What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

Hezzy

adrian_clark wrote: »

You've nailed it, exactly. There are too many women who have been abandoned and betrayed having to bring up children without the provision, protection and love of a husband. While there are tragic circumstances, such us widowhood, many men have proved to be cowards by running from their promises instead of persevering with sacrificial love, loyalty and commitment. What a privilege to be a husband and model to children how to love a woman well by treating her with value, dignity and respect until death us do part Our communities, supported by their government, could have a great impact on our children's future by supporting marriage:T , condemning adultery and holding to account those shameful men who would dare forsake a woman.

It is not just women that get left to raise the children. My step-dad raised his ex-wife's son (not even his own!) after she chose her partner over the child! There are amazing fathers out there too that would do anything for their children! I'm just disappointed that he isn't my actual dad and my mum didn't find him sooner!! Mine disappeared off to Spain and a penny never came our way! Children definately need a balanced family, but this doesn't mean there has to be 2 parents involved... would just be a nice ideal

wildthing01

harryhound wrote: »

A child without a father?!?

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

wildthing01

solongmarianne wrote: »

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!

1. a lot of people in poverty have NOT brought it on themselves: refugees/asylum seekers/victims of domestic abuse/young people made homeless because of abuse etc at home or parents' new partners not wanting them/people whose health problems make them unable to work and who are having to pay out for all the extras that serious illness (such as cancer) can give rise to, etc. etc, etc. even those that are having more children despite being already poor may not have had much choice - they may have abusive partners forcing/cajoling them, they may not have the capacity to properly understand or make informed decisions about getting pregnant etc etc etc.

2. even if the parents have brought it on themselves, the children certainly have not, and need protecting at all costs, so even if your argument were true, it is completely pointless and irrelevant to the question.

btw, it's etc, not ect. (i don't normally correct peoples' grammar/spelling on here, but you've annoyed me!)

psdie

I'm somewhat shocked at the looseness of the formal EU definition of poverty, and knowing it puts me off the idea of donating to "child poverty" charities. I do hope Save the Children are pushing for a more absolute definition to preserve their credibility as a worthy cause.

Of course a child without a heated home, holidays, low income parents etc is unfortunate and disadvantaged relative to others. But that's far from being in poverty! Poverty is about lack of money for even the barest of essentials (which surely implies they've fallen through the cracks of the benefits system?).

Some of the things in the list concur with my own childhood (lack of heating, shared beds, parents struggling with bills) .. but coming from a middle class family, I wouldn't for a moment suggest we were impoverished!

Feedback on specific items:

• A - food/shelter/clothing - a sensible definition for poverty. No child in a civilised society should be allowed to go without food, shelter or clothing.
• B/G - income 40/50% below the national median - clearly a poor household, but it depends how many people are being supported, whether benefits are being received (they almost certainly are!), whether in rent-free social housing, etc. Some households on benefits appear to have ample cash for Sky etc!
• C - home with no heating - no fun, had it myself until I moved out of parents' home as rural bottled gas is so expensive, but we just had to wrap up throughout winter and sleep in dressing gowns!
• D/H - no savings/behind on bills - could easily be bad budgeting (Sky / mobile bills / loans, etc). Well-to-do landed families living in mansions often don't have enough to pay the bills / save!
• E/J - own bed/room - surely most kids share rooms until they are teenagers anyway?! Once child reaches teens, it's certainly not great if they must share a room with the opposite sex, but hardly *poverty*!
  • UPDATE: I originally read E as "own bedroom" rather than "own bed". I think it's not a concern that young children share a bed, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that older children sharing a bed is an indication of poverty. A child without a bed at all is *certainly* poverty, in my view.
• F - free school meals - another reflection of low household income, doesn't imply anything unique.
• I/L - no TV / net access: lack of the former is a big disadvantage to child's school/self education these days .. but previous generations coped OK (and others point out that access grants are available). TV is no more than a luxury (we haven't bothered with it in our first house!).
• M - school trips - an enrichment exercise, not an essential of existence!

