ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
To think there is not really any chikdren in poverty in the uk(309 Posts)
I think last nights comic relief has really brought home to me and my family that there is not really any children in the uk who live in REAL poverty
There is not one child that has to walk 3 hours to school
There is not one child that cant get some form of education
There is not one child who can get medical intervention
I think you would be hard pressed to find familys which children who are homeless or who dont have clean water and sanitation
And i actaully now thing people who say this is insulting to children who do live in real poverty
Eating cold food is fine if you live in a centrally heated house with sufficient clothing and blankets. Rather less fine if you live in a damp room which you cannot afford to heat.
And if you cannot afford heating, drying clothes also becomes next to impossible, so getting wet whilst walking home from school has consequences which are difficult to imagine if you are not in this position. You won't be able to run a spindryer either (electricity) so the clothing will be hung up in your room, not drying but adding to the damp and cold.
So if you can't even have a hot meal how are you going to keep warm?
I have lived like this for a short time, but I was a healthy young adult with no caring responsibilities and with family who could have bailed me out had I asked: I can't imagine what it would be like to live like this for years, or if you are elderly or a child.
Dh did live in damp and mouldy accommodation for part of his childhood and spent a lot of time in hospital with asthma/bronchitis. This is a common problem in poor families in this climate.
I would have thought that being cold or struggling to breathe because of lack of money qualifies as poverty.
Totally agree with dawndonna. Anyone that thinks a family can save anything on minimum wage of they have to factor in housing costs is delusional. Totally delusional.
Well said Dawndonna.
Most people using food banks have run out of any surplus they might have had. Anyone smugly saying "they should have saved" needs smothering with their own comfort blanket!
Depends on your definition of poverty. Anyway the original point I was responding to was regarding people who go to the foodbank because they've lost their jobs and have a balance of £0 in their account. I've not seen any persuasive arguments that they there is a good reason these sort of people couldn't have saved a small amount so they could at least pay for food and the basics of life until the benefits system kicks in.
Oh do grow up, dearie. You are rude, patronising and living in lala land if you cannot comprehend what is reality to many folk.
As for housing, I do not live in an affluent area, in fact I'm rural, a two bed cottage without a garden here is around £450 a month, and yes, people struggle. That would leave someone with less than £500 per month on NMW. £500 to pay bills, clothe and feed children etc. So, which part of that £500 should they be saving, how often and what should they go without in order to save?
A full time (37.5hr) NMW worker takes home £895 a month. £50 is not a huge amount of money in the context of that monthly pay. It is approx 5% of salary, and that doesn't include benefits or anything else. Are there really huge swathes of the country who have an absolute minimum spend of over 95% of salary every month? Strikes me as way too much of a coincidence that so many people claim their salary EXACTLY matches their minimum outgoings.
This is quite the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here. For a lot of people it's not a COINCIDENCE that salary exactly matches outgoings, it's more a question of cutting back and budgetting hard to ensure their outgoings don't EXCEED their income. How would those people ever find themselves with a surplus?
And you'd be surprised, how swifly a place can sink. Anything, really.
Want2be, I am both American and British, as are my children. Many townships and councils in the US rent cap and tax those who rent out as individuals and if you own the property you still had to do state income tax, property tax, your fed taxes were a pain. If you don't have a company covering it because you're definitely coming back in a couple of years, it's usually a big PITA. It is designed to discourage BTL.
You think the US had a problem with sub-prime? Man, you are on the Titanic before it hit the iceberg, thinking she'd never sink! There were mortgage products here that never existed in the US, they were illegal. I had to learn about them as a legal secretary.
Here, you're mostly treated like scum for renting, and males who did not hold property, of which only 10% did, were not granted universal sufferage until 1918.
Things can get very very bad, people, and you are really kidding yourselves if you don't think poverty doesn't exist here, if you've forgotten how it was here even in the 60s, and in a race to the bottom.
