How poor is poor?

As others have said, an income of £24,000 can mean different things to different people.

If you are living in a well maintained, mortgage-free home with lots of energy saving features and you have no dependents, then £24,000 is a reasonable income.

If you have dependents, are having to pay rent or a mortgage and are living in a house that is proving costly to maintain and heat, are having to pay travel costs to get to work, etc. etc., £24,000 isn't very much at all.

I think it is probably fair to say it is unlikely that we have the same degree of life-threatening poverty that can be seen in developing countries. However, there are certainly people who are unable to heat or furnish their homes properly, who find it very difficult to adequately dress and feed themselves and their children or to pay for unexpected repairs and replacements and who have no spare money for days out or meals out. I think, in the context of a rich country which (usually) endures long, cold winters, that constitutes very real poverty.

I don't find the argument "it was much worse in my day" very persuasive because if it had been accepted by the generations before us then we would still be living in freezing cold homes (many without proper bathing/toilet facilities), working six and a half days a week, 9 hours a day, with no holiday pay, employment rights, automatic access to health care or pension.

Yes I understanding the offer of the car from my dad and how easy it would be to say "yes" but it still needs fuel etc, even if it was only 1 gallon a week that is around £20 a month and yes he is trying to help but it's no use me saying yes and having the car sat there because I cannot afford to put fuel in.but it is hard saying no but I will keep thinking about it.?

All my bills are paid and up to date which I am chuffed at, I have manged to save my birthday money for clothes but now of course the oven!! dohhhhhh but I can live without the oven for a while, I have a mini oven, a microwave, slow cook and will purchase a toaster today. It sounds like I have a meagre existance but I don't want to give that impression. I want to give the impression that yes you can just about live on a small amount.I do feel sad that I can't treat my 2 GSs as I used to but I do buy the elder one clothes from the charity shop (new george sweatshirt with tags £1.20) my bargain of the week ! brill he was thrilled with it.)

Biker you live just as I do, I do have a car as I work but it was bought by my mother, I started to pay her back but she refused. I do without like you do and like you my bills are up to date (apart from the credit card but Im working on that, Xmas money will almost pay that off).

My problem is that everything is connected, If I have no car I cant work, If I don't work I cant pay my mortgage, If I lose my house I will only be offered a council flat , however even a flat would be too expensive to afford therefore I couldn't find another job as my mortgage is much less than council rent. Its just a big chain. I too have bought presents for DGD from the charity shop, if I want a treat I go to the charity shops, my winter coat was from there and my woollies were knitted by me, some from recycled wool from another worn out one. Im not complaining as I was brought up to be careful anyway. Im still loving life and glad to be alive despite everything

What an interesting discussion this has turned out to be
As various people have pointed out and Bikergran has illustrated so well I do really believe that all poverty is relative - people who have very little can feel rich in that they have peace of mind, which eludes many who are much better off.
I have a step-daughter, whose household income from her and her husband's jobs totals more than £80,000 p.a. They always drive the latest cars, take a Caribbean cruise every year, their house is crammed to the rafters with stuff nobody needs or appreciates, and they forever in debt and are both on anti-depressants !!!

This is what I would call povery of the soul, which is not dependent on income and I think we all know what I mean.

Could poverty be not being able to buy what you need - not want

roseq I agree that theres much 'virtue signalling ' on this and many other threads. An interesting comment.

Older I don't think there can be many people who have very little

can feel rich in that they have peace of mind

I still don't know what virtual signalling is

Oops, sorry meant virtue signalling , what is it?

Just looked it up, means showing off , I see no showing off on this thread

James Bartholomew coined the phrase, so here is his definition of what exactly it is: www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/.

Thank you Grannyactivist , admit I am more confused now, I hate the daily mail but will be accused of virtue signalling ? I am pretending to care about the vulnerable ? Not true because I do care , seems it just means a poster can mock another poster, not nice

I think that it describes people who say something to indicate they are virtuous, but don't actually do anything. If I'm honest I'm not altogether sure - and I haven't quite understood the negative aspect of 'signalling virtue' by means of denigrating something.
So, for example, if I say I care about the situation of homelessness in this country, but don't actually 'do' anything about it personally then that may be perceived as 'virtue signalling'. However, if I really do care, but can't do anything about it because my time is taken up with another matter I really care about, campaigning about the environment for instance, is that still virtue signalling in regard to people who are homeless?
I discussed it with a (very knowledgeable and informed) friend recently and asked her if she thought I was guilty of virtue signalling and she laughed at me. Her view is it's all about whether you are actually doing something about the issues you 'say' you care about and as I spend a great deal of time working with homeless people she was quite certain that I am not guilty m'lud, but when I gave her the example above she became very unsure. I think it's perfectly possible to genuinely care about a whole raft of social issues without getting directly involved in all of them.

