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?

@ Tyler What stories on your link, I am trying to find them.

My DH is quite well paid, but is supporting all 6 of us on his salary. I think that we are living on less than £288 per week. Even excluding mortgage/rent/council tax and water, it doesn't take into account the differences in individual circumstances. Someone without significant travel costs will be better off with that amount than someone paying train fares or lots of petrol. A family may have debts to be repaid out of that money. If you have a mortgage, then you may have unemployment insurance and buildings insurance which would eat into it, so it's not only for food and clothes. And that's before you get into things like childcare or payments to an ex.

I'm waffling, but what I mean is that this is not a helpful figure because it cannot take into account individual circumstances. If it is accurate then it means that lots of people are just keeping their heads above water, which most of us know anyway, because we are living it

There is poverty in the UK and many don't have a roof or at least a secure one or one that does not cause health risks such as an asthmatic child living in a damp house.

I am not sure that £288 is poverty but I think 60% of the average icnome does probably represent a fair place to set what a family should have for benefits etc. It's also going to vary on family size, where you live etc.

My own experience of being on a low income (I would not say we are poor, 2 PT jobs (one incredibly PT, very far from TC qualification level), FT studentship, PT studentship unfunded and carer roles shared between DH and I) is that it isn't so much about not paying the rent or the food; the difficulty is in the fear of what happens if the rent goes up, if the LL decided to sell on, if our income dropped or the car broke down (before anyone yells 'car!!!!!' I should point out DH commutes, two bhoys attend SNU's in very different places and we are rural and outside remit of a decent transport system!, if Mum got sick and I had to pay bridge tolls at £6.50 a time for a while to see her, if...........

And having been comfortably off in the past, that is wher the big difference lies whether you are owrking, not, or whatever but I suspect it's magnified ATM because as a carer I am unable to change anything short term. Whereas once I might ahve tried to get another job or whatever, I am aware my situation is completely at the mercy of other people who never even met me.

Ageing, I understand that ... I just don't think it helps to attach the word 'poverty' to 'relatively less well off' within a developed society. It makes it too easy for the glib 'they're not poor, they've got a telly' sort of comments.

YANBU. 300 sponds is a fair bit. Thousands of people eke out an existence on far, far less than that.

Hey, if that's the case then I'm drfinitely living in poverty - although my Car, TV etc., would indicate otherwise.

Madness.

'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.

true

It doesn't apply to us atm but if we were in a position to use childcare there are times when the deposit of a month they ask for here would be completely unachievable anyway. It all makes people's lives (again not us, not seeking sympathy) harder

Tyler - you're right, it is mathematically possible. In practice, does anywhere acheive it? (genuine question, I'm sure there are more redistributive societies which get closer at least)

Good point Grimma.
Perhaps we should talk about:

Effects of housing on mental and physical health.

Children who have limited opportunities to play outside and the effects on their development.

Making an education system that does consign the poorest children to the worst schools.

Children who have limited access to hobbies other than the TV and the effects on their social skills, their cognitive development and their emotional wellbeing.

etc, etc, etc....

Makes the case for relative poverty better than some cash figure. A lot of these could be solved by means other than providing the parents with extra cash.

Ok, got a bit more time now. I'm on my phone so links take a while

bbc story

figures

GrimmaTheNome, what about Saudi Arabia, which claims to have no poverty for its nationals due to the country's oil wealth? i'm sure i read that somewhere... (politely ignoring the gross breaches of human rights, treating one half of the population with complete contempt, and the country's massive problem with abuse of foreign workers, of course)

or somewhere in Scandenavia, they always come out top when it comes to income distributions and family poverty, I think? (Desperately grasping at half remembered facts, but isn't there a direct link with a country's average wage dispartiies and the rates of poverty e.g. Denmark)

' A lot of these could be solved by means other than providing the parents with extra cash.

true, but then you ahve to look at the at rosk groups for poverty.

So if say child has a mum who is a carer opr disabled, they might be able to get to a nice park if provided but it's likely that their social needs and such things as exposure to other types of family are better met at groups such as Cubs. Certainly, our own ds2 was sent there by us due to the effects his brother's disability had on him.

