What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

Paul_Herring

Pennylane wrote: »

waiting for their kids to come out and enjoying a leisurely smoke while they wait (at over £6 a packet!!).

Even my Marlboro's aren't that expensive when I have to buy them in this country.

Where are you? Kensington? Balmoral? And why do you have people renting there? Can't you keep the commoners out?

Pennylane

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Even my Marlboro's aren't that expensive when I have to buy them in this country.

Where are you? Kensington? Balmoral? And why do you have people renting there? Can't you keep the commoners out?

I was out with a friend recently and she bought 20 B & H and paid £6.38 in a local shop. I expressed my shock at the price and she said that was about what she usually paid and apart from the one or 2 very cheap own brands they are mainly £6+.

I expect you've already been told that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit haven't you?

darkestangel30

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[/QUOTE]

All of the above except for J and K and possibly L.

Im a single mum of 3 and have been classed as living in a certain amount of poverty for a long time. Even when I was a working single mum of one I was considered to be in poverty. I think that if you qualify for more than one of the things in the list then you can be considered to be in poverty. I am bringing 3 kids up on benefits. If I worked my childcare would be £450.00 a week, even though I would love to get a job. If the government paid 70% of childcare I would still have to pay over £100 towards it a week. When I worked before my mum had my oldest, she cant manage 3 of them now. It's not going to get any better for any of us, working or not, in the near future. this governments method of making work pay is to chop benefits so that poverty plummets. That won't make work pay, it'll just make us all chase our tails for years. God help us all.

BigMummaF

On TV the other morning, a chap from a very well-known children's charity was talking about children being in detention centres while their parents legalities were being assessed. The reporter asked about the chances of immigrants absconding if they were housed other than these places & the charity chap said--in a sort of quotable fashion as I can't recall the exact wording--there was no possible way that could happen as the families are living on benefits & in extreme poverty.

He obviously doesn't hold the same opinions as many of the British public who think all claimants are living the Life of Riley with more money than sense or moral substance!

psdie

BigMummaF wrote: »

He obviously doesn't hold the same opinions as many of the British public who think all claimants are living the Life of Riley with more money than sense or moral substance!

I don't think anyone here has suggested that a household living purely on benefits is likely to be living a life of luxury (although those ubiquitous Sky subscriptions and XBoxes are IMO an insult to working families that can't afford them, ours included).

However, I'd stand by the assertion that a household that claims all the state benefits they are entited to (including income support, housing benefit - including free rent, council tax, etc - JSA, child benefits, free school meals, discretionary funds, etc etc) is highly unlikely to suffer from genuine "poverty" in the traditional sense, as most would understand the word (food, clothes, shelter).

As this survey and forum shows, of course, there is a wide range of interpretations of the word "poverty". Personally I think it is insulting to those on the streets that have fallen through the welfare net (i.e., not receiving benefits), and of course the extreme poor in the third world, to say that a household earning ~£13k *after tax* and *excluding* having to pay housing costs, council tax, water, etc, are automatically "in poverty".

Of course, it *is* certainly possible that a household's income is so badly managed (gambling, alcohol, cigarettes and other luxuries before essentials) or consumed by repaying existing debts (although this may again point to bad budgeting) that the family is unable to provide suitable food and clothing for the children and are therefore in genuine poverty.

This is independent of the level of income, however; it could equally apply to households with a decent income but high debts to repay - another pointer to "relative income" being a poor method of diagnosing poverty.

To clarify: I certainly don't think that just because a household isn't "in poverty" (in absolute terms) that they shouldn't receive assistance. Poorer families need help .. and by and large this happens just fine via the welfare system. However, I strongly object to the term "poverty" being hijacked by government quangos and large charities with vested interests, and redefined to be far looser than its commonsense meaning.

Any definition that concludes that "1 in 5 children in the UK live in poverty" (Save the Children) is manipulative, dishonest BS. I'm disappointed to see there doesn't appear to have been any follow up discussion of this subject by Save the Children, or indeed MSE (despite Martin himself raising issues with the "poverty" definition).

Merry Christmas all - sorry for the rant :beer:

DoWhatULove-LoveWhatUDo

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

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.

I thought I would give this thread some bumpage since the Save The Children definition of poverty has been in the news.

psdie

DoWhatULove-LoveWhatUDo wrote: »

I thought I would give this thread some bumpage since the Save The Children definition of poverty has been in the news.

Yep, STC up to their usual donation encouraging spin:

"Sally Copley, Save the Children's head of UK policy, said: 'Children up and down the country are going to sleep at night in homes with no heating, without eating a proper meal and without proper school uniforms to put on in the morning. No child should be born without a chance. It is a national scandal that 1.6 million children are growing up in severe poverty'."

Of course, that nicely implies that there are 1.6m children living in virtual destitution, when in fact it is later clarified that "It defines severe poverty as those living in households with incomes of less than 50% of the UK median income (disregarding housing costs)."

Said it before, I'll say it again: ~£250pw after tax and AFTER all your housing costs (inc council tax, water) have been paid for (see above) is not "severe poverty" in my book. Nor does ~£300pw (60% of median income) on the same basis = "poverty". It means the household is relatively poor and probably struggles to make ends meet (like many of us); but unless welfare support has failed for some reason, there's no reason the kids need to be dressed in rags or going without meals - that's just poor priorities.

I'm irritated that STC started this controversial discussion on MSE, but haven't had the courage to join the debate. It's also a little spineless that MSE appear to have ducked out of commenting on its own debate too. Martin's initial comments clearly hinted at his own surprise at the official "poverty" definition, but he's been mute since STC contacted him - a pity.

What have you done DoWhatULove-LoveWhatUDo?! You should have let this bug bear lie! I feel bad about ranting about those less fortunate .. it's the recurring political spin that bothers me!

Paul_Herring

psdie wrote: »

Yep, STC up to their usual donation encouraging spin:

Well, quite. Someone else's take on this:

JuliaM wrote:

STC wrote:

To measure severe poverty, the charity combines both income and material deprivation.

This means a single parent family with one child aged under 14 on an income of less than £7,000 – or a couple with two children under 14 on less than £12,500 – and going without things such as separate bedrooms for older boys and girls, proper birthday celebrations and having friends round for tea.

Now, if I were the head of policy at a large charity, I’d be utterly ashamed to open my mouth on the subject of ‘severe poverty’ if my definition of it would be not having balloons and cake on my birthday, instead of living in squalor in some Third World hellhole.

Isn’t it lucky for Save The Children that they managed to find someone with no scruples whatsoever to give the job to..?

The comments on that post are perhaps worth reading as well for those who have the time.

TheSaint_2

I would imagine there are no-where near as many children in poverty than the stats make out - for all the very good reasons stated on this thread.

For those that are in poverty it will in the vast majority of cases be down to abuse / neglect etc on the part of the parents. And in those situations the children should be taken into care for their own good. We are a hard working family, we cannot afford to buy all the fancy things that other have, nor can we afford holidays that arent camping But we are happy. It annoys me that so many who do not work seem to be able to acquire items (such as free laptops, sky tv etc) that I and many other hard working parents cannot afford.

Having said that, I enjoy my job. And as a family we are happy.

harryhound

I don't think there is any evidence that kids thrive in care.
Perhaps we need a pill that people have to remember to take to have a baby not vice versa.