What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

Paul_Herring

sheeps68 wrote: »

Thought I'd share the official definition of what child poverty is.

"Children are said to be living in relative income poverty if their household’s income is less than 60 per cent of the median national income. Essentially, this looks at whether the incomes of the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole."

Taken from the Every Child Matters website.

Not saying I agree with this just where the official line is drawn and statistics based on.

Which as previously pointed out, is a pointless metric.
1) Once you have every household with a (2? 13?) child(ren) over that metric, the act of doing so has moved that metric further upwards.
2) What if (say) "50% of median income" is more than sufficient to house, clothe and feed 1 (2? 10?) child(ren) (and Sky, internet, booze and fags?) Is that house really in poverty? According to the metric, yes. Judging from the reactions here, no.

And what about the households with 0 children? What "percentage of median income" are they allowed to go below to be considered "in poverty."

It's just nonsense to use it as a hard-and-fast metric. Guideline, yes. As formulation of a policy? No.

sugarbaby125

Until December 2009 I was gainfully employed as a Nursery Nurse, when I had an acident at work that resulted in a back injury that has prevented me from working since. I have known all of the indicators of child poverty suggested as a child of a family of twelve children of which I was the elventh. I have been hungry enough to cry and cold enough to sleep in layers of clothes. My own children have been more fortunate, but right now, there is a struggle to afford to heat my home, pay the normal household bills, buy food and other household eseentials and as for Christmas, I think this is the year that my youngest son who is ten, will finally figure out that there is no father christmas, as he is only allowed one present to a very tight budget. He is not complaining and chose a wii game costing £34.99, but even this will be almost impossible for his poor beleaugered mother. I do not mind the privations of being on state benefits for myself, but I am distraught that my son has to wear school trousers that are too short, because there is no money for luxuries like school uniforms in our current state of poverty. Childcare is not a profession that pays well, but we were not in need for the financial means to meet our basic needs when I was employed. Not having access to the internet in his own home put my son at serious disadvantage with his eduacation. Thanks to the previous goverment's initiative to ensure that all children living in poverty had their own computers and internet access through their Home Access Grant, that my son has all the advantages of his peers. Also it has given me access to this site which has boosted my income in lots of legal ways by bringing to my attention sites like Greasy Palm and survey sites that give me a small amount for completing surveys. I seriously believe that all these markers can be an indication of the level of poverty that any family can be suffering. Yet despite our poverty, we have economised until there are no more cuts we can make and look forward to a better future when I am well and employed once again.

CatValou

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I have much sympathy with the view about the dangers of the median income model. In fact it was because i said just that on Radio 5 while debating this with someone from Save the Chidlren that this poll and the work we're doing came about.

There are children in poverty in the UK and that needs changing, yet if you define it by median income then sometimes the net stretches to far. This poll is to help look at what resonates with people as poverty - both for policy but perhaps more importantly communication reasons.

I don't agree that the net can stretch too far when we're talking about bringing up families on £10,500 or less a year. That wouldn't come close to paying my bills and there is only one of me.

Median's the half way mark right?

So 50% of that is the poorest quarter of society?

Average income rises because the cost of living rises.

If the net stretches to include people of higher incomes than before it will be because the cost of living has risen, won't it?

So people on slightly higher incomes than before are being priced out of normal life and need help.

That's how it works isn't it?

allen4625

i recall as a child with only one pair of shoes dreaming that when i grew up and was rich i would have four pairs of shoes ,why four pairs? that i dont remember, but my thought is maybe it is the opinions of children that matter the most has anyone asked them for their views, if poverty is relative to what you dont have and what others do and only takes into account what what you need to survive day to day, what does that say about us collectively as a society. or is it times are hard so we dont care anymore , hopefully we wont care any less.

DJFearRoss

It bugs me when you have people claiming to struggle when theyre smoking, drinking and not trying to budget properly and taking a good hard look at their situation and trying to get themselves sorted.

All those parents who say they would do anything for their children... as they smoke a fag in their face.

This 'crisis' has been real eye opener to what poverty really is, i have to say i've learned alot from it. In fact i'm proud that i have a CRT TV instead of a flat screen, an old mobile, a pushchair bought on Ebay rather than a £600 one that you only use for 6 months, that our car is about 22 years old, that our old flat is worth less than our friends.... I can afford those things but i feel smarter not buying them if i don't have to, common sense always prevails.

solongmarianne

most people i know living in poverty have bought it on themselvs, if you are on benefits or struggling, why on earth have another child, i know 4 women who moan each week about how they cant manage, crisis loans wont pay out cant get any more budgeting loans ect ect , yet they go and get pregnant!!! there is no logic to this, having children should not mean the tax payer should subsidise everone on benefits.

i am single and have one child, i couldnt afford any more, i work and always have done.

maybe if the govrnment didnt give out so many handouts it would force people in "poverty" to make some sensible descisions.

would the people i know keep popping out kids if there were no income support ect ect , course they wouldnt, for many being on a low income, or on benefits is a free ride, i see it every day. Africa ect ect is what real poverty is!

chardir

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Which as previously pointed out, is a pointless metric.
1) Once you have every household with a (2? 13?) child(ren) over that metric, the act of doing so has moved that metric further upwards.

This isn't true. The key is that it's based on the median not the mean. If the metric is 'households with below 60% of median income are in poverty' then raising all these incomes to 60%-99% of the median will not change the median itself. Thus it's a measurable and achievable goal.

I don't believe it's a very good measure of poverty, however, because it's relative to incomes. It would seem more logical to me that a poverty benchmark is related to prices.

chardir

CatValou wrote: »

Median's the half way mark right?

So 50% of that is the poorest quarter of society?

No, it's not. It's easiest to explain with an example:

If I have 11 people:

5 have incomes of £90
1 has an income of £100
5 have an income of £200

The median income is £100 (the man in the middle).
The five poorest have incomes of 90% of the median.
No one has an income below 50% of the median (which would be £50).

Paul_Herring

chardir wrote: »

No, it's not. It's easiest to explain with an example:

If I have 11 people:

5 have incomes of £90
1 has an income of £100
5 have an income of £200

The median income is £100 (the man in the middle).
The five poorest have incomes of 90% of the median.
No one has an income below 50% of the median (which would be £50).

And you would have exactly the same results if those last 5 all had £101, or they all had £1,000,001, with the other 6 unchanged.

The median would still be £100, and the 5 poorest would still have 90% of the median, and no-one has an income below 50% of the median.

Hastobe_Katt

A friend of mine lives on £3,333 p.a. Ok she lives on her own so her living expenses will be less than a family but nevertheless it makes the £12k+ p.a. quoted above positively luxurious. She manages by growing her own veg, has a few chickens, goats and pigs etc., barters for other stuff. The £3,333 covers everything with no state handouts, tax credits, housing benefit etc and includes the rent for her cottage.

(She also has a zero carbon footprint)