You're absolutely right - I'm not poor. The above rant-ette is a satirical take on that very fact. What I'm objecting to is major governmental and charitable agencies drawing an arbitary line on a graph and stating that anyone under that line is 'in poverty', when doing so takes absolutely no account of personal circumstances. If you live on your own in property which you own or have the rent paid on for you, £200 a week is quite a lot; more than enough to live in considerable comfort, and considerably more than I live on. If, however, there are 6 of you living in a flat which costs £500 a month, £200 a week between you is bugger all. Making arbitary assumptions which take no account of such things and then emotionally blackmailing people out of their hard-earned cash on that basis is something I object to. What's even more interesting is that the National Statistics people count the 60% of median line as being 'low income', whilst Oxfam count it as 'poverty'. Why do Oxfam call it poverty when others don't? Is it cynical marketing? I expect adverts to subvert meansing and play with words to sell products to me - I can deal with that and I even enjoy playing the game. What I don't like is charities and government agencies, who claim the moral high ground, doing the same.
I've said I wholeheartedly agree with the UN definition of poverty - I've posted it elsewhere. However, the number of people who live in actual, as defined, poverty in this country is a vanishingly small proportion of the population. There are a number of people who are bloody skint (including me), but that's not poverty and saying it is is downright untruthful.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-01-11 09:43 am (UTC)What's even more interesting is that the National Statistics people count the 60% of median line as being 'low income', whilst Oxfam count it as 'poverty'. Why do Oxfam call it poverty when others don't? Is it cynical marketing?
I expect adverts to subvert meansing and play with words to sell products to me - I can deal with that and I even enjoy playing the game. What I don't like is charities and government agencies, who claim the moral high ground, doing the same.
I've said I wholeheartedly agree with the UN definition of poverty - I've posted it elsewhere. However, the number of people who live in actual, as defined, poverty in this country is a vanishingly small proportion of the population. There are a number of people who are bloody skint (including me), but that's not poverty and saying it is is downright untruthful.