![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Amongst the comments to my earlier post, several people have raised questions about the definitions of poverty and their validity; especially that covered by Oxfam, which defines poverty as less than 60 of the national median disposable income.
According to the national office of statistics, after rent, bills and necessities are paid, this figure is £194 per week per household. If you're living on less than that, Oxfam says you're living in poverty; they don't appear to differentiate between households of people living alone and households with a dozen squalling children crammed into the front room because, as we all know, there's no difference in living costs between the two.
According to the national office of statistics, after rent, bills and necessities are paid, this figure is £194 per week per household. If you're living on less than that, Oxfam says you're living in poverty; they don't appear to differentiate between households of people living alone and households with a dozen squalling children crammed into the front room because, as we all know, there's no difference in living costs between the two.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-01-11 08:55 am (UTC)(link)no subject
BRIEFLY... during the 1980's due to a painfully simple fraud perpetuated by farmers living in South Armaugh, the number one cash contributor to the pIRA was not the Americans... it was the Ministry of Defense!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-01-11 03:13 pm (UTC)(link)I've changed my mind
(Anonymous) 2006-01-11 04:24 pm (UTC)(link)When I want Springsteen, or Bono, or anyone else, to enter politics, I'll vote for them. 'Til then, shut up and play your bongos, beatniks.