How would you define child poverty?

I think poverty is borne of ignorance sometimes. Lack of knowledge REALLY affects those on smaller incomes. I am on a tiny income but have some knowledge of what I am entitled to as well as the skills needed to find free things when I have to.

A family with a parent who cannot read well will suffer more than I will even if we have the same income.

Family 1 would probably get housing benefit top up with that income and rent.

OTOH, if family 2 is in receipt of FSMs that could make them eligible for other concessions and grants that reduce their outgoings.

If you disregard the portion of income that's spent on rent, a working family has more money coming in than a comparable non working family. It's the outgoings that make the difference and this varies from area to area.

For example, if you have children at secondary school and the school is a bus ride away, in some areas being on FSMs would entitle the children to a free bus pass. They might also get a uniform grant(I don't know if this is national or down to the LEA).

Not an issue in London as all school children 11+ get an Oyster card that gives them free bus travel.

I think it is almost impossible to measure.

For example, if you have 2 families, with 2 kids.

Family 1, dad works and earns £30k after tax. Mum is a SAHM. They don't get any benefits other than child benefit but their rent is £16k per year (2 bed flat in London). They don't get free school meals and they have to pay council tax etc.

Family 2, neither parent works. They live in social housing, rent is £5200 per year. They get jobseekers allowance, housing benefit (which pays the rent), child tax credits, child benefit, council tax benefit, free school meals etc.

So, the couple not in work may actually end up better off than the family with one earner because there is so much difference in the cost of housing. However, the second family would be classed as "in poverty" for some reason.

That sounds better, Totem. Living expenses = housing, gas, electricity, water, council tax, TV licence? Sky etc shouldn't be included, nor should food as people eat very differently.

Housing is a lot cheaper in the NE than London. This going back about 6-8 years, but a friend was renting a 3 bed house for £70 a week somewhere near Middlesborough. You'd have been lucky to get bed-sit in the cheaper areas of London for that amount.

I don't think it should be measured as a percentage of a national median. Maybe the amount left after taking off fixed expenses? Even then there are many factors that affect non-fixed living expenses.

It doesn't really work with national poverty though. There should be a more accurate measure. I'd say the number of children who receive free school meals is better.

I'd class poverty as parents/children going without food because it's either eating, or paying for heating. I think defining it as 60% below the median is incorrect. Some areas of the UK do earn less then others, Londoners earn far more then those in Middlesborough for example.

The current rules for defining poverty are a joke and have been for some time. Only today there?s a story on the BBC website about how 300,000 children have been ?lifted? from poverty. The full story is here. The crucial sentence is this one?

The measure is based on median incomes - which also went down.

In a nutshell, the recession has made the average person in this country a bit poorer, this has meant that the families of 300,000 children aren?t as far behind the average as they used to be.

Brilliant. We?ve just proved that we can cure this whole poverty thing at a stroke by impoverishing everyone to the same level of wealth as that enjoyed within a basket case third world country.

If IDS is going to address this problem, a new definition of poverty needs to be devised. I would argue that intergenerational workless households, parental unemployment, drug and drink dependant parents, parental/role model absenteeism, number of cohabiting siblings, quality of diet, local crime rate, quality of education, quality and suitability of housing and general health should all, at the very least, be factored into a definition of poverty somewhere along with a straight forward totalling of all benefits.

I think IDS is right to some extent. I don't think the problem can be solved just by throwing more money at it since poverty can be poverty of aspiration. Sure people need a roof over their heads and food but if you are a family and nobody is in work then you will be getting housing benefit, income support or jobseekers, child tax credits, child benefit, free school meals and various other satellite benefits and if you are on low pay you get it topped up by working tax credits.

It is unreasonable to expect a family with 5 kids where nobody works to have the same income as a family with 2 kids where both parents work 50 hour weeks. And it shouldn't be up to the state to "equalise" this as this just disincentivizes going out to work as why would anyone work when they can have the same lifestyle on benefits?

No, because they no longer work enough hours! One is a SAHM because her DC is on the Autistic Spectrum in the process of a diagnosis, her DP works PT as he has been put on 'short hours' or face redundancy, since April they no longer qualify for TC 's as he is only doing 20 he's and can't find other work. It's crap, but they're not alone locally, plenty of others here on 'short hours' and not making the cut for TC's any more!

I don't know, I assume long-term unemployed are in poverty, but my definition of long-term in an unemployment crisis is different to the Government's. Theirs definition of long-term unemployed is 6 months out of work, no matter what the circumstances or reasons for that are. Mine right now, given how hard it is to get a job, is 12 months+ out of work.

I think adding extra descriptors could be a hood thing, if done sensibly. The poorest people I know are trying to survive on less than 25% of median income...