We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
And as house prices gather momento
Pobby
Posts: 5,438 Forumite
From the Independent
The number of impoverished households has more than doubled in the 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, the largest study of deprivation ever conducted in the UK has concluded.
The research found that rises in the cost of living mean a full-time job is no longer enough to prevent some people from falling into poverty. One in every six adults in paid work is now defined as "poor".
Last night the Government’s poverty tsar Frank Field said the study’s stark findings proved the Coalition’s approach to the problem “isn’t working” and called for the leaders of all political parties to make manifesto pledges to reverse the rise.
The Poverty and Social Exclusion project, based on interviews with more than 14,500 people in Britain and Northern Ireland carried out by eight universities and two research agencies, reported:
More than 500,000 children live in families who cannot afford to feed them properly
18 million people cannot afford adequate housing conditions
12 million people are too poor to engage in common social activities
About 5.5 million adults go without essential clothing
The survey showed that the percentage of UK households which lacked “three or more of the basic necessities of life” has increased from 14 per cent in 1983, the year that Margaret Thatcher was re-elected (around 3 million), to 33 per cent (around 8.7 million) in 2012, despite the size of the economy doubling in that period. Researchers used the “three or more” formula as it is directly comparable with methods used to study poverty and deprivation in 1983.
Academics said the findings dispelled the myth that poverty is caused by a lack of work or by people shirking work. Almost half the “employed poor” were clocking up 40 hours a week in work or more.
According to separate research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), around half of the UK’s 13 million people in poverty are in a household where someone works. Between 2008 and 2014 the cost of essentials such as childcare, rent, food and energy have driven up the amount needed by almost a third, it said.
Professor David Gordon of the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research at the University of Bristol, which led the project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, said the Government’s strategy of tackling the root causes of poverty had “clearly failed”.
Mr Field, the Labour MP who was tasked by David Cameron to examine poverty in 2010, said the study “sadly emphasises that working doesn’t now eliminate a family’s poverty”.
He added: “Tackling the causes of poverty is clearly the right strategy. This report shows that it isn’t working. Here, then, is a most major challenge to all the political parties – what is your manifesto going to say to reverse the horrendous rise in the numbers of poor?”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “There is strong evidence that incomes have improved over the last 30 years, despite the misleading picture painted by this report. The independent statistics are clear, there are 1.4 million fewer people in poverty since 1998, and under this Government we have successfully protected the poorest from falling behind.
Labour isn`t working cried the Tories in 1979. One million unemployed. Won`t be that nasty to say that Thatch managed to triple that.
Clearly minimum wage is going to do little to get you by. Oh and before the massive earners on here say it is their own fault, many earn little above that. Just come back from near London. Housing has now got into the stratosphere. To my mind the government will do all they can to not let it drop. Is that true that many will struggle to pay their way if irs double to a full base rate of 1%?
This has to be a monumental foul up of the system. No sign in a stagnation of house prices. Surely this all has to mean that more and more benefits have to be shed.
Oh I am sure that many will celebrate their " fortunes " in the increase in equity. In fact I have a part share in a house just outside London. I was reminded that my " investment " has done well. Nothing to me as I intend to move into it.
Could it be that successive failed governments have got us here? Raiding of peoples pensions. Stock market crashes of a pretty regular occurrence. More folk moving here, although I wonder if they are from Europe to make a better living, having paid living expenses, I really have a difficulty seeing why.
My one little bit is to vote. For once I have no idea where that little mark on the UK picture will go.
The number of impoverished households has more than doubled in the 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, the largest study of deprivation ever conducted in the UK has concluded.
The research found that rises in the cost of living mean a full-time job is no longer enough to prevent some people from falling into poverty. One in every six adults in paid work is now defined as "poor".
Last night the Government’s poverty tsar Frank Field said the study’s stark findings proved the Coalition’s approach to the problem “isn’t working” and called for the leaders of all political parties to make manifesto pledges to reverse the rise.
The Poverty and Social Exclusion project, based on interviews with more than 14,500 people in Britain and Northern Ireland carried out by eight universities and two research agencies, reported:
More than 500,000 children live in families who cannot afford to feed them properly
18 million people cannot afford adequate housing conditions
12 million people are too poor to engage in common social activities
About 5.5 million adults go without essential clothing
The survey showed that the percentage of UK households which lacked “three or more of the basic necessities of life” has increased from 14 per cent in 1983, the year that Margaret Thatcher was re-elected (around 3 million), to 33 per cent (around 8.7 million) in 2012, despite the size of the economy doubling in that period. Researchers used the “three or more” formula as it is directly comparable with methods used to study poverty and deprivation in 1983.
Academics said the findings dispelled the myth that poverty is caused by a lack of work or by people shirking work. Almost half the “employed poor” were clocking up 40 hours a week in work or more.
According to separate research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), around half of the UK’s 13 million people in poverty are in a household where someone works. Between 2008 and 2014 the cost of essentials such as childcare, rent, food and energy have driven up the amount needed by almost a third, it said.
Professor David Gordon of the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research at the University of Bristol, which led the project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, said the Government’s strategy of tackling the root causes of poverty had “clearly failed”.
Mr Field, the Labour MP who was tasked by David Cameron to examine poverty in 2010, said the study “sadly emphasises that working doesn’t now eliminate a family’s poverty”.
He added: “Tackling the causes of poverty is clearly the right strategy. This report shows that it isn’t working. Here, then, is a most major challenge to all the political parties – what is your manifesto going to say to reverse the horrendous rise in the numbers of poor?”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “There is strong evidence that incomes have improved over the last 30 years, despite the misleading picture painted by this report. The independent statistics are clear, there are 1.4 million fewer people in poverty since 1998, and under this Government we have successfully protected the poorest from falling behind.
