Poverty-hit families to get food

kabayiri

It's a complicated situation we are in I feel, and difficult to generalise.

These charities perform a vital role, and rightly they try and offer their help without judgement to those who come and seek it.

Having said that, I found the series Spendaholics refreshing. A core element of the process on the program was 'cold turkey'....making people realise just what they can get by on, and sometimes changing their life priorities in the process.

In this recession, by contrast, the state is trying to buffer most of us from the harsh reality, negating the need to face this cold turkey phase. It is no wonder why many of us see people who have not sought to change their priorities or spending habits.

In a way, its a missed opportunity for us all to re-evaluate our priorities.

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually now I wrote that, I'm feeling a little bad.

I should have seperated those who have faced hardship purely from the recession, and have to survive off their own backs pretty much. Theres someone at work who's husband has lost her job, and all he gets is JSA, as she still works, and that's very tough.

Just that when the government uses "poverty" it ALWAYS relates to those on full benefits, hence my possible jumping the gun.

The gov't definition of poverty is an income of 60% or less of the median income - not just someone on benefits. There are a lot people who earn low wages and who are not on benefits.

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

The gov't definition of poverty is an income of 60% or less of the median income - not just someone on benefits. There are a lot people who earn low wages and who are not on benefits.

And what action do they take to help those not on benefits?

I know plenty of people on less than median income who get no help at all. They don't qualify.

Doesn't really matter to me what the definition is, it's how they implement support that matters to me.

MrsE_2

Snooze wrote: »

Always amuses me whenever I go into the DFW board and read some of the SOAs. Apparently a Sky sub and a gym membership are essential items that people can't live without. I mean, !!!!!!? :rolleyes: No symapthy for any of them. I hope they all starve.
R

Thats why I would never post mine:p

People would tell me manicures & nails weren't essentials:o:eek:

treliac

MrsE wrote: »

Thats why I would never post mine:p

People would tell me manicures & nails weren't essentials:o:eek:

If you lose all your nails, of course you must have nail replacement surgery.

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And what action do they take to help those not on benefits?

I know plenty of people on less than median income who get no help at all. They don't qualify.

Doesn't really matter to me what the definition is, it's how they implement support that matters to me.

I have absolutely no idea what action they take to help those not on benefits - apart from tax credits.

I was responding to this part of your post - which is not the definition of poverty in the UK. Someone may read it and believe that the definition of poverty in the UK is anyone on benefits and that it is not income related.

Just that when the government uses "poverty" it ALWAYS relates to those on full benefits, hence my possible jumping the gun.

As median income according ASHE in 2008 was £20,801 - the government definition of poverty is anyone earning less than £12.5k or thereabouts.

Peelerfart

C'mon guys the headline was -

"Free food for families struggling to cope in the recession is now available on Merseyside."

Let us all not forget the difference between a cow and a tragedy !

BargainGalore

If its 12.5k would that be for a couple and not a family?

Poverty can be interpreted differently if you take into account income and outgoings, you could quite easily have little money left once expenses are paid food, rent, mortgage etc without additional loans

I agree may people that may be working on low incomes may just slip the net for tax credits or working 30 hours a week or less.

I think its great people helping those less fortunate out

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what action they take to help those not on benefits - apart from tax credits.

I was responding to this part of your post - which is not the definition of poverty in the UK. Someone may read it and believe that the definition of poverty in the UK is anyone on benefits and that it is not income related.

There is no help to those not on benefits. Thats the point.

They can define it however they like, but it's no good defining something and then only concentrating on another group.

Neither was that part of my post "defining" poverty in any way, shape, or form, it was me merely saying whenver the government talks about help for those in poverty it's always help to those who already recieve it. I didn;t realise my own thoughts on their actions was me saying that was their definition of poverty?

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is no help to those not on benefits. Thats the point.

They can define it however they like, but it's no good defining something and then only concentrating on another group.

Neither was that part of my post "defining" poverty in any way, shape, or form, it was me merely saying whenver the government talks about help for those in poverty it's always help to those who already recieve it. I didn;t realise my own thoughts on their actions was me saying that was their definition of poverty?

Well you should have said that it was your own thoughts - like using "in my opinion" or similar and then the misunderstanding wouldn't have happened. The way I read it was when the government uses poverty it ALWAYS relates to people on benefits. As if it was a fact.