I've seen developing nations, lived in them, believe me, it's not a level you want to sink to again.
expat I can't agree with you more. I was surprised at how strick the rules are for landlords and as a tenant I had good experiences. We lived in Hoboken, NJ and the three places DH and I lived in (before we were married) were all 'rent controlled' where the town set the maximum rental income permitted. It was around 4-5% when property prices were increasing by 20-25%.
We now live in a different township and they are also very strict. If you want to rent your home out it has to be inspected first and they test everything. The township don't want problem tenants as this hurts the community. Poorly maintained properties don't attract the sort of tenant you want as a neighbour.
However, in response to the OP, there is poverty in the UK. The face of poverty isn't what you think it is. From what I have seen there is more poverty than anyone wants to admit to in the suburbs and within young families. I am conservative and think this government have been spineless with helping those who are in need.
No stigma, either. Others married to Brits who came here are surprised about that, treated like rubbish by unregulated estate agents little above boyhood for renting. What stupid business sense!
And for all the 'America has problems', yes, they most surely have, but a housing bubble is pretty much no longer among them. They never encouraged individual BTL or absentee landlordism. Many states made this a nightmare with very heavy taxes, quite rightly, as it is very bad for any economy to make a commodity like shelter subject to too much speculation. MOST flat rental there is under the govern of corporation. A corporation is better able to weather market fluctuations.
You want a flat there, you present to the office of the apartment complex or its property manager. That's what happens. The apartment, many, is owned by a business and the running of it to a property managemenet company. First-come, first-served. 'No children' is illegal. If your complex is large enough, a certain percentage of it must be 'Section 8', housing benefit. You go into office, you present your income and identity for credit check. If you know you will not pass you present with guarantor's details or you apply under Section 8. They lie, they discriminate, of course they do, but if you go in there wired and catch them out they can and will be sued to hell.
Leases are standard 9-12 months. Other corps operate for short-term or corp let, I have lived in places, the Oakwood Corporation, that offered such, and standard lease for others. Many will only do 12 months. There's no two-month clause once you sign the lease. In fact, if you want to get out of it, you usually pay a very heavy penalty.
There's little 'rolling'. Your lease is up you either sign another 12 month or you move. You act ghetto and anti-social, three strikes and you are out as you have violated the lease.
It's not perfect, but the UK has a long way to go by comparison.
'I am very glad there is a cap coming in on housing benefit. I hope it works.'
It will not and isn't. Because now the lending restrictions are very much present. Fewer and fewer are able to buy. Anything. FTBs are all-time lows yet prices keep rising.
Have a look at the threads on here. Many, many working people, some with two incomes above NMW, unable to rent for having children. 'We want DINKs (dual income, no kids).' And they are getting them! Because the DINKs cannot buy anymore and free the ones in the flats to buy something else, and the ones in the flats sit in negative equity, and the private LL is seen to be doing service to society, despite the myriad of other threads, of private letters in full-time, good work forced to house their LL's junk and put up with his or her, 'My house, my rules' despite paying top whack for the hire of the space. Would you couch yourself in a hotel room so full of stuff of the proprietor's that you had hardly space to lie down and place your bags after you paid for hire of the place? You would not, but people do or then they will be homeless.
It is not shelter it is an investment vehicle. The LL is tied to it. 'It is my house.'
And these are those in good positions.
'No DSS, no children'. All well and good as it is legal. And you can see where LL is coming from, often, his mortgage lender or insurance will not permit of him letting to those in receipt of any DSS, though 80% of those claiming are in work. Lloyd's and Natwest do not allow their BTL mortgage holders to let to those in receipt of DSS/LHA/HB, yet those taxpayers pay for their bailout and continue to pay for their bonuses despite yet more losses.
It will be propped up and is, the same as the banks were. So no one can say, 'That is capitalism,' for capitalism allows poor business to go to the wall. Instead we bail these two sectors out, all of us, to start to panic like they do in Cyprus. Better to hide your money under your person as you sleep and on your person as you walk before they make you pay for the crimes of others. Instead we fear. 'They will take their wealth with them.'
