What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

adouglasmhor

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

Thank you. I thought that was the case but wondered how many of them she was applying to her own situation.

She did mention the separate rooms thing and some non specific others.


My own family was all boys but 4 of us shared one room for years with bunk beds - it was great, later on when I was a student and worked part time in the union, I used to sleep in the coal shed in a home made hammock and sleeping bag to avoid waking up the younger brothers when coming back form a shift. My mum thought I was mad, but our coal shed was huge and had a window.
Only if it was really freezing would I come in with the sleeping bag and sleep in a chair in the living room.

FATBALLZ

MSE_Dan wrote: »

Poll Started 23 November 2010:

What counts as child poverty in the UK?

We’re working with Save the Children on this, and it’s a tougher question than you think. The EU defines it as a household with under 60% of median average income – yet that means as society gets richer, what counts as poverty rises too, which could lead to some relatively rich poor people. Others say no food, shelter or clothing is a better, absolute measure.

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

Please vote here, or click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

I could write a book on the things wrong with this poll, however I'll just pick a big hole in option D for now - there are very, very, very few, if any, households where people could not save £10 a month by cutting back. I'm sure Mr Lewis knows this.

Jacks_xxx

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I could write a book on the things wrong with this poll, however I'll just pick a big hole in option D for now - there are very, very, very few, if any, households where people could not save £10 a month by cutting back. I'm sure Mr Lewis knows this.

If they're in debt crisis Mr Lewis (and everybody really) recommends paying off debts before saving....

...But because of the high interest rates and charges the debts will never be paid off....

...So they will never be able to afford to save.

I don't think the number of people in that situation is "very few if any".

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

This all seems a pretty pointless debate then.

Why? Defining poverty is the first step. Solutions come later.

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

Yes but simply throwing money at a home situation when poverty is not the problem is a completely pointless exercise.

Is it possible that you are ascribing opinions to me that I have not expressed? I'm not sure which of my points you're arguing with here.

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

Simples - we have limited and shrinking resources to throw at the problem. It's unfair to tax working families in order to throw money at families who are not poor by any realistic definition of the term.

Taxation pays for all the public services that we all use or could use if we needed to. Hundreds of "working families" become "unemployed families" every week at the moment. I expect they appreciate the safety net then.

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

The relative definition of poverty just creates a spiral that needs more and more funds to support. Why should a family sitting on their !!!!!! and drawing dole automatically get an increase in their weekly money because another percentage of the population are working their wotsits off to better themselves.

That's not really how it works is it?

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

As for the last paragraph - am I not alone in thinking what a crazy system we have? Why do we take tax off low income families to give it back as tax credits? (Other than to keep a raft of civil servants in employment of course!) Its a shame we can't have the French system - if your income is low enough to need top up it's low enough not to pay tax and tax allowances (not benefits!) are based on the size of your family. I.e. to benefit from them you have to have taxable income viz work. So no incentive to become a benefit baby machine.

I quite like the French system myself.

BigMummaF

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

....Simples....

No, it obviously isn't! I feel this thread is getting further & further away from the original discussion about what constitutes Child Poverty.
We are not supposed to be finding solutions or casting aspersions on whichever layer of society erks us the most for daring to exist in the first place.

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I could write a book on the things wrong with this poll, however I'll just pick a big hole in option D for now - there are very, very, very few, if any, households where people could not save £10 a month by cutting back. I'm sure Mr Lewis knows this.

When you have already cut back all non-essentials, what else is there to left to throw over the edge to lighten the basket so-to-speak. I had a similar conversation a few days ago after some MP or other was doing the usual pompous attitude about the welfare reforms.

It is all well & good 'celebrities' & politicians doing the very public trial of living on Benefit for a WEEK, but it is a very different story when it stretches into months.
For seven days all you need is food & some way of cooking it.
After three weeks you have to start considering how the housing costs will be paid, then five weeks in there's the utilities.
Three months later you have a job interview in a town up to 45 miles away at 9 in the morning so travelling there is going to cost premium rate. The weather has turned colder & your one decent winter coat was old fashioned when you bought it in a charity shop three years ago & is not really going to give an ideal first impression when worn with your grandma's best effort at knitting a hat, scarf & glove combo.

OK, I admit I've gone off topic here, so please can we now stop sniping & just set to to find some workable definition of Child Poverty.

Blobby8_2

A child, regardless of household income, will probably be in poverty if it is born to parents who have higher priorities than their child.

Hastobe_Katt

It seems that a lot of people on here assess what poverty is on the basis of their own (in)ability to budget.

Hastobe_Katt

If you read the OP again it says 'We’re working with Save the Children on this....'

Save the Children's web site states that it's policy with regard to child poverty is;

We’re pushing for:

• more resources to be invested nationally and internationally in reducing childhood poverty
• policies that ensure that those resources actually reach the poorest children.

We also promote policies and programmes to remove the economic causes that make it difficult for poor families to protect and care for their children.

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

It seems that a lot of people on here assess what poverty is one the basis of their own (in)ability to budget.

Really?

Please quote us to prove your point all rather than just cast vague and impertinent aspersions.

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

If you read the OP again it says 'We’re working with Save the Children on this....'

Save the Children's web site states that it's policy with regard to child poverty is;

We’re pushing for:

• more resources to be invested nationally and internationally in reducing childhood poverty
• policies that ensure that those resources actually reach the poorest children.

We also promote policies and programmes to remove the economic causes that make it difficult for poor families to protect and care for their children.

You would expect Save the Children to have opinions and plans wouldn't you?

But again, it's not what the poll is about.

Presumably Save The Children already know what they think themselves, they want to know what we think.