Labour isn`t working cried the Tories in 1979. One million unemployed. Won`t be that nasty to say that Thatch managed to triple that.
Clearly minimum wage is going to do little to get you by. Oh and before the massive earners on here say it is their own fault, many earn little above that. Just come back from near London. Housing has now got into the stratosphere. To my mind the government will do all they can to not let it drop. Is that true that many will struggle to pay their way if irs double to a full base rate of 1%?
This has to be a monumental foul up of the system. No sign in a stagnation of house prices. Surely this all has to mean that more and more benefits have to be shed.
Oh I am sure that many will celebrate their " fortunes " in the increase in equity. In fact I have a part share in a house just outside London. I was reminded that my " investment " has done well. Nothing to me as I intend to move into it.
Could it be that successive failed governments have got us here? Raiding of peoples pensions. Stock market crashes of a pretty regular occurrence. More folk moving here, although I wonder if they are from Europe to make a better living, having paid living expenses, I really have a difficulty seeing why.
My one little bit is to vote. For once I have no idea where that little mark on the UK picture will go.
0
Comments
-
a full-time job is no longer enough to prevent some people from falling into poverty. .
Poverty is a relative measurement, not an absolute one.
Each household's income, adjusted for family size, is compared to median income.
Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor.
This 'poverty line' is the agreed international measure used throughout the European Union.
It's not a qualitative measurement of standard of living or earnings power.
To put this in perspective, a couple with 2 kids are defined as living "in poverty" if their weekly income, after rent or mortgage payments, is less than £322 per week.
Having £322 per week left over after paying the rent or mortgage is absolutely not what most people would think of when you use the word "poverty", but that's the technical definition.
And as a handy hint, if you type this [/quote] at the end of the quote you want to paste, and this...at the start of it, it makes it much clearer which text belongs to the article and which is yours.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Its worrying to see how bad things really have become and will hopefully silence those that rant on here about how good things are now compared to when they were younger...
Poverty, disillusionment, anti-establishmentarianism .... this has historically correlated with a rise in facism and nationalistic views....
This will surely rear it's head in the general election... maybe the result will be a coalition between Conservative and UKIP .... Leading to the Uk leaving the EU or forcing the EU to agree a new deal for the 'UK question'....
So..... much lower immigration for the UK at some point... what will that do for our economy and house prices...?Peace.0 -
TickersPlaysPop wrote: »Its worrying to see how bad things really have become and will hopefully silence those that rant on here about how good things are now compared to when they were younger...
Was there a part of the poverty explanation that wasn't clear?
Poverty is a relative measurement, it is not an indication of actually being poor.....This will surely rear it's head in the general election... maybe the result will be a coalition between Conservative and UKIP .... Leading to the Uk leaving the EU or forcing the EU to agree a new deal for the 'UK question'....
UKIP are unlikely to get even a single MP.much lower immigration for the UK at some point... what will that do for our economy and house prices...?
It would be terrible for the economy, bad for the employment outcomes of the native born, and even worse for pensions.
Simply having lower net migration wouldn't do much to house prices though.
We don't build enough at the moment even if net migration was zero.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Hamish.... you state median.... but did you really intend to say that... Mean or median... What is it you intended?
Also can you let us know if you meant gross or net income?Peace.0 -
I'm poor
0 -
TickersPlaysPop wrote: »Hamish.... you state median.... but did you really intend to say that... Mean or median... What is it you intended?
Also can you let us know if you meant gross or net income?
Poverty is actually defined as relative income poverty.
Each household's income, adjusted for family size, is compared to median income. (The median is the 'middle' income: half the population have more than the median and half have less.)
Remember, this is average household income, and some households are dual earners.
Those with less than 60 per cent of median household income, adjusted for family size, are classified as poor.
This 'poverty line' is the agreed international measure used throughout the European Union.
From the last data I've seen, which granted was a few years ago now, by this measure a couple without children was considered to be poor if their weekly income after rent or mortgage was less than £199.
The weekly poverty line for a couple with two children was income after rent or mortgage of £322.
For a single pensioner, it was £115.
Happy to google the more recent stats, but any way you cut it, many people classed as living in poverty are far from poor.
These are not people struggling to put food on the table or eating gruel while warming themselves in front of candles.....
And they are massively better off in terms of standards of living than someone in poverty 40 years ago was.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
£115 for a single pensioner. Just hope that their fridge keeps working. Not a great deal.0
-
there is virtually no real involuntary poverty in the UK except for people with mental illness where money is not of itself the issue.
the 'measure' of poverty is false deliberate attempt to mislead.
during the recession, 'poverty ' actually fell due to the absurd way it is defined.
sadly there are many parents that make poor decisions for their children but that's an education or criminal problem and not one caused by lack of money.0 -
£115 for a single pensioner. Just hope that their fridge keeps working. Not a great deal.
Nobody is saying they are wealthy, but it's also not "poverty" as many people would understand it to be....
Again, £322 per week for a couple with two kids, after rent or mortgage, buys a significantly better standard of living now than it did 40 years ago.
And this is the problem with the poverty measurement.
If inflation rises by, for example, 2% a year, income for low earners rises by 3% a year, and income for high earners rises by 6% a year, everyone is getting richer in real terms, but the number of people "in poverty" is increasing.
Because "poverty" is not a measure of standard of living or actually being poor.
It takes no account of the fact that you can have more people "in poverty", but many/most of those people "in poverty" will not actually be "poor", as their income can buy them more than it used to and certainly can buy them a reasonable standard of living.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Whichever way you wish to meausre it. Whatever way you wish to describe it.
The increase in the amount of people it effects isn't good.
Unless you are getting richer due to more getting less, of course.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards