*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.

Not anywhere near poverty-

'Indeed expat. And council tax in many parts of Scotland is eye watering.'

You see it all the time here. 'Move up North'. Where your wage will most likely not be as high, or you won't be able to get work at all, or if you get a job in one of the cities, your rent will be just as much in relation to your wage. And nearly every other cost will be the same: food, water, energy, clothes, petrol, car payments or lease.

Just as an example NCP car parks charge the same for a full day parking in Glasgow and Edinburgh (I’m guessing Aberdeen too) as they do in Cambridge.

There's a lot of competitive poverty on this thread. These are accepted government figures and it seems many people don't understand the concept of median income. Comments like 'lots of people live on this' umm well, yes , that's the point! The stats very much suggest a large number of people are living below the median income...

That amount of money equates to a gross household income of £45,000 per annum. How can that be poverty? You would have some lawyers and teachers living in poverty if so.

Plus the level at which you get any help from the state is much lower than that.

The stats very much suggest a large number of people are living below the median income...

Exactly. And the attempts by the Scottish government to change this are met with derision and sneering. Why is that?

Oh just noticed dermy said that and was ignored.

These are Scottish figures but it's not about the SNP. The figures are released for every European country as a PP said.

There aren't many teachers and lawyers living in households with two adults and two or three children and a sole income of £45000. If there were, yes, they would struggle financially.

Not all lawyers are on a high income.

I feel like lots of posters want to see children walking around barefoot, preferably with added rickets before they will define people as living in poverty. We managed, sow why can't they , is never a useful argument. For a start, I am sure many of the people at the top end of this definition do manage and do scrape by, and don't regard themselves as living in poverty. The concern , surely, is for those living way way below that line, of which there are many.

I am going to leave the link again in case anyone does actually want to read the facts and figures:
www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

Average food cost pw for 4 people - £80
Average home to work transport - £25
Average band D council tax - £30
Average utility - £30
Average water - £20
Average Tv, phone, broadband - £15

Total - £200 = leaving a reasonable 'living' amount after all essentials, providing you have no childcare, house or car maintenance costs. But if you do, which most people do, I can easily see how it's defined as poverty and how easy it would be to have a bad month which puts you into debt. No financial 'cushion', little to no room for family or children's savings, to have a break once in a while, and the above doesn't take into account any insurance policies either. Those saying you exist on less, it's not a race to the bottom. I certainly feel very fortunate when you do the calculations.

I would really struggle on that amount.

Council tax £160
Water £36
Energy £40
House insurance £12
Pet insurance £12
Tv license £12
Car insurance £160
Fuel £180
Internet/TV £55
Mobile phones £60
Food £400
Loans/credit cards £300
Business insurance £55
NMC fee £10
RCN membership £16
Partners union £15
Pocket money £16
Children's clothing £30
Odd lunch at work £20
Hair cuts £20
Magazines/books/papers £10
Adult clothing £15

That's £1622. Not really any wriggle room for entertainment, savings, or contingencies is there?

We have £512 a week left and we are comfortable on that, have some money for holidays, entertainments and a small amount of savings but I wouldn't say we were flush...

Teacher here on less than £45k

Median income is literally the person in the middle. The "poverty line" is anyone earning under 60% of that (I think!) There will always be people earning less than the poverty line.

Another spin on it is that Scotland has a high median income? (Playing devils advocate).

After rent or mortgage, if you have children and work that amount will not go far at all.

Council tax
Gas
Electricity
Water rates
bus/train/fuel costs
Food for the week x4
School dinners/packed lunches
Childcare
Tv/phone/internet costs

Throw in school trips, a broken washing machine or some other crisis and I can see how things would be very tight indeed.

There aren't many teachers and lawyers living in households with two adults and two or three children and a sole income of £45000. If there were, yes, they would struggle financially

Particularly as teachers have to pay child care retainers through the school holidays when they don't need it and many schools are employing NQTs not more experienced teachers. They then become experienced, leave and get replaced by other NQTs or go part time and do a job share.

The stats very much suggest a large number of people are living below the median income...

Exactly. And the attempts by the Scottish government to change this are met with derision and sneering. Why is that?

Assuming I'm not missing sarcasm, because no one can make fewer people live below the median income. The median is the middle one of a range of numbers. If there is an even number of figures, it is halfway between the two middle numbers. Aiming to get fewer (or more) people below the median is the definition of insanity!

leaving aside the numbers, am I surprised that the bottom quarter on the income distribution are having an unenviable lifestyle with some hard choices? No, what would we expect about people's lifestyles if we split the income distribution into 4?

I'd expect the kids in bottom 25% to be having a significantly different experience of life than the top 25%.

Oops, slower than Dermymc!

The stats very much suggest a large number of people are living below the median income

Well quite. Exactly 50% are living on less than the median income. And due to the way a small number of high earners skew the statistics, more than 50% of people are on less than the mean average income. 50% of people are of less than average intelligence too.

Using emotive terms like child poverty to prove a political point is rather disingenuous to be frank. People will read the article and imagine dirty, skinny neglected children who don't have enough to eat, suitable clothes etc, when in reality some of them still have rather a decent income after housing costs and will have a reasonable standard of living, but will obviously miss out on some luxuries. It's almost like the 'we might have to cut back on the piano lessons' comment is rather fitting to the survey/report.

Cost of living definitely not cheaper in Scotland for everything. Aberdeen especially has quite high housing costs. It's colder, so people are likely to spend more on heating their homes. Fewer supermarkets and other retailers mean choice is reduced, so cheaper suppliers may not be available, or will be a boat ride away to those living on the islands. Many delivery companies won't or charge a lot extra for delivery to the Highlands and Islands, reducing choice or increasing costs.

dermy I think that second bit is in my link. Or another one I read.

Child poverty is a deliberately emotive (and legal!) term to make people wake up and smelt he coffee! It wasn't invented by this survey. Poverty needs a definition!

BS you were missing sarcasm.. or at least frustration.

it's not a race to the bottom well said.

Yikes, our household has less than that but I don't think we are poor.

what a silly stat to use. If every family was extremely well off, this method would still report people living in poverty.

Calculating an amount that is needed to live sensibly on and the number of children living below that level would be much more meaningful.