What is child poverty in the UK?

psdie

This survey is majorly flawed. It fails to mention the ~£13k income figure is AFTER deducting all housing costs (inc council tax + water) and income tax / NI. How many of the 38% would have voted for the current definition if that had been made clear?

Child poverty stats are meaninglessly defined and grossly inflated in this country to appease multinational childrens' charities with lobbying clout. Of course child poverty exists at some level (partly I'd argue thanks to poor parenting decisions) and that needs to be addressed.

But nearly a fifth of UK households in "poverty", despite one of the most generous welfare systems in the world? Pull the other one!

Dunroamin

RabbitMad wrote: »

I'd disagree on the basis that no heating is not being in poverty - otherwise I'd have grown up in poverty; whats wrong with extra layers of clothing?

Only "A lack of food, shelter or clothing" and "A child without their own bed" would really count as poverty in my opinion and I'm debating the bed one as I had to share at some points with a sibling of a different gender and wouldn't have felt we were in poverty (poor perhaps).

Probably depends what part of the country you come from. I grew up in Surrey in a flat with just one open fire. I think you might have Social Services round if you were in the north of Scotland and you didn't even have that!

MSE_Martin

psdie wrote: »

This survey is majorly flawed. It fails to mention the ~£13k income figure is AFTER deducting all housing costs (inc council tax + water) and income tax / NI. How many of the 38% would have voted for the current definition if that had been made clear?

Child poverty stats are meaninglessly defined and grossly inflated in this country to appease multinational childrens' charities with lobbying clout. Of course child poverty exists at some level (partly I'd argue thanks to poor parenting decisions) and that needs to be addressed.

But nearly a fifth of UK households in "poverty", despite one of the most generous welfare systems in the world? Pull the other one!

The poll isnt flawed in any way. Its asking people what they consider to be a definition of child poverty. Your argument is we don't have the very specific current definition in there - we have a simpified version.

However the poll isn't "is the current definition correct" it is "which of those definitions people believe represent child poverty".

squibbitus

It is working out what we beleive the words "child poverty" really stand for or mean to each of us. Poverty by dictionary definition is : the state of being extremely poor - Oxford Dictionary. I am guessing this is defined in monetary terms? As children dont have their own money (so to speak) their poverty must extend to food/heating/beds, etc...

psdie

MSE_Martin wrote: »

The poll isnt flawed in any way. Its asking people what they consider to be a definition of child poverty. Your argument is we don't have the very specific current definition in there - we have a simpified version.

However the poll isn't "is the current definition correct" it is "which of those definitions people believe represent child poverty".

Fair enough, but surely you're not suggesting that the "60% of median income" option isn't based on the current definition? After all, the option could have just said "Income under £13k". In fact the intro to the poll reads as follows, with no mention that housing costs etc excluded:

The Child Poverty Act currently defines children as in poverty if they’re in a household which earns under 60% of the average income.

The danger is that by presenting the "simplified" version, third parties will treat votes for that option as an endorsement of the current flawed definition. Those voting will presume the £13k needs to cover mortgage/rent, council tax and water, alongside other bills.

Hopefully the write of the results will make this omission clear.

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

Poverty is being in need of basic food and shelter, the lower of Maslow hierchal needs. I am sorry, but no one in the UK is at this level.

I saw, in 1984, before the celebrities got their hands in, real need in hunger. Food dropped from aircraft, not to those who needed it, but away from them. Dropping it into them, while you think would do good, actually does more harm. Who got the food. Not the needy, but the greedy. Who were on the ground. Medicene Sans Frontier.

That is real poverty.

I only voted for parents who are drug addicts. Not for the drug addicts, but the merchants of death who skin these people and gutterise them. If we are to rid poverty, maybe we should string up, yes I mean it, these merchants of death.

Torry_Quine

I think that not having holidays,tv or internet is definitely not a sign of poverty. Only going without basics of food, warmth and housing

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

psdie wrote: »

The danger is that by presenting the "simplified" version, third parties will treat votes for that option as an endorsement of the current flawed definition. Those voting will presume the £13k needs to cover mortgage/rent, council tax and water, alongside other bills.

Hopefully the write of the results will make this omission clear.

This is a good point, just like the minimum wage. My point would be that this is used, not for relieff of the poor, but to keep them there, in perpetual poverty. 100 years of Pensions and virtual welfare state, [STRIKE]POVERTY[/STRIKE], (Not in my view, see my other post), POOR still exists.

83 years after the Banking Crisis and Cuts in Government Spending, and recessions, Recession still exists.

Perhaps when we realise the leader out of the last real recession, E. Hoover, who built and manutactured the way out, also wanted the banks to close, equealsie every account, so no one had, and no one owed any money. In ancient times, debts were wiped every 7 years, fields were left fallow.

It is a shame that we have just give Spain the Euro Millions lottery a fortnight ago, and our banks a double rollover last week. As long as this continues, those in society are keeping the poor, and I mean all those in this country whos household income is less than £50,000 a year, POOR.

To me, it is not poverty we need to rid us of, at any level, but those in Banking, bank rolling Banks, Government and those individuals and Companies (For details that I will not state here, but buy Private Eye), who fleece us of money and pay virtually no tax. Some advocate agains banks, but are not so sure abouth their own scams

mkzebra

I knew a lot of kids who got free school meals who never seemed to be wanting for anything.

Who were the five percent who didn't count a lack of food, shelter and clothing? Harsh.

mkzebra

I think when the goverment means poverty, they really mean that any child who is disadvantaged by a lack of money.

I think the exact definition or word doesn't matter, but I've seen and grown up with children and young teenagers that really do need help. Unfortunately there are people who take advantage of the system.

Obviously there needs to be improvement to the system, but sometimes I think I'd rather have some people take advantage than have some people who do need help not receive it.