|
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45789446.A41A58B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> T Wake wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >
>> > And that shows he's (a) dumb as a fence post; (b) out of touch with
>> > reality;
>> > (c) both (a) and (b).
>>
>> I vote she is C.
>>
>> >>You've been trying all along to move the damn goalposts.
>> >
>> > I've been trying to tell you right-wing zealots you don't know what
>> > you're
>> > talking about. "Poor" to you seems to mean playing golf at a public
>> > course instead of a private one.
>>
>> Yes, generally speaking _if_ you can buy your own house you certainly are
>> not poor.
>
> It may make you 'poor' though in terms of what you can then afford !
Then we fall into the debate of what is "poor." The term is often used
(sometimes interchangeably with "poverty") to mean a relative level of
spending power. I am not sure if this is how I would use the term and to be
honest, I am not sure if I would be able to define poor at short notice.
My feelings are that if you can afford to buy a house, you are not poor. You
have resolved one of the basic needs (shelter) and given that house prices
will invariably rise over time you have an investment. You probably have
managed to save up around £5k for a deposit which means you really are not
poor.
Obviously if you go with out food, clothing, heat, transport etc to afford
the house you are still poor (and will die soon - hunger if nothing else
:-) ) and really shouldnt have bought the house.
>> As for moving the goalposts - blimey. As they move with ever post /BAH
>> makes
>> how can *anyone* know where they are supposed to be?
>
> I reckon a pincer action is needed.
>
I think an octopus would have a hard time keeping up.
|
|