Poverty-hit families to get food

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

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.

Well it is. Cus thats who they target the help at.

Computers for those in poverty relied on you being on certain benefits.

Fuel allowance for those in poverty relied on you being on certain benefits.

Broadband for those in poverty relied on you being on certain benefits.

The "poverty list" that labour released which said people in povert should have X Y & Z was all aimed at those on certain benefits.

lolababy

This food bank is needed. There are people out there who struggle and many dont claim things they are entitled to. Even those on benefits struggle. People who lose their jobs still have to pay bills and benefits dont cover everthing.
Imagine going from a well paid job to benefits. Mortgage payments may be high and you dont get it all paid like you do with rent. Before the well thats right brigade ,Im merley pointing this out. Bills you could meet easily whilst working are now a struggle to meet.
Lets be a more charitable anyone of us can be in this position.

PasturesNew

There are two measures of poverty, whatever that level is at:
- poverty level, based on income
- poverty level, AHC, which means After Housing Costs.

The definition of housing costs is: rent or mortgage interest and council tax.

It's the AHC figure that is best to work with because you can have two people sat beside each other at work, in the same job, earning the same money, but one could go home to their council house with a rent of £350/month and a partner earning £20k, the other one could go home to their privately rented 1-bed flat with a rent of £550/month and living alone.

The measures they set are flawed and obscured. Because the system is so complex there is no simple calculation to easily define if you are below/above the poverty level. I do spend some time digging out the actual hard black/white figures from time to time, but it's tricky.

The things is, you could have two people either side of the poverty line, where one is £1 over and one £1 under. The one £1 under might then get a bunch of freebies and subsidies worth £500/year, whereas the person £1 over doesn't get a look in. Once listed as on benefits/in poverty, the add ons you get aren't taken into account, they're a whole bunch of freebies that don't then put you back over the line.... whereas the person who starts £1 over the line ends up a lot further behind as they don't get the freebies.

PasturesNew

I should gather all this stuff together in one spot really, but here's a sample report about poverty.

Page 38/90 shows a newspaper report from 2006 that defines poverty as:

Single person, 25, £110/week after housing costs (£473/month)
Couple, 25, no kids, £201/week after housing costs (£865/month)
Single, 25, 2 kids aged 5 and 11, £205/week after housing costs (£881/month)
Couple, 30, 2 kids aged 5 and 11, £295/week after housing costs (£1268/month)

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2312-poverty-media-uk.pdf

How many people here are therefore in poverty by that measure (3 years out of date, but it's a figure no less).

Count up all income, including subsidies/discounts you're getting and freebies, then see.

I know I am about on the poverty level by that measure.

lostinrates

PN, thats intersting. I make the final family to be bringing home just over £30,550 which I presume is after tax if these are amounts to ''live on''. Is that right? If so its not luxurious for a family, but it doesn't seem.....poverty.

The others are £11, 396, £20, 832 and £21,232. Is that right?

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

PN, thats intersting. I make the final family to be bringing home just over £30,550 which I presume is after tax if these are amounts to ''live on''. Is that right? If so its not luxurious for a family, but it doesn't seem.....poverty.

The others are £11, 396, £20, 832 and £21,232. Is that right?

I didn't work them out for pre-tax income.

One thing the figures don't take account of though, that's relevant, is cost of getting to a job. That's always been a big one for me.

While everybody has to go/be somewhere, getting to a job is non-negotiable. It's daily, at fixed times, can't do it any other way.

So I think to measure poverty then there would need to be a fixed cost/mile travelled to/from work, past the first 3 miles... but only for work journeys.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

I didn't work them out for pre-tax income.
.

I just multiplies the numbers there...I think, I guess I was thinking looking at the amount payable for housing costs and the way the thing was phrased it meant that muh money was needed, so I thought it was after tax? In which case those (probably wrong ) multipliations are take home, not pre tax.

lemonjelly

Interesting thread this - especially as I've jumped onto this from mewbie's "where will you go" thread.

A lot of very good points, & generally a good discussion of some good stuff here.

The other day, I read a report that stated in Liverpool there are now 3rd generation families entirely dependent on benefits. Imagine not being able to find work for that length of time!

The poverty debate is an interesting, and at the same time difficult one. Unfortunately it generally ends up in the "benefit chavs get everything" diatribe. I'm really pleased this hasn't got to that.

The benefits system does need a radical overhaul, that is for sure.

To argue there is no poverty in the UK is I think misdirected. We have lots of people living rough, sofa surfing, getting by day to day. Honestly, it is out there, but generally we look the other way. I'd strongly encourage everyone to go & do voluntary work for some charity or another, even just for 6 months or something (only has to be a little bit of time each week) to help out, and to see the actual iceberg below the waters surface. Some things will shock you. Some will make you angry. Some will make you cry. I'd hope more than anything that what you would see would make you care...

With this downturn, it is getting a bit closer to home. Wouldn't it be amazing if a mass of the population mobilized with voluntary organisations to improve the whole country's lot?

(NB at the same time I had a family come to see me for help the other day, who feel they are struggling, yet have a household income over £80k pa. What they really needed was to change their spending pattern.)

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

The poverty debate is an interesting, and at the same time difficult one. Unfortunately it generally ends up in the "benefit chavs get everything" diatribe. I'm really pleased this hasn't got to that.

lemonjelly, do you know whther Pns figures include tax or not (I'd really like to know)

baileysbattlebus

lostinrates wrote: »

lemonjelly, do you know whther Pns figures include tax or not (I'd really like to know)

No they don't include income tax - they are net earnings.

The figures are what people think the minimum income should be.

Here is a more upto date report. With the relevant figures for 2008 + the benefit levels for 2008

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/minimum-income-standard-britain-what-people-think

I think table 2 might be the one to look at - but it is all interesting