Where will they take it if everyone has to do the same?
We will not find out for fear.
The problem is land and property is where a huge chunk of the banks and investors, pension funds and speculators have been making money for some considerable time.
One of the problems is that when wealthy funds/wealthy investors have money they need to invest, the more they make the more they have to invest. Banks leverage money (create out of thin air) and property is a physical asset. The problem with this is that land prices sky rocket, banks lend to investors, buyers and developers, in the end the you get to a situation where the debt actually overhangs the real value of the physical asset.
The only way to prevent this is to : build more social housing, cap private rents, reform planning laws, nationalise the banks and prevent banks from packaging up mortgages into investments and for the government to take control of the money supply. Right now banks are not lending to businesses because all the money that was ploughed in via QS is being used to deleverage and wipe out the black holes on their balance sheets.
Expecting working people to up sticks and move to where there is no work is not the answer.
Completely agree about private rentals. Its ridiculous that LLs are getting away with it.
What annoys me quite a lot is that the Labour government did not address this problem in the years they had. They only gave more and more subsidies to private landlords. I'm not against private rentals but they have to be affordable for ordinary people. And if they are not there is something wrong with the system.
People cannot expect the low waged in other parts of the country to subsidise extortianate private rentals in some parts of the UK. When the subsidies stop the rents will come down. if the subsidies don't stop the rents will be forced ever higher and the situation will worsen. I am very glad there is a cap coming in on housing benefit. I hope it works
Ok, where to start??????? one of the reasons that housing is so expensive in the south is because the UK now has a London centric economy where the vast majority of national income (GDP) is earned here. With increasing financification of capital, ie investments into markets where money makes money rather than capital investment into manufacturing, this has hyper inflated housing costs here.
Low waged workers need not feel upset about other low waged workers, what they need to direct the ire towards is the fact that global capital is increasingly focused on financial markets or taking flight to exploit cheap labour elsewhere.
It shouldn't be a cap on housing benefit it should be a cap on rent. Stop subsidising landlords. You understand that if someone on benefits has their rent put up they don't get any more money, the landlord does? Or these days they have to magic the money out of thin air themselves, or move and somehow find the money to do that.
We need more social housing, by which I mean council housing not the fake social housing we're having palmed off on us. And social housing units should be in all parts of the city, not just the least desirable areas (I'm thinking of London here)
The crap talked on this thread is so offensive it makes me feel sick.
Try to grasp the fact that not everyone is as lucky as you are. And its through no fault of their own. If you cannot do that then I despair.
Those who make use of their labour for peanuts will just have to empty their own bins, supervise their own kids and clean their own houses
Of course children are living in poverty here not to the same degree as they are in third world countries but are living in conditions that are just not acceptable in a wealthy country such as the uk
Yes and many of those low waged workers in the south will be plunged into poverty. What should they do? give up their work and live on benefit? because something like 60% of housing benefit is paid to people in employment.
People cannot expect the low waged in other parts of the country to subsidise extortianate private rentals in some parts of the UK. When the subsidies stop the rents will come down. if the subsidies don't stop the rents will be forced ever higher and the situation will worsen. I am very glad there is a cap coming in on housing benefit. I hope it works.
So where are you expecting all the cleaners and dinner ladies in Sussex to live?
Back in my London days, the NMW quoted would have just about covered my rent and council tax with nothing left over for food and transport.
But this is commuter land, this is your passport to work !
Some people have grown up here and now can not afford to live here despite having work. What would you have people do, give up work and go on benefits?
I didn't realise it was obligatory for NMW earners to rent 3 bed houses in mid sussex. Glad I don't earn NMW as I wouldn't want to live somewhere so expensive even on my above-NMW current wage
Anyway this chopping block is getting itchy, it's someone else turn.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.