To think there is not really any chikdren in poverty in the uk

[Domjolly]

I think last nights comic relief has really brought home to me and my family that there is not really any children in the uk who live in REAL poverty

There is not one child that has to walk 3 hours to school
There is not one child that cant get some form of education
There is not one child who can get medical intervention
I think you would be hard pressed to find familys which children who are homeless or who dont have clean water and sanitation

And i actaully now thing people who say this is insulting to children who do live in real poverty

expat I can't agree with you more. I was surprised at how strick the rules are for landlords and as a tenant I had good experiences. We lived in Hoboken, NJ and the three places DH and I lived in (before we were married) were all 'rent controlled' where the town set the maximum rental income permitted. It was around 4-5% when property prices were increasing by 20-25%.

We now live in a different township and they are also very strict. If you want to rent your home out it has to be inspected first and they test everything. The township don't want problem tenants as this hurts the community. Poorly maintained properties don't attract the sort of tenant you want as a neighbour.

However, in response to the OP, there is poverty in the UK. The face of poverty isn't what you think it is. From what I have seen there is more poverty than anyone wants to admit to in the suburbs and within young families. I am conservative and think this government have been spineless with helping those who are in need.

Want2be, I am both American and British, as are my children. Many townships and councils in the US rent cap and tax those who rent out as individuals and if you own the property you still had to do state income tax, property tax, your fed taxes were a pain. If you don't have a company covering it because you're definitely coming back in a couple of years, it's usually a big PITA. It is designed to discourage BTL.

You think the US had a problem with sub-prime? Man, you are on the Titanic before it hit the iceberg, thinking she'd never sink! There were mortgage products here that never existed in the US, they were illegal. I had to learn about them as a legal secretary.

Here, you're mostly treated like scum for renting, and males who did not hold property, of which only 10% did, were not granted universal sufferage until 1918.

Things can get very very bad, people, and you are really kidding yourselves if you don't think poverty doesn't exist here, if you've forgotten how it was here even in the 60s, and in a race to the bottom.

I've seen developing nations, lived in them, believe me, it's not a level you want to sink to again.

And you'd be surprised, how swifly a place can sink. Anything, really.

A full time (37.5hr) NMW worker takes home £895 a month. £50 is not a huge amount of money in the context of that monthly pay. It is approx 5% of salary, and that doesn't include benefits or anything else. Are there really huge swathes of the country who have an absolute minimum spend of over 95% of salary every month? Strikes me as way too much of a coincidence that so many people claim their salary EXACTLY matches their minimum outgoings.
zwischenzug
This is quite the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here. For a lot of people it's not a COINCIDENCE that salary exactly matches outgoings, it's more a question of cutting back and budgetting hard to ensure their outgoings don't EXCEED their income. How would those people ever find themselves with a surplus?

Depends on your definition of poverty. Anyway the original point I was responding to was regarding people who go to the foodbank because they've lost their jobs and have a balance of £0 in their account. I've not seen any persuasive arguments that they there is a good reason these sort of people couldn't have saved a small amount so they could at least pay for food and the basics of life until the benefits system kicks in.
Oh do grow up, dearie. You are rude, patronising and living in lala land if you cannot comprehend what is reality to many folk.
As for housing, I do not live in an affluent area, in fact I'm rural, a two bed cottage without a garden here is around £450 a month, and yes, people struggle. That would leave someone with less than £500 per month on NMW. £500 to pay bills, clothe and feed children etc. So, which part of that £500 should they be saving, how often and what should they go without in order to save?

Well said Dawndonna.

Most people using food banks have run out of any surplus they might have had. Anyone smugly saying "they should have saved" needs smothering with their own comfort blanket!

Totally agree with dawndonna. Anyone that thinks a family can save anything on minimum wage of they have to factor in housing costs is delusional. Totally delusional.

Eating cold food is fine if you live in a centrally heated house with sufficient clothing and blankets. Rather less fine if you live in a damp room which you cannot afford to heat.

And if you cannot afford heating, drying clothes also becomes next to impossible, so getting wet whilst walking home from school has consequences which are difficult to imagine if you are not in this position. You won't be able to run a spindryer either (electricity) so the clothing will be hung up in your room, not drying but adding to the damp and cold.

So if you can't even have a hot meal how are you going to keep warm?

I have lived like this for a short time, but I was a healthy young adult with no caring responsibilities and with family who could have bailed me out had I asked: I can't imagine what it would be like to live like this for years, or if you are elderly or a child.

Dh did live in damp and mouldy accommodation for part of his childhood and spent a lot of time in hospital with asthma/bronchitis. This is a common problem in poor families in this climate.

I would have thought that being cold or struggling to breathe because of lack of money qualifies as poverty.