CAsh might pay for the bus to the library, teh use of a PC (DH set up a business on line that helps us enormously; plenty of advice about such things as disability, lone aprenthood etc best accessed online. Plenty of emergency cashflow issues can be helped by ebaying a few bits..... online).

There's a balance to be struck of course but cash not only solves an awful lot but helps people get abck up on their feet.

When dh was amde redudnant I was already a carer; we could ahve survived on less but could I have retrained (no funding, have a degree), DH set up his business? Nope. All the parks in the world won't help us as we cannot access them, and it is famillies like us at biggest risk of getting trapped long term in poverty or low income situations.

Your points are really good, ambarth. The changes have to be funded somehow, though, so it's still a matter of wealth distribution.

Interesting that lots of people have been saying things along the lines of 'I believe thaere are people who are very poor but I don't believe there is true poverty in the UK' - that suggests to me that 'poverty' is quite an emotive word, as I am sure the dictionary definition is just the equivalent of 'the state of being poor'.
Other definitions of poverty in the UK I seem to remember have been based on ownership of property and various appliances. It's always going to be a controversial and subjective definition I think.

DH and I only have 1 DC ATM but based on calculations above we would be either just above or right on poverty line.
I'd always thought we were v.comfortable

I know lots of people really struggle and I know from pe that there is a sense of shame in not being able to pay for ordinary things such as a coffee in a cafe with friends or a birthday card.

But the problem with relative poverty is that people can in theory be very well off but still be poor. For example, a colleague I used to work with had grown up in a very large house in a street that used to be known locally as Millionaire's Row as the houses were so large. She felt poor as a child and was relatively poor in relation to friends as her family couldn't afford to keep ponies or take her expensive holidays abroad.

In theory, in 20 years time we could be talking about people being relatively poor because they can't afford a holiday abroad or because they only have 1 car or because they can't afford designer brands of clothes or because they don't have a garden.

So I do understand the sense of shame that can come from relative poverty, but I also think it is not a terribly helpful concept.

Of course most UK anti poverty groups were established in the UK when there was very real poverty in Britain. I think redefining poverty as relative poverty is partly a wheeze to justify these organisations existence.

Although like the OP I have no problem with organisations highlighting real poverty where it does exist or related elements such as very poor housing.

BTW poorer elfderly owner occupiers tend to live in the very worst housing conditions, but they are very rarely talked about when poor housing is being discussed.

lesley you are right about relative poverty but absolute doesn;t cover it wither: yet i would argue wholeheartedly for example that a family of five living in one room in a council temp accom block (used to work with some famillies in exactly that situation) would count as in relative poverty but becuase they ahd a roof and a meal tehy didn;t count as absolutely poor- and were not.

There has to be a midway, though what it is I do not know.

Regardless, the worst off in our society tend to be the most vulnerable- the elderly, disabled (seem to remember that 80% of aprents with a disabled child are classed as poor), even when that is impossible to achieve. Poeple on low pay are vulnerable if the ancies such as Tax credit that seem to exist to make up the difference between wage structure and actual living cost make an error.

Poor to me is when your child's coat goes missing at school and you cannot replace it for a week even from Asda, ween you have to choose between an extra fiver on the electric key on a very cold week or a school trip (not all help- ours doesn't, and if your child cannot go on a trip you hae to take them home and they get lined up outside in what seems to me a parade of humiliation: if like a recently single friend of mine you are struggling to hold down a minimum wage job you then have to take time of). When you don;t colect your meds becuase you cannot afford the prescription charges 9thank goodness we moved to Wales!- something that affects working poor a lot I think); when you can't afford the petrol to actually get to work. And of course lower paid jobs re often shifts etc that mean you need a car as few buses run at 3am!

When you are at the level of choosing between eating and the rent that's real poverty then. It should never happen in this country, but does becuase of the lack of social housing and the disparity between rent and LHA rates.

We are not poor bt I would categorically not want to live on less as the cuts would mean a massive deterioration in life quality- and an absolute cut in the chances we can offer the boys, such as things like cubs (as mentioned before) that means ds2 gets to mix with NT kids (ds1 is at the same smalls chool as him).

I get less than that and I think we are welll off but I dont know about anyone elses lives in detail to know if they feel poor on that amount or not.

