The Poverty Line

lynzpower

I am not unemployed, i am a Msc student on an unpaid 3 day a week placement.

I used a little birthday money I was given towards my tablets so I am fortunate that I actually had it, I was just making the point really that there is a lot more variance in what the unemployed do or do not have, get given or what.

Some people literally dont have money for frivolities like paying the bills, a pair of shoes or their tablets, it might have been touch and go if I needed two lots.Ive been told I need to take these for at least a year. Its gonna cost me!

oldvicar

MacMickster wrote: »

The crazy thing here is that we would actually take several hundred pounds in income tax and national insurance off the single person earning these poverty level wages,

Somebody has to pay to educate other people's children !

DervProf

Not being Hamish or Sibley = Poverty.

I am glad I am = Poverty.

oldvicar

lynzpower wrote: »

Ive been told I need to take these for at least a year. Its gonna cost me!

My Doc prescribed pills he said I would have to take for the rest of my life. He thought he was being a wit when he described them as "A life sentence ... but much better than a death sentence eh?"

Seriously though, as a moneysaving idea, if you take more than one prescription medicine and have to pay for them, consider getting a prepayment certificate.

PasturesNew

MacMickster wrote: »

The crazy thing here is that we would actually take several hundred pounds in income tax and national insurance off the single person earning these poverty level wages,

Not once the personal tax limit is £10k, but yes, it has worked like that .... and the money's handed to people with more money.

neverdespairgirl

chucknorris wrote: »

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).

Me neither. We have a perfectly good car, it works all the time and costs very little to maintain. It's a 1998 Fiat, and none the worse for that.

neverdespairgirl

Generali wrote: »

In Central London with a large mortgage I reckon a middle class life costs about £250,000 gross a year if you're on PAYE (incl school fees for 2 kids at a decent school).

Less, I think. Speaking as a central London middle-class-lifestyle type with 1 kid at a decent school and a large mortgage (-:

neverdespairgirl

It's not just about income, though. In this country everyone has access to clean water, sewage, decent health care, education, policing, fire services, etc.

The vast majority of the world's population would consider itself wealthy to have all that.

Blue22

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's not just the Beeb Gen. I saw this reported elsewhere yesterday and it was the same quote of "absolute poverty". From what I could tell from the other article (sorry no link) was that they were both measures of relative poverty but the one they termed absolute was pitched lower than the other.

I wondered whether this was a mosspront on a PR bulletin that had lazily been misquoted without research by the churnalists or whether, more sinister, someone was trying to arbitrarily change definitions to suit their own views.

I also think it's misleading to use the emotive term 'absolute poverty' but it's not the journalists at fault, it is the term used in the Child Poverty Act.

'We use two definitions of income poverty, both of which are set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. An individual is in relative income poverty in a particular year if their household income is less than 60% of the national median household income in that year. An individual is in absolute income poverty in a particular year if their household income in that year is less than 60% of the 2010–11 national median (in real terms)'
Quote taken from Institute of Fiscal Studies report on Child and Working Age Poverty 2010.

The 'absolute poverty' line is currently slightly lower than the 'relative poverty' line but if the median household income over the next few years fails to keep up with inflation then the 'absolute poverty' level could be the higher.

oldvicar

Blue22 wrote: »

I also think it's misleading to use the emotive term 'absolute poverty' but it's not the journalists at fault, it is the term used in the Child Poverty Act.

'We use two definitions of income poverty, both of which are set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. An individual is in relative income poverty in a particular year if their household income is less than 60% of the national median household income in that year. An individual is in absolute income poverty in a particular year if their household income in that year is less than 60% of the 2010–11 national median (in real terms)'
Quote taken from Institute of Fiscal Studies report on Child and Working Age Poverty 2010.

The 'absolute poverty' line is currently slightly lower than the 'relative poverty' line but if the median household income over the next few years fails to keep up with inflation then the 'absolute poverty' level could be the higher.

I think this is likely to happen. So perhaps the majority of us will soon be living in poverty.

You can just imagine how we will present ourselves overseas: "Invest in Britain, where everyone lives in poverty". That'll put the Great back in Britain.

The IFS should be ashamed.