What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

adouglasmhor

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

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?

The financial infrastructure etc. in the south east; Which is still the UKs main source of income, would still require a support net of low paid service employees, if they did not have this they would move elsewhere, taking the income with them.

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

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.

If you leave the area where your job is how does that help you become self sufficient?

In areas where housing is expensive the local economy still needs low paid workers to be social workers, classroom assistants, nursery nurses, supermarket workers, retail workers, bar workers, etc.

So either you believe that these jobs should be paid a living wage

OR

You believe that the state should top up the low paid to allow them to live and work in the South, The South East, The Home Counties and London.

The economy can't do without those workers, so there are are no other logical options are there?

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

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

Why not? The government distorted the market when they sold off all the social housing forcing people into private rents and thus forcing private rents up.

The government created this situation - so why shouldn't the government try to ameliorate it's effects?

Jacks_xxx

teddyco wrote: »

The poor will always be with us, and we will never be able to get rid of poverty.

But we should still try though - huh?

Hastobe_Katt

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Why not? The government distorted the market when they sold off all the social housing forcing people into private rents and thus forcing private rents up.

The government created this situation - so why shouldn't the government try to ameliorate it's effects?

You could argue that the government distorted the market by providing social housing.

By paying housing benefit etc, the government (aka the taxpayer) is subsidising those employers based in high cost areas. If that support wasn't there employers would have to pay more to ensure they had an adequate workforce.

KimYeovil

It is wrong that many parents choose to deprive their children by not providing those things. But what has the standard metric got to do with that? Stop bleating about an arbitrary measure and spend your funds targeting evil parents. There are very, very few households without access to a sufficient income to provide all of that. And there sure as blazes are not 2.3 million.

Until idiotic charities stop supporting the ridiculous End Child Poverty coalition they are going to face a lot of hostility and withdrawn donations.

rpb

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."

Fine, but that is the definition of "Relative Income Poverty", which wasn't what this article asked - we were asked about child "Poverty".

• Lots of people would fall into "Relative Chocolate Bar Poverty" as defined by those consuming less than 60 percent of the median chocolate consumption, but I wouldn't therefore say you are living in poverty if you eat less chocolate than this.

• Lots of people would fall into "Relative Spare Time Poverty" as defined by those having less than 60 percent of the median amount of spare time, but I wouldn't therefore say you are living in poverty if you spend long hours at work, look after the house/spouse/kids when you get home and don't have much spare time.

"Relative Income Poverty" just tells you what range someone's income falls into, which is practically worthless as a single measure of poverty. What determines poverty is whether the basics are being provided for. This is largely unrelated to (relative) income levels because it also depends very strongly on cost of living for the family/person in question, the location where they live, their spending choices, any assets or debts they have, and many other factors.

So you can talk all you like about "Relative Income Poverty", but that term doesn't change the meaning of the well-understood word "Poverty", which means "indigence, destitution, want, material deprivation, hardship" (OED)

Jacks_xxx

KimYeovil wrote: »

It is wrong that many parents choose to deprive their children by not providing those things. But what has the standard metric got to do with that? Stop bleating about an arbitrary measure and spend your funds targeting evil parents. There are very, very few households without access to a sufficient income to provide all of that. And there sure as blazes are not 2.3 million.

Until idiotic charities stop supporting the ridiculous End Child Poverty coalition they are going to face a lot of hostility and withdrawn donations.

There are millions of households where the parents would not even be able to afford to put a roof over their children's heads without help.

Two parents working for minimum wage would never be able to buy and would struggle to rent across vast swathes of this country, without help.

That's not evil. Evil is refusing to help them.

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

You could argue that the government distorted the market by providing social housing.

By paying housing benefit etc, the government (aka the taxpayer) is subsidising those employers based in high cost areas. If that support wasn't there employers would have to pay more to ensure they had an adequate workforce.

The market created the concept of social housing, the government merely expanded it.

The government did it for economic reasons. Workers need somewhere to live, and low paid workers need somewhere to live near where they work.

Jacks_xxx

rpb wrote: »

Fine, but that is the definition of "Relative Income Poverty", which wasn't what this article asked - we were asked about child "Poverty".

• Lots of people would fall into "Relative Chocolate Bar Poverty" as defined by those consuming less than 60 percent of the median chocolate consumption, but I wouldn't therefore say you are living in poverty if you eat less chocolate than this.

• Lots of people would fall into "Relative Spare Time Poverty" as defined by those having less than 60 percent of the median amount of spare time, but I wouldn't therefore say you are living in poverty if you spend long hours at work, look after the house/spouse/kids when you get home and don't have much spare time.

"Relative Income Poverty" just tells you what range someone's income falls into, which is practically worthless as a single measure of poverty. What determines poverty is whether the basics are being provided for. This is largely unrelated to (relative) income levels because it also depends very strongly on cost of living for the family/person in question, the location where they live, their spending choices, any assets or debts they have, and many other factors.

So you can talk all you like about "Relative Income Poverty", but that term doesn't change the meaning of the well-understood word "Poverty", which means "indigence, destitution, want, material deprivation, hardship" (OED)

It's not often that I see an issue in black and white but as I see it poverty is either absolute or it's relative.

Absolute poverty means that you have nothing. No home, no food, no clothes = absolutely nothing.

Other than that all poverty is relative, and it's just a matter of where we set the line between what we think is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

Do we want something better for our nations children than Oliver Twist got.

He had food and clothes and a roof over his head.

Some people think that is perfectly adequate, I'm not one of them.

KimYeovil

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

There are millions of households where the parents would not even be able to afford to put a roof over their children's heads without help.

Two parents working for minimum wage would never be able to buy and would struggle to rent across vast swathes of this country, without help.

That's not evil. Evil is refusing to help them.

Complete nonsense. Nowhere do I say that families should not be given help. My only contention is the idiotic suggestion that the current help is not adequate.

Evil is taking from poor people and handing it over to negligent and rich parents who will never treat their children decently.