that some people think anyone on benefits should be made to suffer and shouldn't have things like cars. I think the Victorian values of the deserving and undeserving poor and the idea that people receiving benefits should be made to suffer and undergo vigorous scrutiny remain in many people. The welfare state and the commitment of a civilized society to take care of the weakest and most vulnerable have very delicate easily disturbed roots.

I think the housing problem has to be considered separately trisher - unless they build more houses I think it is just too complex. Even if they did it would take a while to be a "normal" problem rather than an extreme one.

I wonder if there would be that much difference between the rural poor and the city poor. I think the problems would be different but the costs may not be.

absent, don't you think that it's a fact that the people "at the top" are there because they are, "brighter, better educated, more industrious"?

We are not all born equal.

Gracegran, to be able to put food on the table and not hold back on two meals to have the third . To be warm in your own home, have decent shoes and warm clothes in winter , cool in summer, to be able to switch on a light without having to check the meter , a tv and I would add a telephone as a necessity because now they are. A little spare cash for a treat because your worth it.

Jingle I agree with brighter , a person with a low IQ will never earn the same as a doctor. Education , depends, if state school educated yes, if public school it can also mean you get further up the ladder through the right contacts. Industrious ? no.

Industrious - definitely yes! (more often than not)

"if public school" can also mean quite simply, that you've had a better education.

jingl Of course there are people who have an extensive range of valuable qualities "at the top". There are also plenty of people "at the top" because of who they are i.e. family connection, and, often, financial backing. There are plenty of bright, industrious people on or near "the bottom". The theory of meritocracy is in itself pernicious because of the implication that it is your own fault if you are poor, unemployed, unable to work, etc.

Not necessarily your own fault if you are poor. But, sometimes.

There are all kinds of ways to get financial backing for projects these days. You don't have to have rich parents.

Then what of examples like the Tory winter ball jingle , when parents can bid for internships for their children ? Getting financial backing these days is not easy.

There is an artlcle* comparing twelve countries, Germany, Japan, USA, Ireland, Brazil, Australia, France, India, S. Africa, Japan, UK and Russia to see which the best countries are to grow old in.

Under Relative Mental Wellbeing the UK comes in the tranche they call Worst. Under Old Age Poverty Rate we come in the Middle tranche and Social Connection the UK is in the Best tranche.

You can see more details and compare pensions, etc here