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?

x-post re water and council tax - does it actaully say after these costs?

"And it it comparative anyway. If every single child in your child's school has a mobile phone (to use a very simple example) except yours, that child is poorer than the others, and will feel (and be justified in feeling) poor."

True, social exclusion hurts. The child can pick
up the message that they are worth less than other kids. That is why there is such a thing as relative poverty.

"Sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest, buildings insurance and water charges."

So for a family of 2+2...

Poverty is £288 or less a week after tax?

That's £384 before tax (roughly). Add on housing to this, say, our shitty little house with condensation running up the walls, on a cheap mortgage for our area - let's round it up by 2 quid so we pay £420 clean.

That's having to earn £1536 per month to see the cash, plus £420 for housing..

Totalling a monthly income of £1956.... or £23472 each year to be considered under the poverty level in my area. And that's not even couting the cost to get to work, which for us is a £50 bus pass and about £35 in petrol.

If I look at it like that, 90% of my family and friends are supposedly living in poverty.

Maryz and Ambarth - why would a child need a mobile phone?

I didn't have one until I was 26 and seemed to have survived alright.

These things are luxuries and it is a sign of how wealthy we all are when we see such items as 'necessities'.

One might as well say, "And it it comparative anyway. If every single child in your child's school flies to the West Indies every year (to use a very simple example) except yours, that child is poorer than the others, and will feel (and be justified in feeling) poor."

I mean, c'mon!!

If OP is correct, (and I'm not doubting you tyler) that £288 is left after water, housing and council tax, then that is not poverty. It simply isn't, and I agree that saying that it is will greatly reduce public sympathy for those who are said to be living in poverty.

People may have less than that to live on, but if that's because of bad money management, ie debt, then they really only have themselves to blame. It would be nobdy elses fault that their child can't have things that other children have.

We are all very lucky in this country.

Social exclusion is a real problem for families in 'relative poverty'. The £288 isn't just for food & clothing, as othes have pointed out. Fuels, TV, licence, travel, etc have to come out of it. At that level of income you wouldn't be socialising, visiting friends & family, going away on holiday, etc. Your kids wouldn't have the little extras that their classmates do, their birthday parties would be less impressive, they'll do fewer activities, etc.

Fair enough, there's no need to starve at that level of income but it leads to permanent insecurity: your finances are so finely balanced that an appliance breaking down or a payment arriving late causes havoc and has knock-on effects. This insecurity causes stress. The restrictions imposed by the tight budget lead to a 'small' life with narrower horizons and, often, low expectations in consequence.

I often wonder whether the business with poor families eating more unhealthy food is about having treats in a life that doesn't afford extras. (I know better, but still splurge on chips & chocolate when facing a bleak fortnight!)

I think the mobile phone example says it all about why relative poverty is just not as bad as absolute poverty. Who cares if every child in the class has a phone and yours doesn't? The only way in which this can be problematic is if you rank materialism very highly and let your children know they have second-best so are second-best. That's the crazy type of thinking that makes some poorer young mums buy only new things as anything 'second-hand' is tainted.

I see people living hard lives a lot, and debt is very very difficult to live with, but clearly this is not as detrimental as not having food, housing and clean water.

No child needs a mobile phone, what they do need is to be included socially.

I have less then that income, no debts. That's why I was surprised by the figure. And no, my kids don't have mobiles.

One thing that really shocked me when I became poor was how much more expensive everything is! PAYG gas, electricity & phone all cost more. No discounts for upfront payment on insurances, licences and so forth. Can't bulk-buy special offers. Can't drive to out-of-town supermarket for monthly shop. No buffer overdraft. It just goes on & on ...

The info comes from www.poverty.org.uk for anyone interested. I saw it after reading an article about child poverty on the bbc website this morning and I wondered, bearing in mind recent Mumsnet discussions regarding poverty, whether there stories aren't actually helpful.

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

If poverty is defined like that then it will always mean that a lot of people are classed as 'below the poverty line'. By this metric, technically the UK has more people 'in poverty' than Poland, which is clearly nonsensical.

Real poverty is too important an issue - as the OP suggests, using this sort of statistic detracts from proper understanding and solution-finding.

AgeingGrace, yes, but I'll be honest, I don't personally want to pay taxes for families to have extra lots of activities and showier birthday parties. And I really really don't know any poorer people who don't socialise at all or ever visit their friends and family (well, more than I restrict visiting mine because it does cost a lot of money). Some people have more than you in life, you have to get over that if you are to succeed. Saying 'I want that one, I want that one' like in Andy in Little Britain all the time, and expecting others to pay for it, is just totally undermining and devaluing what people have to offer. It makes them feel crap and deskilled and on the margins of society.

The attempts to show how deprivation can consist of less expensive activities and the lack of a mobile phone is just convincing me more and more that we need to get real about what constitutes poverty. The worst I think personally is being at the mercy of private landlords with very poor maintenance/damp crap housing and very short letting period, if that could be sorted out, a lot of the instability about being a renter in the UK would be solved.

I think that's why they refer to relative poverty, Onetoomanycornettos. Obviously the example family lives better than a family in war-torn, drought-and-flood-stricken places. But their wellbeing is adversely affected.

It would be a bit strange, in a developed country like this, to claim everybody's just fine as long as they're not at risk of imminent death from disease or starvation. That would be lowering the bar somewhat, surely?

"don't personally want to pay taxes for families to have extra lots of activities and showier birthday parties. "

Over half of those below the poverty line are working. And on far less than £288.

Grimma, poverty IS defined like that. Being poor in a developed country is supposed to be better than being poor in Indonesia. There's a definition of 'absolute poverty' which is what you're trying to compare with 'poverty' in the UK.

I agree, cornetto, that good-quality social housing answers a lot of problems. Unfortunately it isn't happening just now, so there are more domino effects to poverty.

I really really don't know any poorer people who don't socialise at all or ever visit their friends and family - well, yes! Nobody knows me, as it happens, for the reasons outlined.

Grimma: the definition itself does not mean there would always be people below the poverty line, I.e. It's not mathematically impossible for there to be no-one below the line.

Some interesting points raised on here.

The problem for the Left is that, for them, it is relative poverty that is the issue. There are many arguments for focussing on the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom - separate lives, envy, self-esteem issues, reducing sense of worth etc etc. I happen to disagree with these but recognise that a case can be made that this is something to be 'tackled'.

The tricky thing, though, is that it's perfectly possible for 'the wealthy' to lose money, for the poorest to somehow be less poor, when in fact their income has not changed at all.

It's clear that it is absolutes that matter - where people are genuinely unable to live in today's UK, due to a lack of money, this is an issue...where they are simply unable to buy things that friends and neighbours are, this is of no concern to anyone else.

Tyler's point above is more important (and correct) than what I said about relative poverty. The more people fall below the 60% line, the more uneven the income distribution.

What people don't realise is once you are poor it costs more to live.

Pre payment meters for gas and electricity are far more expensive.

Lack of transport means shopping locally in relatively more expensive shops. This means lack of choice and often poor quality food. Because you live hand to mouth you are unable to save money by buying goods when they are on special offer.

If you have no bank account then you are unable to take advantage of discounts offered by direct debit.

Having been very poor myself I found things like these were what kept me in a poverty trap, whether it was relative or absolute poverty.