What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

dekaspace

Ok I grew up in a very poor family, and though we had some things like maybe a tv, or a video recorder that didnt mean we werent in poverty so to speak.

The only reason my dad had those things as he did learned to fix things cheaply or free so a TV that would of been over £100 second hand back then would of been fixed for about £10 and used for years, a video recorder costing over £200 new would be donated by a friend broken and fixed for £10 then we had entertainment for the family!

And sure my dad could smoke a pack or two of cigarettes each week but my mum didnt smoke, neither drank alcohol and we often walked miles to shops and could cook a meal for a family of 4 for under a £1(still can) so we werent in poverty just a very very uncomfortable lifestyle barely making ends meet, huge damp in the house, never being able to decorate(and living in the house 15 years with the wallpaper flaking off when you moved in says something!) getting donated furniture etc.

So because we had something we werent considered in poverty despite living a ok lifestyle!

It made my mum obsessed with cleaning to the point of OCD so we had no clutter or mess, and she got really hurt one time when some middle class people came to see us and said our place was a mess/tatty!

redglass_2

Willy_Heckaslike wrote: »

I see too many "Mums" outside Iceland saying they are hard done by but they have their £6 packets of fags, designer shell suits and trainers and of course they have big flat screen tv's.

Of course they do. You, of course, would know a 'designer shell suit' and 'designer trainers' at a glance, and you've been in all their houses and seen those tellies, haven't you? Not that you're making any assumptions, or anything...

redglass_2

I'm depressed by this thread. I'm depressed by the fact that a sizeable number of those polled don't think there's any problem about a kid growing up in a house without heating, in one of the richest countries in the world. I'm depressed by people queuing up to say that one pair of shoes is enough. I suppose you could always choose whether your child had to wear sandals in the snow or snug boots in August, yes, perfectly comfortable and absolutely no need for more than one pair...I'm depressed by the insistence that children are not 'in poverty' if their parents are wasting all the money. Charles Dickens understood this better than some people in 2010: in HARD TIMES he points out that you can't say a group of people are 'prosperous' if they are receiving a lot of money but only some of them get access to it. Why is it so hard to grasp that the parents in the family may not be poor, but the children are? There are families where only the husband, or only the parents, get proper food. I also notice a habit of using developing countries to insist that there is no poverty here. I have visited Africa a few times, not staying in hotels but with friends, and I have made friends with Africans as well as white expats. Yes, people from developing countries are much poorer than most UK citizens, I'm not denying that for a minute, BUT it doesn't mean nobody in the UK has real problems. It just means some people from other countries have worse ones. Some Africans I know have (Shock! Horror!) Television sets! Fridges! Mobiles! Obviously, then, they can't be poor, by the standards of some posters on this thread. I suggest you people who really know about poverty get over there and lecture them about their wicked, wasteful consumerism. Tell them that their grandparents didn't need mobiles...

In places the tone of this thread reminds me of a jokey song I heard years ago -

We are the men from DHSS
And we've come to make you confess,
Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess!
You KNOW that you could live on less!

It was never that funny, even then.

harryhound

wildthing01 wrote: »

sorry - are you saying that you would consider a child without a father to be in poverty?

I think I am saying "It takes a village to raise a child" and that "child poverty" is not just about physical things.

Situations that can blight a child's chances in this world are "poverty" in my book.

How would you rate the chances of an orphan brought up "in care"?

How would you rate the chances of an orphan brought up by one of the two sets of grand parents?

pinkclouds

MSE_Dan wrote: »

A. A lack of food, shelter or clothing
B. Family income below £12,700 a year (60% of the average)
C. A home with no heating
D. Parents can’t afford to save £10+ a month for rainy days/retirement
E. A child without their own bed
F. No access to school trips (though often schools will subsidise)
G. A family income below £10,500 a year (50% of the average)
H. Parents regularly behind with paying household bills
I. No TV
J. A child sharing a room with someone of different gender
K. No annual holiday
L. No laptop or internet access
M. Kids that get free school meals

It's easier to say what I *didn't* vote for! I didn't vote for E, I, J or K. A tv and annual holiday are luxury items not necessities. And sharing a bedroom and/or bed is really not a big deal. My 1 and 3 year old (boy and girl) frequently snuggle up together very happily and would be upset to be separated. As for L, I did dither a little but these days I feel that internet access has become a necessity due to the sheer amount of daily life that is done online - even just bills, banking and shopping.

To put it another way, I guess E, F, J and K would class us as "poor" and that's just ridiculous.

Hastobe_Katt

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

I believe that if children in poverty can be helped, but we keep denying that poverty exists - we are denying children the help they need.

