What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

harryhound

Another shock horror news report about relative poverty this morning: A Quarter of Farming Households Living in Poverty.........

The unit of measurement is simple: Household income less than 20K.

I have already posted that it costs 44K in a remote hamlet to enjoy the same "standard of living" available in town to a family income of 30K.

But all this is relative - in the country kids get to enjoy for free things that would require an entry fee and a trip in the people carrier, for a townie family.

I wonder if one did a survey of GCSE results, where the kids brought up in relative countryside poverty would appear on the graph?

[OK we all know the kids that do the best have chosen the best parents]

Back in time circa 1970 Los Angeles dissolved into days of rioting and arson. In the 1970's Britain was the "sick man of Europe" more or less on its beam ends and waiting to be rescued by North Sea Oil.
I vividly remember an interview with a rioter, who explained he lived in poverty because "I cannot afford to buy my kids new bikes for Xmas".

Oh come on, I've never had a new push bike in my life; but that is not a measure of poverty.
[I have learned how to rebuild second hand bikes!]

Hastobe_Katt

It goes the other way too Harryhound. Kids living in towns have access to libraries, museums, swimming pools, parks, good transport network etc. Pros and cons for either.

Jacks_xxx

teddyco wrote: »

The purpose of government is not to attempt to 'end poverty'; The purpose of government is to provide for the basic defence of the
country and protect the general framework of capitalism so the private sector can function at its' maximum capacity thereby providing jobs that will ultimately lift citizens out of poverty through private channels within individual communities.

In some cases, poverty has been created by 'wicked living' and becomes a moral issue that needs to be dealt with by the family
of the unfortunate person(s), friends, churches/synagogues/mosques, charities, drug rehab programs, or donations from private industry, and
Britain has a great heritage of helping those who are less fortunate through private organisations that were established for the
sole purpose of caring for the less fortunate.

Should we neglect the poor? God forbid! The bible tells us that a man is truly blessed who considers the poor. However, it is
not the responsibility of government to attempt to end poverty by robbing from one person (via excessive, immoral and unfair taxation) who may also be close to poverty to channel chunks of money to another group.

Adam Smith was right when he proposed that government should keep its' 'HANDS OFF' while allowing the 'invisible hand' to bless the country through private industry and commerce.

In the end, we will always have poverty within our country and it will never be destroyed, but it's better for private individuals,
churches, charities, and individual families to deal with the moral issues of poverty rather than imploring our government to tackle
something which remains a hotly debated, relative and moral issue.

The only option that government can offer is massive public taxation which essentially establishes unrealistic and relative
poverty targets that only serve to swamp the system in endless piles of red tape and bureaucracy which drives out private industry, destroys incentive and the spirit of enterprise, and sucks the country further into debt.

That sounds a bit like the Dickensian "Oliver Twist and Fagin" Victorian model to me.

I think we all need to take responsibility for the children of our nation, and we can only leave it to "other people" if we don't care what happens to them.

Geissbock

Poverty is relative - Point A is definitely the most severe and comparable to what might be considered poverty on a global scale. Points H through M are NOT poverty however. A, C, and possibly E are. The financial ones probably do determine the poverty in the household, granted, but cannot be considered poverty in itself.

harryhound

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

It goes the other way too Harryhound. Kids living in towns have access to libraries, museums, swimming pools, parks, good transport network etc. Pros and cons for either.

Good point.

For a child living in the middle of (say) Ilkley Moor, poverty would be no internet access.

However I live near a town that provides all of the above facilities, BUT what proportion of the children have parents who take advantage of them?

[Before the good people of Yorkshire take me to task, I've just checked with Google and even the little google "Streetview" peg man has not managed to make it over the Ilkley Moor road.]

Hastobe_Katt

Many kids could take advantage of them without their parents. I can't say that as I child I spent huge amounts of time in the local museum but we certainly went to the local park. We made ourselves ketchup or paste sandwiches (don't know now how we used to eat them!!) and took a football - we'd disappear for hours. Likewise, I spent hours at the local library. I used to borrow my sister's card so I could double the number of books I could take home. I was built like a scrawny shrimp so heaven know how I used to carry them as it was a 40 minute walk each way. In the summer holidays they used to have free swimming sessions in the local pool - so, again, that's where we all trooped off too. When I was a bit older I had a bike for Christmas (a second hand one my dad fixed up and painted - barbie pink with my name transferred on!!) Once I had that we went anywhere and everywhere. I can remember cycling back from the downs one day (a good hour away) with two bags of blackberries. By the time we got back they were like mush - mum still managed to make a few puddings with them though. There were no games consoles and we didn't have a TV until I was 14 (1976).

Most kids now want to be entertained - by TV, games consoles etc. We've made our kids emotionally, creatively and intellectually poor (which, IMHO, is more damaging than being financially poor) by giving them too much.

Caliendo

24% don't think a child needs a home with heating? :eek: Have they looked outside today?

Hastobe_Katt

Actually we haven't put our heating on yet today (we have several inches of snow). Sweaters are cheaper

Edit (16.32) Now we have though

Jacks_xxx

I feel very sorry for any child who walked to school and back in the snow and sleet today and who hasn't got any heating at home to dry out coats and shoes before having to do it again tomorrow. Brrrrrr! :eek:

harryhound

Most of the schools round here have wimped out of opening today anyway.

What ever happened to character forming true grit upbringing?