There are people who care about social issues and there are people who do not.
Quite often if you say you care about one thing you get accused of being a single issue campaigner. If you say you campaign about lots of issues, then you get called a virtue signaller.
Some people think the Green Party is a single issue party, as is the NHA. However, they are multi-issue parties just like all other parties.

I was just reading a conversation between Brian Eno and Yanis Varoufakis where they discussed basic income, where you give people a certain amount of money whether they work or not. You avoid the crushing poverty of people who have no money and you stimulate the economy because when people have money they buy things.
They tried it in Brazil. They gave the people in the favellas about $1000 for sending their children to school. So the people had that money to spend in local shops, so even more people benefited.
People at the top in this country seem to think there is something inherently wrong with giving poor people enough money to live on, and for them to have pride.
Why have we created a system that gives the biggest rewards to the greediest people?

Where are you going to get all this money jd? Take it willy nilly from the people who have worked hard, used their brains, and been successful in their lives? That smacks of communism to me. Are you a communist?

There will always be people who have more intelligence and more ability to be financially successful. I do not think they should be penalised unfairly for that. Pay appropriate Taxes, yes. And on the whole, they do. And they create jobs for others.

There have never been completely equal societies. Certainly not in communist Russia.

If the money, in Brazil, as for sending the children to school, why were they spending it in local shops? (Just by the by)

was for

Anniebach I think your description of poverty is a good one.

Re virtue signalling. My understanding of virtue signalling would not include the examples from Annieback and grannyactivist. It's a subtle thing and more about the way someone says something (and so can be perceived as showing off), rather than the bare facts of what they are saying. I don't want to point out the examples I think are on this thread, so please can we drop the subject as it's off topic anyway?

Why do you think it would give people 'pride' to live on state money?

As I newsstand virtue signalling, it is when a person concern for the plight of others without really feeling that concern. The flaw in that is that no one can really know what another is feeling.

understand. Not 'newsstand'

expresses concern

Sorry!

James Bartholomew explains that what he terms "virtue signallers" use words instead of actions to indicate that they are more caring than the next person. That seems pretty rich to me coming from someone who presumably earns his living from writing "mere words". Presumably he feels his own opinions are worthy of expressing but those of some other people are not.

He accuses Mishal Husain of insinuating that if Nigel Farage himself is not racist then some of his membership is. I can't understand why that means Husain was "virtue signalling" to indicate that she belonged to that part of the "liberal media elite" which despised UKIP. I'm sure there are many people who live quite ordinary non-elite, non-media lives who also have very strong reservations about some of UKIP's policies.

He says that people who say "I hate the Daily Mail" are signalling that they care about poor people and those on benefits. Could it just be that they hate some of the lazy, divisive and rabble-rousing journalism that the Daily Mail is famous for? And what exactly are the people who say they hate the Guardian signalling?

I think that the Sun's page 3 pictures were degrading and embarrassing so according to James Bartholomew I - and men who express the same opinion - are virtue signalling, as is expressing admiration for Mary Beard. My goodness, it seems there is very little we are allowed to express an opinion on without being characterised as insincere, shallow show-offs.

According to James Bartholomew, it is the sort of people who look after their elderly parents rather than "sticking them in a home" or who stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of their children who show real virtue. Quite a judgmental remark I would say - and I wonder how virtuous this man is in his own personal life.

It seems that he feels those who are unhappy about the current government have no right to express that view unless they are personally feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc. etc. (and, anyway, what evidence has he that such people are not, as the saying goes, "putting their money where their mouth is"?). Surely, though, most of the social progress that has been made through the centuries has been arrived at when more and more people have expressed dissatisfaction with a particular situation and governments have been, sometimes reluctantly, driven to respond?

Thank you grannyactivist and Jen for explaining

Wilma I think it does sum up poverty and thank you

Anniebach, you are SO right - that's poverty. It sounds as though you've experienced it, and though I don't like to dwell on past troubles, a lot of your post rang bells for me.
I have only my state pension now, so I'm not rolling in cash, but I can pay my bills, don't go short of any essentials, and I feel very content.
My dear children are all fairly well-to-do, thank goodness, and that gives me more pleasure than I can say. They have all worked very hard to get where they are - they certainly didn't inherit the 'wealth gene' from me!