What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

KimYeovil

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

But we should still try though - huh?

What wicked people like you do not understand is that we have tried. Not only have we tried we have done. There are virtually no famiies with children who live in relative poverty (other than by that idiotic arbitrary metric).

Giving bad people even more money does not help. Save the Children should stick to tackling parents who deprive children. To suggest that because more families are accommodated by generous credit bands that this is a bad thing and an indication of failure is crazy.

Jacks_xxx

KimYeovil wrote: »

What wicked people like you do not understand is that we have tried. Not only have we tried we have done. There are virtually no famiies with children who live in relative poverty (other than by that idiotic arbitrary metric).

There are. They sometimes, but not often, post on this very site, and they live in every single county in this country. It may make you feel better to believe they don't exist, but they do.

KimYeovil wrote: »

Giving bad people even more money does not help. Save the Children should stick to tackling parents who deprive children. To suggest that because more families are accommodated by generous credit bands that this is a bad thing and an indication of failure is crazy.

Again it may make you feel better to blame "bad people" but how does that help even a single child? It doesn't. It just means it's not our responsibility, it's the "bad people's".

Jacks_xxx

I'm not sure we're even talking about the same thing.

Has one of us posted on the wrong thread by mistake?

You said:

KimYeovil wrote: »

There are very, very few households without access to a sufficient income to provide all of that.

So I said:

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.

Most of that's just maths. We know what the minimum wage is and we know what rents are like across The South, The South East, London and The Home Counties because there has been so much press about LHA. We know that millions of people lost their jobs and after a period of unemployment got lower paid ones we know they're not able to keep up with their mortgages so they will be repossessed and evicted.

This is just reality, and the number involved are googleable.

Rents are already high, and when demand for rented accomodation rises so will rents.

Wages are static or dropping.

LHA is being capped and reduced.

Rents are rising.

Ergo people on minimum wage would struggle to rent across vast swathes of this country, without help.

Then you said

KimYeovil wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

How is that nonsense?

KimYeovil wrote: »

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.

Where do the "negligent rich parents who will never treat their children decently" come in to it? And who are the poor people we're taking money from? I didn't think they existed?

And even if they are part of the equation, should we formulate policy for everybody that is based on how we think we should treat "negligent rich parents who will never treat their children decently"

Or should we treat everyone as if they are a human being equal to ourselves?

KimYeovil

But what are you proposing be done to help a single child? I do not see you making any suggestions.

Primarni

4% of people don't think a lack of food clothing or shelter constitutes poverty? :eek:

KimYeovil

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Or should we treat everyone as if they are a human being equal to ourselves?

It is you who do not think people who have no children are not human. You want them (who have three or four thousand pounds) to subsidise households who have thirteen to eighteen thousand pounds.

I genuinely can not fathom out how you can suggest that an unemployed household of four on thirteen thousands (net) or eighteen thousands (single minimum wage net) are RELATIVELY poor. How on earth is that not enough to participate fully in society?

How little do you appear to think that families receive in benefits and income? If my figures are completely unreal please explain. AFAIK no family of four has an income less than £1000 per month. And that does NOT include a substantial contribution to housing.

KimYeovil

Primarni wrote: »

4% of people don't think a lack of food clothing or shelter constitutes poverty? :eek:

Perhaps it is more that 4% don't think that an income of £1000 per month is not enough to pay for food and clothing.

The survey is crazily flawed. It does not ask the correct question.

Jacks_xxx

KimYeovil wrote: »

But what are you proposing be done to help a single child? I do not see you making any suggestions.

I'm suggesting that we help though, however vaguely - whereas you seem to be suggesting that we remove our help from some families.

Jacks_xxx

Primarni wrote: »

4% of people don't think a lack of food clothing or shelter constitutes poverty? :eek:

I hadn't noticed that. Blimey. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Paul_Herring

Primarni wrote: »

4% of people don't think a lack of food clothing or shelter constitutes poverty? :eek:

Depends on why there is a lack of food, clothing or shelter. Poverty is not the only reason, there are lots of others which could be disguised as 'poverty.'

For instance:

1) if mother spends the food/clothing money on fags and father spends the rent on booze, should that constitute poverty?

2 if two identical families have exactly the same income, but one is in debt (for whatever reason) to such an extent that they can't afford food/clothing/rent, are both families in poverty?