And I think that's "bad".

But surely that is the whole point - what is the nature of the help that is needed? If the circumstances exist solely from a lack of money then increasing the income of these families would help. If the problem is the distorted priorities of the parents then a different strategy is required.

The help given to the lowest sectors of society comes from those who don't have a huge amount more themselves....and have worked for it and not received it (in many cases) as state hand outs handouts. I, for one, wouldn't want to be working a 60 hour week in a physically and mentally demanding job on minimum wage and paying taxes to subsidise other families getting pretty much the same income for sitting on their !!!.

Maldecul

Basing measures on percentages of averages seems odd to me.

Let us imagine for a moment that, overnight, disposable income for every family increased one hundred fold.

The same number of children would be classified as living in poverty.

Child poverty can never be eliminated if based on a measure of a percentage of the average unless every family income is identical, which I think to most folk seems both undesirable and unattainable.

Stating that families that have a family income in the lower quartile are worse off than the majority of families doesn't really tell us anything useful.

Jacks_xxx

Maldecul wrote: »

Basing measures on percentages of averages seems odd to me.

Let us imagine for a moment that, overnight, disposable income for every family increased one hundred fold.

The same number of children would be classified as living in poverty.

Child poverty can never be eliminated if based on a measure of a percentage of the average unless every family income is identical, which I think to most folk seems both undesirable and unattainable.

Stating that families that have a family income in the lower quartile are worse off than the majority of families doesn't really tell us anything useful.

Disposable income doesn't increase quite that fast but it has increased massive amounts in my lifetime.

Unfortunately the cost of living has too.

So the same number of children are living in poverty. (More actually.)

30 years ago, £20k was a well off person's salary, and a family home in my town was £3k.

Now £20k is not enough to live on in many parts of the country and a family home in my town is £300k.

The poorest are always the poorest even if they are comparatively better off than people a hundred years ago or people in the third world.

Jacks_xxx

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Please select ALL you think count as poverty

A. A lack of food, shelter or clothing
B. Family income below £12,700 a year (60% of the average)
C. A home with no heating
D. Parents can’t afford to save £10+ a month for rainy days/retirement
E. A child without their own bed
F. No access to school trips (though often schools will subsidise)
G. A family income below £10,500 a year (50% of the average)
H. Parents regularly behind with paying household bills
I. No TV
J. A child sharing a room with someone of different gender
K. No annual holiday
L. No laptop or internet access
M. Kids that get free school meals

pinkclouds wrote: »

It's easier to say what I *didn't* vote for! I didn't vote for E, I, J or K. A tv and annual holiday are luxury items not necessities. And sharing a bedroom and/or bed is really not a big deal. My 1 and 3 year old (boy and girl) frequently snuggle up together very happily and would be upset to be separated. As for L, I did dither a little but these days I feel that internet access has become a necessity due to the sheer amount of daily life that is done online - even just bills, banking and shopping.

To put it another way, I guess E, F, J and K would class us as "poor" and that's just ridiculous.

Do you think that perhaps you're being a little too literal?

E is a child without their own bed. Your little ones "frequently snuggle up together" but sometimes don't? So they have beds of their own?

F is No access to school trips. Your children don't go to school yet do they?

J is a child sharing a room with someone of a different gender. At the ages of 1 and 3 I agree, it's no problem. But can you imagine that it could be for older children?

K is no annual holiday, and again at your children's age it's no big deal but when children are much older, and have never had the joy of a bucket and spade holiday in their whole childhoods that would be unusual in this day and age wouldn't it?

That's what I think anyway.

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

But surely that is the whole point - what is the nature of the help that is needed?

No, that's a whole other thread. This thread is about what poverty is.

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

If the circumstances exist solely from a lack of money then increasing the income of these families would help. If the problem is the distorted priorities of the parents then a different strategy is required.

Either strategy will cost money.

Education, support, social work and the care system cost much much more per child than the benefits system.

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

The help given to the lowest sectors of society comes from those who don't have a huge amount more themselves....and have worked for it and not received it (in many cases) as state hand outs handouts. I, for one, wouldn't want to be working a 60 hour week in a physically and mentally demanding job on minimum wage and paying taxes to subsidise other families getting pretty much the same income for sitting on their !!!.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there?

Everybody pays tax.

Not just "those who don't have a huge amount more themselves."

I do wish the low paid paid less tax - does this mean we agree on something?

But we all have to pay for the possibility that we may need the NHS the benefits system, fire fighters, police officers and roads some day, don't we?

A minimum wage family will be in receipt of some benefits themselves, and are unlikely to pay enough tax each year to even cover their own benefits, let alone subsidise anybody else's!