*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.

It's still not clear what housing costs are or have I missed something, does it include council tax?

What does not always seem to be taken into account is the extra costs like appliances and computers which are a necessary part of modern life and would be difficult and/or expensive to live without. Same for the cost of running a car.

Furniture as well, the cost of which has increased substantially in the last few years. All families will need to buy bits and pieces (beds, lights, shelves) when they are starting up. Another reason why older people or established families, or those with generous family may be able to get by on less money. Some people also get small inheritances from time to time which help.

Ditto decorating/maintenance. And moving costs - which can be very high and frequent for renters, commonly every 6 - 12 months.

Glasses ony cheap if you can manage without varifocals of the like.

Cheap appliances are of course available, like cheap shoes, but they rarely last very long and over time are poor value for money.

Also most people have debts to service - most likely spent on the furniture, the car, the computer, the moving fees etc.

Of course things can be bought second hand, but if you have to buy everything second hand just to get by and even this money comes out of juggling the essentials budget or from increasing debt then there is a problem.

In London, maybe but elsewhere? No way. That is a lot of money after rent. If I were a single parent it is about what I would have left after rent and I’m a teacher.

I went home last week(it's a small place and everybody knows everybody) anyway I'm amazed by how many nights out people have! It's not just the odd Saturday it's every friday/ Saturday and all day Sunday they all work part time no more than 15hrs a week!! How on earth do they afford it if the price if living is the same as in the south??

The standards set for the minimum income standard are hardly bargain basement, so even at the minimum income, there is a reasonable quality of life.

It says a family of 2 adults and 2 primary age children needs £730 a week to live on (obviously this is based on average housing costs - the report about Scotland talks about after housing costs, which is probably a fairer way to do it as they are so varied.

But the minimum it says this family needs per week is:

Food 109.45 - plenty for a family of 4 unless you think normal basic shopping is organic everything from Waitrose
Alcohol 9.25 - so a small treat for adults
Clothing - 45.95. Nearly £200 pm for clothes, sounds plenty to shop in supermarkets, Matalan etc
Water rates - 10.04 - OK
Council Tax - 24.51. Sounds a little low but our poor family are unlikely to live in a big house
Household Insurances - 2.14. Not a lot but would probably pay for basic home contents insurance.
Gas, electricity, etc - 18.25 again doesn't sound huge but not far off the mark. Offset by generous allowances elsewhere.
Other housing costs 1.92 not sure what this is, but things like batteries for smoke alarms, light bulbs? Or could also come out of household goods, 25.48 which would cover bedding, towels etc.
Household services - 12.73 - broadband, TV etc? Can certainly get broadband and a basic TV service for this - ours costs less than£40 pm incl Now TV and decent broadband/phone line.
Childcare - 158.88 again huge variances, will be loads to some, but difficult for others.
Personal goods and services - 37.06 - not sure what this is - haircuts, mobile phones?

Travel costs and motoring - 84.11

Social and cultural activities - 99.31. If they have over £400 pm to spend on this, they're hardly stuck in the house staring at the walls, are they?
Rent 91.05 - would be tight in most places, which is why it is probably better to look at this sort of data after housing costs.

Hopefully we still mostly agree that the government needs to address issues such as housing, need for personal debt and other big issues. Just because most of the population has access to Internet and owns more than two pairs of shoes doesn't mean that we shouldn't demand more financial security and stability for everyone. Including access to good education and healthcare and livable pensions or at least the ability to save for the future.

I thought that was a lot of money too!

I'm not sure how confident I am on my feelings about this and so I may be wrong and certainly not fixed enough on it not to change my mind but...

I think all this 'it's just relative' is either plain unkind or naïve. In principle, it sounds correct but in practice it lacks knowledge that the bar for participating in our society is very high.

We live in an age when those who do not have money, and sometimes this is disguised as an issue of culture, are dismissed and ignored at both an individual and societal level.

We live in an age where to be poor is considered to be the very worst thing an at the same time we live in a time where poverty is also considered to be a situation of your own making.

In an effort to disguise poverty, people withdraw from community and society and feel worthless and ignored.

There's nothing relative to being ignored, dismissed, disenfranchised, blamed and reveiled for living in poverty.

'it's not a race to the bottom '

This! Then cue people falling over themselves to post very personal details of their own finances to prove how if everyone could just be like that, no one would be poor.

I wish people would remember the weekly shop bill is food shopping only . I easily spend £200 a week in a week where I but loo roll, washing powder etc. And not everyone has easy access to supermarkets where the best offers are and a big car to stuff bought in bulk items in.

Well said elementtree.

'And not everyone has easy access to supermarkets where the best offers are and a big car to stuff bought in bulk items in.'

A LOT of people don't.

Just about to go back and read the whole thread but one question has come into my mind is the bit on 60% of median household income. There's no mention of the median household income being before or after housing costs whereas the weekly poverty line figures are excluding housing costs.

If the median income is what - £23,000 and 60% of this is £13,800 so £265 a week that sort of ties in with the figures released but the median income annual figure will have housing to pay out of that so is this like for like? I'd rather they specified a figure for poverty based on a % of median income with housing costs taken out so you're comparing LFL but that'll skew it.