I think that over the next 4 years under the ConDems we are going to see far, far more poverty amongst the working and "under" classes. We will be going back to how it was before the Welfare State was formed.

well we are supposed to be in "relative poverty" then...

when I said our monthly budget was £1,350 after housing costs, I'd assumed that meant mortgage/rent only.

as it's "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"

then ours becomes £1,120/month which is below the £1,248/mth poverty line

we run a car (albeit a 10yr old one)
the kids have loads of toys/books/treats/days out
we have at least one holiday a year (usually a week in a cottage in the UK + additional camping trips)
DH & I both have mobiles (kids too young for them yet)
DH & I go out at least once a month & we do socialise with friends/family too.
We both have money to spend on our hobbies
we actually SAVE around £100 in a good month for the future/rainy day out of that pot too.

Both DH & I grew up in very poor families where every penny counted, so in comparision to that we feel quite well off.

I think its a bad measure of poverty as no matter what happens there will be people living below the 60% median line. That's the thing with averages.

Poverty should be defined in absolute terms, whether that means not enough money for food and shelter, or not enough money for after school activities or some other absolute measure.

ou know what causes proper poverty in my experience? What is the difference between getting by on £150 a week after rent or feeling poor on £350?

Debt.

trouble is so many go into a reduction in income lumbered- we did, first time around, years ago. When DH suddeenly got ill for a bit and had to take time off (still employed, YKWIM). When i worked and the icnome was decent but a tiny hit stopped it stretching and we had to sell the house.

And lack of debt is why despite a reduced income we can find money for extras.

But not paying debts is no good- it always comes back on someone doesn't it? The bloke who wons the double glazing company, the bank who then refuse Mr X the loan becuase their books are looking a little less than they'd like, whoever.

So there's an argument for sure that incomes should account for people continuing to pay off the loans and all teh rest.

And for people like us who have to run two cars. One for DH to work and study, the opther for me to get to two disatnt SNUs when I am needed.

Or who like my Mum spend all tehir cash (NOT benefits) on bus fayres to get to Grandad so she can look after him.

If you had those commitments you'd feel poor if you coudln't make them, no? if you didn;t amnage to get to your ds on a nsow closure of for any reviews becuase the car didn;t exist. If your dad had to go shopping alone aged 90 becuase you could not afford it.

OTOH if you ahven;t got debt, or the requirement to access far distant specialist schools, or caring responsibilities needing a bus, or...... that money would go a lot further. I guess.

Point? Don't ask me. I don't know. Just that the are lots of different people with different but equally important need and expenses long before you get to frivolities and luxuries I guess.

FWIW - it is an appalling measure of poverty, especially when used to a) drive public policy and b) energise part of the population into stating that they are "poor" and c) castigating parts of the population who aren't poor for apparently not doing their bit.

It isn't taken from the average it is taken from the median. By definition half the population will earn more than that and half less.

Having 60% below the median will mean (give or take a few standard deviations) fully 30-35% of the population will be below the "poverty" line. This will remain true regardless of what the earnings figures are. In fact, you could simply give 10k per year to all of the people in the group and lo and behold, you would find another tranche of people suddenly become "poor". Or conversely you could punitively tax the top 1% of earners 100% and fritter uselessly on grandiose schemes redistribute. And guess what? it wont move those figures one jot. Abe Lincoln himself said "you wont make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".

So - regardless of the intended public policy outcome you decide (left or right), please, please understand the statistics are being manipulated by the presenters to tell their story. Charities exist to raise and spend money, if the numbers suddenly said, "poverty no longer exists in Britain" they wouldnt be able to campaign on that front. I personally always look at the accounts of charities and see a) how much admin costs (does the CEO have company Bentley for example) b) how much is spent on lobbying government rather than on good works and c) The sources of their funds. My personal view is that a charity that exists predominantly on state handouts and spends a fortune on lobbying the government about itself tends to get short shrift in my eyes.

which charities run company Bentleys voiceof? I spent a good decade in the third sector but didn't note an awful lot about......

There are of course charities I choose to avoid for reasons allied to those you mention, and i would agree with looking into them. The Charity Commission is pretty efficient at it's job though (having experience of what happens when a volunteer accidentally forgets the charity number on a home made poster..........)

"I think its a bad measure of poverty as no matter what happens there will be people living below the 60% median line. That's the thing with averages."

This statement is incorrect.