How would you tackle child poverty and improve outcomes?

"Your last paragraph is a false equivalence as most people in the Western Economies are not in receipt of the passive income streams so half of their wealth would be a very high proportion of their income"

I wasn't talking about the world, I was talking about you, and the UK. The majority of people in the UK do have passive income, whether that's direct cash benefits or indirect service provision which is absolutely a receipt which most of the rest of those in poverty do not have, and is often cited as part of the reason we have such high migration from poorer countries. Over 50% of UK residents are net receivers; they receive more from the state (ie other people) than they will financially contribute. The very definition of passive income.

So we've gone from it's fair to take money from the rich to help the poor, to it's okay to take their money because they won't even really notice.

Giving thousands to feckless parents who prioritise other things than their children will not make them magically better parents. DF was an addict; the spending on him over his lifetime must have been phenomenal and it made not one jot of difference, other than helping to keep several medical and social professionals in work, so I suppose that was his contribution.

"Your last paragraph is a false equivalence as most people in the Western Economies are not in receipt of the passive income streams so half of their wealth would be a very high proportion of their income"

I wasn't talking about the world, I was talking about you, and the UK. The majority of people in the UK do have passive income, whether that's direct cash benefits or indirect service provision which is absolutely a receipt which most of the rest of those in poverty do not have, and is often cited as part of the reason we have such high migration from poorer countries. Over 50% of UK residents are net receivers; they receive more from the state (ie other people) than they will financially contribute. The very definition of passive income.

So we've gone from it's fair to take money from the rich to help the poor, to it's okay to take their money because they won't even really notice.

Giving thousands to feckless parents who prioritise other things than their children will not make them magically better parents. DF was an addict; the spending on him over his lifetime must have been phenomenal and it made not one jot of difference, other than helping to keep several medical and social professionals in work, so I suppose that was his contribution.

What source is that then? I purposely put the points in bold so that you didn't miss them!

Why are you referring to immigrants, this thread is about tackling child poverty- you are showing your true colours there!

Your statement, "The wealthiest people/families in the UK are all business owners, creating thousands of jobs domestically and globally." doesn't alter the fact that the very wealthy remain so because of passive gains and rentals. If passive gains grow faster than wages, inequalities grow and the distribution of wealth is concentrated on a small proportion of the population. By default their political influence is going to be disproportionately high and this damages democracy as the poorest interests are not represented.

Your last paragraph is a false equivalence as most people in the Western Economies are not in receipt of the passive income streams so half of their wealth would be a very high proportion of their income and value of their home, this would push more people into the 'have nots' and would widen the wealth gap even more. This is why we are seeing the demise of both the middle classes and the working classes as the 1% of people now own 70% of the countries wealth and it is only going to get worse on this trajectory.

Your c&p comes from a socialist source. Do you think the country would be better off if we had more poor people coming, or more wealthy business owners, or just wealthy people full stop?

The wealthiest people/families in the UK are all business owners, creating thousands of jobs domestically and globally.

You personally have more wealth than 50% of the planet’s population; how would you feel if you were required to give up half of your wages/assets to alleviate global poverty?

What so all places are going to let you use vouchers?
The shops that are a short distance away? So I do not need transport because you know I will need money for transport.

Tell you what the £83 a week I get and the little top up of UC I'll give up and put my child into supportive living.
Which would cost the tax payer way more money then they give me!!!!

So no I don't have many luxurys as it is, my child will always come first!
But I do not agree with vouchers!

I've spent a lot of time working with children in poverty and my honest opinion is that you're barking completely up the wrong tree in your points, except Sure Start which made a real difference until it was mostly scrapped under austerity.

Universal fsm and childcare is very expensive and mostly benefits people who aren't in poverty.

Imo the things that would make the most difference (also very expensive).

• proper social housing and scrap right to buy to protect it for future generations.
• proper care for adults with addiction and other MH issues.
• Very early helpful support (not judgement or penalties) at the first sign that a family is struggling.

This is absolutely the crux of the problem and no government has been able to solve it.

How do you get past awful parents to give children the help they need? It’s heartbreaking to see children trapped with cruel or neglectful parents who put their own needs before the children they’ve thoughtlessly brought into the world.

Some parents just cannot be trusted - and we need to admit that.

Exactly this. I understand genuine financial hardship exists, but speaking from experience, there’s a different problem when parents choose substances over their children.

On our local news recently, they had a feature where schools were showing the “cost of living crisis” by showcasing actual photos of kids lunchboxes. They were saying look at the poor parents “unable” to give their kids a proper lunch whilst inserting a picture of where some moronic parent just chucked a few of last nights chips in the box. It angered me because that is not an issue of a cost of living crisis, that’s neglect.

