*Poverty* Do you agree

[geekone]

BBC Scotland say 1-4 children in Scotland live in poverty, which is an aweful statistic and really sad. However they also state "According to the group's most recent figures, a two-parent family with two children of school age would be defined as being in poverty if they are living on less than £413 a week after housing costs."

This seems like a lot of money to me £1652 after housing costs? I don't think that's poverty? In London maybe but Scotland?

I may be wrong and I am happy to stand corrected but wanted to know what you all think.

poster Piggywaspushed Unfortunately we have a FPTP system

CPAG : the Child Poverty Action Group, whom I have regrred to many times and copied you information from.

I am more than aware we have First past The Post : thanks.

The reference to more people voting not Tory was in response to your assertion that most people don't want raised taxes.

And out of interest, what sort of salary are the top people on at CPAG ?

What on earth does that have to do with it????

Are you really suggesting that people who work their entire loves to eradicate and understand child poverty should be paid peanuts, because I'd be willing to bet they earn less than many.

But if you do want to know more about the group , here:

www.cpag.org.uk/about-cpag

I find most of these charities are run by people on very high salaries

@user1486062886 you have no idea what we earn, not do you OP. We’re not in the higher tax band, although I realise I wrote my post badly. We are comfortable, because of a legacy as explained up thread, but in no way minted. I still stand by what I said about paying more tax. Because it’s how a civilised and decent society works.

And because I remember full well how crap it felt to be on the bones of my arse and looked down on by society. Just because I’m not in that position any more, doesn’t mean I can’t remember how it felt!

But those right at the top, the super rich somehow don't get affected

Absolutely, and yet there is absolutely nowhere near the venom and nastiness aimed at them that there is aimed at people in poverty or on benefits. Funny that isn’t it? It’s like the rich run the country or something.

I reckon people who work to publicise , and who aim to eradicate, child poverty deserve every penny : I could name many who don't.

But , once more, you clearly didn't read the link. It's a group : not a single charity.

OK, I may have got that last bit a bit wrong , as they do now appear to be a single charity. But, anyway , they have 35 employees, so I don't think we are talking Oxfam here... I doubt there are huge fat cat salaries. Not that it matters.

That's just under double my wage before any costs and I'm in London.

Boxsets my comment about "equal footing" relates to opportunities and not to things like luxuries.

So taking health as one indicator and comparing a child born in poverty with a child born in better circumstances and looking at health outcomes. For the child in poverty there is a massive difference in health outcomes and life expectancy.

So a child living in poor and damp housing breathing in mild spores is unlikely to have a healthy respiratory system. Housing is a MASSIVE issue...and an easy way of improving that is ensuring housing is not damp or overcrowded. That puts the child in poverty on an equal footing with the wealthier child in regard to respiratory health if both sets of parents are non smokers.

It's not about giving that family more money, it's just about ensuring their housing is fit for purpose and as a health visitor (now retired) I have seen children in appalling housing ....to the extent I have photographed damp and mild and filed photos in the children's medical records for future reference if thy have respiratory issues.

"Mold" not "mild" in my last post of course. Bloody autocorrect.

a health visitor (now retired) I have seen children in appalling housing ....to the extent I have photographed damp and mild and filed photos in the children's medical records for future reference if thy have respiratory issues. that's really sad @DeloresJaneUmbridge it really is. It was teachers on the BBC Scotland news talking about what they have bought children and had to gift them etc it's just a terrible situation.
I have no pollitical affiliation by the way. I vote each time and I chose the most relevant to me and society at that time. I don't see the point in blaming one government because as far as I can see they are all pretty well off and poverty has never disappeared under any of them.

Poverty has lessened under some and increased under others, though.

We’ve always been on less than this and I’ve never felt we were poor. We are in the south east too.

curious we have been on more than double what we are now with a smaller mortgage and I still don't regard myself or indeed my child as being in poverty. I guess it's because I think of what we do have rather than what we don't and because I work part time so I could double my income but increased costs (child care travel etc) would mean the weekly difference wouldn't be a huge increase.

I would imagine most of the peopl at the top end of that definition don't regard themselves as poor either. Struggling sometimes to make ends meet perhaps. The prevalence of payday loans and rent to buy outlets in certain areas tells its own story. My town has a 30% childhood poverty rate and is full of closed down shops, windswept precincts , Bright House , Cash Converters and bookies. Interestingly, my town is located in a pocket of an affluent part of the country so house prices are very high, and public transport is limited. I am sure, therefore, that many of the people on just less than £413 pw here feel very stretched indeed.

I found the figures for severe poverty (which have also risen) for up to 2016 but then promptly lost the website. It was obviously a much lower number but I am sure it would have pleased some of this thread to know there are sufficiently enough people who are really poor to deserve their definition and sympathy . And we do worse than most of Western Europe on that definition.

We are on less than £413 a week (after mortgage and council tax). I have read this thread with interest. We are comfortable and would never describe ourselves as poor. We have to budget carefully and never eat out but our DCs have holidays, activities and days out. I am surprised that they are considered to live in relative poverty. I am certain that there are many children growing up in much worse financial circumstances. We are pleased with the life we provide for our DC.
I flinched when I read the PP that said '£413 a week is fuck all. It's fuck all'.

Don't take it personally Donot.

Comments about £413 pw being fuck all will have been made by the type of out of touch poster who also thinks £70k pa isn't that much in London, to refer to another recent thread.

The thing is everyone has their own cost and their own priorities. Someone with 18 month old twins could be being crippled by childcare costs where as someone else could have totally free care provided by family.
I know people who I think are on a lower income than us who's kids ride regularly because we live in a rural location and they have friends/family with a pony.
Even if we all had the same income different families would be spending it differently, because circumstances and priorities are different. I've never been into labels and designer names so even if I had a lot more money I'd carry on shop in "low end" high street and supermarkets. Given the exact same income you will have a wide variety of life styles on that income.

Donot when you took out your mortgage payment did you only take out the interest part as the repayment part is not apparently counted, I am guessing that is because the actual house cost is an asset. That could make quite a lot off difference if you took out the whole lot.

posted further up the thread, I am in the poorest 10%. I am a single parent. But I am also a teacher. I work full time but on supply so that does shift the balance with my salary but oh my goodness, what does that tell us?

I'm not sure what the definition is for poverty. if you have a mobile, a colour TV, enough to eat, are you in poverty because you can't also have a holiday, a car or buy expensive or designer clothes? I would like to know what the criteria are for defining poverty, and who works it out.