to think this isn't a good measure of poverty?

[tyler80]

Households with less than 60% of the UK median income disregarding housing costs are classed as living in poverty.

It equates to £288 a week (for a 2+2 family)after tax and housing costs have been deducted.

This isn't a debate on absolute/relative poverty etc. and I do think poverty exists in the UK but i can't help but think this definition is way out and I wonder if it helps anyone. Certainly I know some of the people I work with would see the £288 figure, think that's not really living in poverty and therefore believe it doesn't exist or it's not a big problem.

AIBU?

Not this debate, again.

why don't you put this in politics - why aibu?

i hate the misuse of this effing topic

I don't believe there is such thing as poverty if there's a roof over ones head and food in ones stomach. But I'm in the minority here. Big time.

I do agree with the op
if you say 'poverty' is something but the something they have said is in no way poverty then the people who are actually living in poverty get overlooked as people are just numbed into thinking that poverty is 288 pound a week and forget that ther is actual poverty out there

I would stick my neck out and say that it is pretty difficult for a uk citizen to live in poverty.

the benefits system means that everyone should have enough to live on. Don't get me wrong i am fully aware that there can be those who slip through nets (see another thread i have running)

But everyone has enough to live on. they have enough for food and housing, heat and hot water.

If they manage their funds badly then that is just that.

And no one on MN is living in poverty. if you can afford Internet and a pc you can afford to eat.

You can have seriously poor, but i think it is different to poverty. iyswim.

But I shall go get my flame retardent suit now.
I have given my say so will try and hide the thread now. no need to see the 300 messages of "yogi you;re a twat"

Yogi, take my hand lets flee together.

I believe that some families live in excruciating conditions and struggle financially from day to day. I think that it's abhorrent in this day and age that ANYONE in this country should suffer that badly and be so badly failed by the government and society (while others no doubt exploit it and commit huge fraud)

However I think that poverty is the wrong word. Poverty is for people surviving through war and famine with absolutely NOTHING but a flimsy shelter they can call home for their entire family. That is real poverty. I dislike how the media try to put this image upon the poor of this country and if that makes me wrong then so be it.

my word no one has thrown a waitrose loaf at me.

Are you all trying to lull me into a flase sense of security?

Did we not have his debate the other day?

YABU... it's relative poverty. Those people you mention who think a family of 4 living on £288/week isn't all that badly off should try it for a while, rather than pretend poverty doesn't exist or isn't a problem. In an affluent country like the UK what constitutes a decent minimum standard of living is obviously going to be higher than somewhere less affluent. So 60% of average income is a benchmark standard that all families can reasonably expect whether earned, in benefits or a bit of both. When the Universal Benefit is determined in a few years' time, someone's going to have to set an 'acceptable minimum family income' and it might as well be at this level.

Very few people in this country have insufficient food & shelter etc - that is what poverty means to me.

HOWEVER

There are lots of families (and individuals/couples) who are painfully poor, literally living from hand to mouth, worrying about every pound, and as they have been in that suituation for years, if anything go wrong, unexpected bills, etc then there are financially screwed.

I'm with others, I think poverty is the wrong word to use here & I think the "it's not poverty" reaction actually causes apathy to the situation of many families in this country who are really struggling.

The question is not whether poverty in the UK exists, more whether the definition of poverty chosen (or indeed the use of the word poverty) is damaging public perception of problems faced by the poorest sections of society.

So where would you define it then? 60% of average income... 30%?.... 50%? Or maybe the definition is 'what essential things should a family be able to afford?'... and that becomes difficult when you get past food, shelter, heat, light.... a car?.... a television?... a pint of beer? What constitutes 'essential' keeps a lot of people very exercised on these boards at the best of times.

I think that if there is a problem with public perception, it is the one whipped up by the Daily Mail et al. ie. That no-one actually lives on as little as £288/week.... they are secretly rolling in it. That's the perception problem.

Save The Children are having a publicity spree on this today. To be honest some of the things they were saying on the radio this morning it really seemed a bit silly
ie Children not being able to afford a hobby or having other children round to play were counted as putting children into poverty.

Actually looking at the figures - £288/wk is AFTER housing costs & tax etc?, so that's £1,248/month net.

Our monthly budget (family of 4) not including housing costs is £1,350, so we are not that far away from the infamous "relative poverty" line by that definition. Now I wouldn't exactly say we are rich, but we aren't anywhere near living in poverty either.

I assume it is £288 per week before housing costs and bills. If it is just for food and clothing. That is a fortune.

The figures sound ridiculous - after housing???

There are people in this country, who, absolutely are struggling but I think putting an official figure on it isn't helpful.

DH and I have had, some years, far less to live on after housing and we have never, for one moment, considered ourselves poor.

I'm going by the OP who said "It equates to £288 a week (for a 2+2 family)after tax and housing costs have been deducted."

It just sounds like alot of money if it is just to pay for food and clothing.

It is after housing costs (rent or interest only mortgage payments, council tax and water), so money left for food, heating, clothing etc.

i get rather shocked by many peoples opinions of poverty too. Having less money than most doesnt mean living in poverty. a roof over your head, food to eat, and clothes to wear. if you dont have those things then yes, you are living in poverty, but with those things, i dont think it is actual poverty.

I think poverty is an appropriate word to use if you see it in terms of relative and absolute.

You can be in poverty and still have internet access. There are people in run down and unhealthy housing who have no choice to send their kids to the local sink school who have the internet. The saving made by ditching the internet would not change their situation one bit. If their health and childrens opportunities are affected by a situation that is related to their income, that's a form of poverty.
UK poverty is generally not not as severe as third world poverty but there are degrees of human suffering. You wouldn't tell someone with a migraine that they didn't have an illness because there are people with terminal brain tumours.There are definately people in the UK suffering as a result of RELATIVE poverty.

If you look hard enough you can find absolute povery in the UK. The people homeless due to mental illness are one example. They may have slipped through the safety net for complex reasons but they still do. And that shames us all IMO.

£288 after housing costs is a a high definition of poverty. I live on less, I sure there are many other mumsnetters that do.
Mind you as a figure for what people should have to live off in a fair society, it is probably right.

It says after housing and tax, so it's not just for clothing and food - it would also mean water, gas, electricity, travel, telephone, TV licence and council tax too I imagine. It's not as much as it first appears, basicallly.