The Poverty Line

Pimperne1

Here is the definition:

WHAT IS THE POVERTY LINE?

Single adult, no children: £165 per week (£8580 pa)
Couple, no children: £248 per week (£12896)
Lone parent, 1 child: £215 per week (£11180)
Lone parent, 2 children: £264 per week (£13728)
Lone parent, 3 children: £314 per week (£16328)
Couple, 1 child: £297 per week (£15444)
Couple, 2 children: £347 per week (£18044)
Couple, 3 children: £396 per week (£20592)

I really don't think if I was in any of those situations I would consider myself to be in "poverty".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15242103

drc

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Here is the definition:

WHAT IS THE POVERTY LINE?

Single adult, no children: £165 per week (£8580 pa)
Couple, no children: £248 per week (£12896)
Lone parent, 1 child: £215 per week (£11180)
Lone parent, 2 children: £264 per week (£13728)
Lone parent, 3 children: £314 per week (£16328)
Couple, 1 child: £297 per week (£15444)
Couple, 2 children: £347 per week (£18044)
Couple, 3 children: £396 per week (£20592)

I really don't think if I was in any of those situations I would consider myself to be in "poverty".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15242103

The problem is that they talk about "relative" poverty. So if you have a BMW but your neighbour has a Rolls Royce, they are significantly richer than yous and you are "poor".

Mallotum_X

Not african style poverty, but relative in the uk.

8.5k for a single person, rent to pay, council tax, basic bills, how much would you have for food and a few other basics.

That would be a pretty miserable existance.

chucknorris

drc wrote: »

The problem is that they talk about "relative" poverty. So if you have a BMW but your neighbour has a Rolls Royce, they are significantly richer than yous and you are "poor".

I have NEVER considered a car as a sign of wealth, I have quite a bit more wealth than my friends but they all have much better cars than me (and probably always will have).

Margey

Not having enough (or just enough) money for food or bills would be pretty awful too.

Generali

The BBC article is wrong.

Relative poverty means poverty compared to the bloke next door. Absolute poverty means, for example, not being able to afford to put food on the table.

The former term means that you are 'poor' if you can't afford a mobile phone in the UK but rich of you can afford one in Botswana. The latter means you are poor if you can't afford decent accommodation, food, sanitation, water etc no matter where you live.

The BBC says:

It uses the technical term of "absolute" poverty, which is not about what people can or cannot afford but a measure in relation to other earnings - in this case defined as being below 60% of the median income, adjusted for inflation.

As the research document says:

In 2009-10, the latest year for which actual data is available, the relative poverty line was as follows:

(note 4, page 2)

I think that nobody should live in absolute poverty except by their own choosing. Relative poverty should be 'enjoyed' by most employable unemployed after a time.

michaels

For some reason as well as the oft quoted 'living in poverty' at 60% of median earnings there is also an absolute poverty line defined as 17% of average 1992 earnings or something equally obscure.

I did a fair bit of research on this yesterday to try and find out whether the income figures include housing costs or not (pretty relevant given some are getting housing benefit and having their council tax paid and/or paying council rents) It would appear that the figures are before housing costs but there is a figure after housign costs quoted at about £60 per week less than the figures above.

Of course this puts me in poverty (2 adults, 3 kids take home plus benefits about 2100 pcm less IO mortgage and council tax of 700pcm = 1400pcm) or 323 per week which is less than 336 (£396 - £60 housing costs). That is why I have only put marble tiles in one of the 3 new bathrooms we are having in our extension.

Percy1983

As some have said above, poverty isn't knowing where your next meal is coming from or where you are sleeping tonight.

Not being able to afford a PS3 and iPhone isn't.

oldvicar

Generali wrote: »

I think that nobody should live in absolute poverty except by their own choosing. Relative poverty should be 'enjoyed' by most employable unemployed after a time.

I'm not sure I want to pay the idle to enjoy relative poverty - somewhere a little bit above absolute poverty, but below the relative poverty line seems fair, unless working people are also going to be supported to be above this relative poverty line. Perhaps that's what Generali meant?

The trouble with the many measures of poverty and fixing them at 60% of the average, is that it labels many people who are not poor, or who don't consider themselves poor at all, as being below the poverty line. And that makes us all feel unhappy that we live in a poor country.

I enjoy (indeed I relish) living in relative poverty on many of the silly measures that are being invented, but all using my own resources. Resources which I consider are ample for all my reasonable needs and wants for many many years, and still to die 'rich' by some measures. Take fuel poverty for one - do you know how much it costs to heat a draughty old mansion ? Officially I may be in fuel poverty, but please don't feel sorry for me because I have no trouble at all paying the bills. When I do my tax return next year, my taxable income level may well have fallen below 'the poverty line' - but that's as much through good planning (using ISAs etc) rather than by being poor.

I simply say don't take such statistics at face value.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

For some reason as well as the oft quoted 'living in poverty' at 60% of median earnings there is also an absolute poverty line defined as 17% of average 1992 earnings or something equally obscure.

I did a fair bit of research on this yesterday to try and find out whether the income figures include housing costs or not (pretty relevant given some are getting housing benefit and having their council tax paid and/or paying council rents) It would appear that the figures are before housing costs but there is a figure after housign costs quoted at about £60 per week less than the figures above.

Of course this puts me in poverty (2 adults, 3 kids take home plus benefits about 2100 pcm less IO mortgage and council tax of 700pcm = 1400pcm) or 323 per week which is less than 336 (£396 - £60 housing costs). That is why I have only put marble tiles in one of the 3 new bathrooms we are having in our extension.

I feel for you michaels. That's exactly the same as having the missus walking home from a polluted lake with a bucket of water on her head or recycling by hand from a landfill site. ).

I hope we aren't the only 2 that think this is a ludicrous definition of poverty.

lynzpower

I did a fair bit of research on this yesterday to try and find out whether the income figures include housing costs or not (pretty relevant given some are getting housing benefit and having their council tax paid and/or paying council rents) It would appear that the figures are before housing costs but there is a figure after housign costs quoted at about £60 per week less than the figures above.

Housing costs are not 100% covered by the state in most circumstances now, so there will need to be a contribution from other income to pay the rent.

Failure to do so puts you in prime spot for eviction.