An interesting topic - thanks for raising it Martin! Hope you'll blog further soon, perhaps with (hopefully progressive) feedback from Save the Children.

I'd also be very interested to hear how the UK benefits system affects effective poverty levels? Presumably the majority of genuine poverty cases in the UK today are children on the streets (teenagers that have run away from home/care?), so are unable to claim benefits? I find it hard to believe that those on benefits cannot afford food and clothing for their children (they will presumably already have social housing), unless they have their financial priorities seriously wrong?

Cheers, Ben

PS: just noticed that the forum summary of the options (which I referred to in writing the above) doesn't include the "Less than 2 pairs of shoes" option, which may mean the poll option letters are out of sync (can't tell as not shown on the results page)?

I'm sympathetic that only owning a single pair of shoes could be a poverty indication .. although it still sounds slightly silly compared to poverty in Africa / Asia! But perhaps those are examples of "extreme poverty" rather than UK-style poverty? Are there scales of poverty (or would that incorrectly conflate with "poorness")?

PPS: fascinating to hear about the difficult household you grew up in Martin (your earlier post) - I wonder if this is where your financial saavyness comes from?

solongmarianne

wildthing01 wrote: »

1. a lot of people in poverty have NOT brought it on themselves: refugees/asylum seekers/victims of domestic abuse/young people made homeless because of abuse etc at home or parents' new partners not wanting them/people whose health problems make them unable to work and who are having to pay out for all the extras that serious illness (such as cancer) can give rise to, etc. etc, etc. even those that are having more children despite being already poor may not have had much choice - they may have abusive partners forcing/cajoling them, they may not have the capacity to properly understand or make informed decisions about getting pregnant etc etc etc.

2. even if the parents have brought it on themselves, the children certainly have not, and need protecting at all costs, so even if your argument were true, it is completely pointless and irrelevant to the question.

btw, it's etc, not ect. (i don't normally correct peoples' grammar/spelling on here, but you've annoyed me!)

lmao!!! correct away, maybe you might want to go over your own at some point to!

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

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)

Our council tax alone is half of that! :eek:

Jacks_xxx

MSE_Dan wrote: »

G. A family income below £10,500 a year (50% of the average)

I thought this meant the poorest quarter of the population as well.

Jacks_xxx

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).

Is that not a very specific example though?

In real life millions of people do have incomes below 50% of the median don't they?

When you have 25 million households with probably 25 million different household incomes wouldn't it be the lowest income 6 million or so who would need help to align them with the rest of society?

In most of the South, South East, London and the Home Counties the £10,500 a year, 50% of the average in the poll wouldn't pay even the housing costs for a family let alone everything else. A job on minimum wage isn't enough to support a family on, but most people want to work, and somebody has to do those jobs. Two minimum wages jobs are not enough to support a family because of the high housing costs in a massive chunk of the country

So those people need help if they are to remain in those minimum wage jobs.

The country need people to do thsoe minimum wage jobs so the country should help.

*gracefully dismounts soapbox*

Jacks_xxx

Isn't poverty always relative anyway?

Absolute poverty would meaning having nothing at all.

And

When children have been brought up by wolves we have endless sympathy with their plight and their struggle to learn the skills they need to be active members of our society.

When children are brought up by people with limited intellect, narrow horizons and poor life skills we seem happy to punish the children because it's comforting to believe that the parents "brought it on themselves".

When those children grow up with limited intellect, narrow horizons and poor life skills we again say they "brought it on themselves".

Am I the only one who finds this highly illogical?

Hastobe_Katt

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Our council tax alone is half of that! :eek:

Maybe you should move? It will always be more expensive to live in highly urbanised areas (particularly the south east) because property costs are higher and you don't have the opportunity to become self sufficient - for the same reason.

Surely the government shouldn't be distorting the market by subsidising those who choose to live in expensive areas?