Perhaps if we stopped treating grown adults as victims of their own life choices, we might start getting somewhere.

I don’t know but what I have first hand experience of is going to school with a sock in my knickers because there’s was sanitary towels at home, no heating and holes in my shoes and a slice of toast for dinner.
Growing up like that ruins your self esteem and makes it impossible to concentrate and do well at school, which then screws your future.
Luckily meeting my husband completely changed my future but looking back do I think my “poor addicted to selfishness and cigarettes mother needed for support? No, I think her children did though.

You've said enough to expose yourself as a conservative. I'm not playing attention seeking games with you. Shoo.

Children who don’t want to be in school should be allowed to leave and get a job. Disrupting another child’s education should be grounds for expulsion. Shape up or get a job!

I don't think we need to bring back failed experiments from the 60s. Have you ever been to an estate of cheap council flats? We already know what it looks like when low income and vulnerable people are forced to live on top of each other in little boxes. If you want to lift children from poverty the last thing you need is to create sink estates to bring them up in.

You don't know why 1% of UK population owning 70% of wealth is a problem and you don't see how that relates to increasing poverty?

Many ways:

- concentrated wealth equates to unequal political influence, resulting in policies that favour the rich and weaken the living standards of those on low incomes
-wealth concentrated on property, shares and financial assets drove up their prices,along housing inaccessible to those without assets and trapping them in dire, insecure rentals.

• far from creating jobs, the very wealthy are so due to passive gains and rents rather than productive wages meaning the wealth remains at the top of the triangle and doesn't help to lift people out of poverty.

I don’t have a stake in the game on private landlords but I know it’s far less profitable than it was even five or ten years ago.

I do think there needs to be an increase in building council properties though, but cheap to run blocks of flats, not sprawling executive housing estates with five bedrooms and big gardens. Council housing should be for those in need of housing.

It's madness that we encourage nearly 50% of teenagers to attend university, yet nearly 50% of jobs are not graduate level/type jobs. I know of so many, first generation, undergraduates who genuinely thought that their degree in 'Business and Fashion Management' (or whatever) from an ex poly, was going to lead them directly to a glittering career at Vogue, or a buyer for Harvey Nics etc.

Of course it bloody doesn't. Those type of jobs are for the very, very privileged few. Most often requiring some very impressive family/social connections and a maybe a degree from Central St Martin's or Courtaulds. Back in the day, my cousin went to St Martin's and secured a job at Elle Decoration when she graduated mainly because her friend's Mum was a sub editor there.

In reality, the majority of these new graduates will end up working in call centres and coffee shops (which they could have done at 18), but now heavily in debt because of the useless degree they were encouraged to take. It's incredibly unfair.

They cant find work where they live. I could leave my job tomorrow and find another one. Not the case when all the hospitals that used to provide maternity care in your county have been reduced to one or two.

Many of the people I studied with cannot afford to live in or near London..

Well you would say that with your eleven ( or has it gone higher ) BTL properties wouldn't you ? The poster was saying that more council properties should be built to keep greedy people like you away.

Loads of people work hard and aren't rich.

“It's madness that we encourage nearly 50% of teenagers to attend university, yet nearly 50% of jobs are not graduate level/type jobs. I know of so many, first generation, undergraduates who genuinely thought that their degree in 'Business and Fashion Management' (or whatever) from an ex poly, was going to lead them directly to a glittering career at Vogue, or a buyer for Harvey Nics etc.”

University is more than what you learn there, it is also about initiation in to adulthood and is about social mobility, not just in terms of the jobs you get. A child from a poorer background going to uni gets to mix and potentially then marry into more wealth and education. The child learns the social etiquette just by being around others who are given that in the cradle. And it is supporting the Higher Education industry which is massive in the UK. We need to value it, thousands of international students certainly do and are willing to pay huge bucks for it. I agree that regulation may be required for suitable courses but I think a lot of unis are doing there bit in regards to advising students on careers.

Frankly, young people deserve to go to uni. I think it is the elderly who are entitled in this country, voting for Brexit now increasingly Reform etc when we precisely need a young educated population and a whole lot of skilled immigrants and unskilled ones to support our ageing demographic. Unis should have never charged fees in the first place, it is unconscionable, most of Europe does not do this. Let’s not forget the reason we do this is to help those who need an NHS, that is the vulnerable and old. The young at the very least deserve to go to uni in the first place.

I'm a conservative.. proud of it