On £23,000 you might have a council property so housing costs will be lower than private rent. A big proportion of your income can go on housing and it varies widely compared with other costs.

I think it starkly shows how badly off pensioners relying just on the state pension can be given fixed costs of heating, water, council tax etc. I think state pension is £164/week.

Seems some of the figures are based on HBAI calculations who also does before and after housing costs calculations. This Scottish report has used the ones after housing.

@BSJohnson you didn’t miss sarcasm. You missed the point of my post entirely and took it out of context. The Scottish governments attempts to change people having to live in poverty is being met with derision and sneering, NOT the definition of poverty. You misread my point.

Quite interesting stats here if anyone interested:

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691917/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2016-2017.pdf#page=13]

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691917/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2016-2017.pdf#page=13

Interesting that that information takes into account family size and also the fact that statistics are skewed by the top 3% of earners having massive incomes which obviously affects the average.

Looks like this is housing costs, taken from lizzie1970a link above

Income After Housing Costs is derived by deducting a measure of housing costs from the overall income measure. Housing costs include:
 rent (gross of housing benefit);
 water rates, community water charges and council water charges;  mortgage interest payments;
 structural insurance premiums;

It's a rubbish way of measuring poverty.

Poverty should mean no food, house or heat not no holidays, magazines or pocket money

Also on another part it says that it is income not including council tax, so if you take off rent or mortgage interest payments, water rates, council tax and buildings insurance it doesn't seem that low

These sorts of stats would have made my dear departed mum laugh. poverty you don't know what poverty is, She was one of seven children living in a two up two down, sleeping in two beds, outside toilet, tin bath, one coal fire, Only grandad worked ( pay wise) granny used to cook, clean, sort the chickens out and look after the allotment, ( fresh veg) all cloths were hand made and hand downs, no holidays, no telly till she was older, Yes I Know this was back in the day, but do we really know what real poverty is in GB

There's a really interesting metric for poverty I've seen before which was incredibly helpful because it showed how they defined a necessary minimum income and all it's components. I think it was a minimum essential standard for living - It was done by an Irish charity so the figures aren't relevant here, but essentially it broke down: housing costs, cost of clothing, transport, cost of social inclusion, etc.

If you looked at the headline figure you might think 'oh I could manage on that, that's not a minimum' but the detail it went into was really helpful- it was things like, replacing a winter coat every second year, buying new shoes, all worked out at something like 10/week so it was primark prices but when they explained it you could see, actually yes, long term you would need to spend that.

The social isolation amount was things like: meet a friend for a coffee and slice of cake once a week, once a month do something like the cinema, twice a year be able to attend the cost of a family birthday/wedding/christening.

Then costs of replacing appliances, but over a really reasonable length of time, so basically if your washing machine breaks after five years etc etc. So suddenly the headline amount, which didn't seem too bad, makes you realise how much you'd struggle to live on less than that, especially as to do so successfully you'd need to be v strict with budgeting.

I don't know about these headline figures, but I think often people apply their own situation. My parents lived much more frugally than us a few years ago despite having more money- ultimately, they have a car so can do big shops in discount supermarkets, have a house with storage so can buy things when on special, don't need to pay moving costs/buy new furniture on moving when kicked out by landlord/etc etc. It's hard to really understand what it's like for other people, esp those struggling with debt. If nothing has ever gone wrong it can be easy to live on little but one mistake can throw people off track for years.

Poverty is far more than no heat, house and food.

Poverty is about being able to live and have equal footing with others.

What this says is those with less than that figure will find it harder to get the same opportunities and advantages.

It's not just about money either.

When I lived in benefits for three years it was after a lifetime of work. I had a comfortable rented home, warmth, a full range of cooking equipment etc plus a lifetime of experience in cooking cheaper meals etc. Contrast that with someone who doesn't have the same experiences. Financially I was poor but I wasn't living in poverty.

So the figure quoted is general, and many will live on significantly less than that after housing costs.

Poverty needs a definition!

Poverty has several definitions. The problem is the denial of all of them apart from absolute poverty.

Poverty should mean no food, house or heat not no holidays, magazines or pocket money

^ Case in point.

There should be no absolute poverty in the UK, (though I do believe in some cases there still is) but there is relative poverty in all countries.

Relative poverty is when a person cannot adequately participate in the society they live in.

Holidays, access to the internet, computers, toys, games, activities for kids like dance or sports, school trips, birthday parties, day trips etc. These are all things that are an accepted part of society in the UK. So if people cannot comfortably take part in some of them, they are in poverty.

Of course, these measures don't account for choice. Some people may choose to prioritise some things over others. But as a way of providing a somewhat objective measure, the level is set where it is.

£413 a week after housing for a family of four is not a lot of money, though it does sound a lot written down. Costs of everything are going up. We are on approximately that before housing costs, and while I do not feel really poor, we haven't had a holiday in 3 years and have never had a foreign family holiday at all. Little savings and things have to be prioritised with a lot not possible.

As for the delightful quote above, FFS people have such a disdain for their fellow human beings. God forbid the kids get pocket money when in poverty.