*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.

I get £1600 a month full stop. I have to pay for housing childcare car bills etc all from that £1600. Oh and i just got refused any reduction on council tax as apparently im above the threshold.

If thats the definition of poverty i wish i lived in poverty

I live in relative poverty based on that figure.

Honestly, we do find things tough sometimes but I do think a lot of it is lifestyle choices we've made, because we have 2 cars to run and pay for etc. We also have Sky because we are both home in the evening and would sooner spend that money than go out and socialise. What I'm trying to say if there are ways we could cut back if we needed to.

I don't feel like I'm in poverty, because we can feed ourselves and we always have enough for food, rent and bills. To me, the idea of poverty is not being able to feed yourself from day to day. We're nowhere near that!

which comes first, the living in posverty causing health problems or the child having disabilites causing poverty?

I know which way round it is in our flat! I can not work while ds and dd need so much care. I am exhauseted as it is. (maybe because one of their conditions is hereditary and causes tiredness)

Surely it’s a typo and they meant £413 a month after housing costs.

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

Yeah, because only us higher earners deserve a break and to be able to unwind and buy a few ice creams, don't we? I expect that you believe internet access is a luxury too - except when you realise the standard of living generally has improved since the 1900s and we're no longer using the same measuring stick. It doesn't take much for children to be disadvantaged, and judged, by their peers these days. Not only that, but a lack of access to so-called luxuries that are now commonplace in other people's lives puts children at a distinct educational disadvantage too, not just socially.

I have a friend who is on about £19000 a year. She's single with one daughter so perhaps slightly better off then these figures from the Scottish report. She has no housing costs as mortgage paid.

I perceive her as being poorer than me as I believe I have more disposable income (although her pension is great while mine is non-existent longer term and she has travelled more) but she goes on holiday perhaps 2-3 times a year. Often just paying for flights and staying with friends or airbnb. She has a great car and spends a lot on petrol. She is often out for meals with work and friends plus coffee/cake.

She does budget well though and I think this is ingrained in her - she's knows how to make her money go far so growing up it's been second hand clothes at times for her and her DD, furniture doesn't get replaced if unnecessary. Her priorities are experiences more than possessions so travel and days out rather than anything designer, the latest gadgets.

Her DD does have a phone and other expensive things so I'm sure doesn't feel she's missing out with peers. Neither would indulge in getting their nails done regularly or spend much on a haircut but might have a spa day for a birthday. I would say they can do things but there's a limited pot.

It's been down to her priorities and budgeting in a way. I can imagine others not doing so well on this amount - or if they have past debts, or if they spent money at a higher level in the past so didn't pay down their mortgage perhaps as my friend as able to do, or if they have childcare costs or costs associated with a disabled child, or the requirement for a larger car if they have a larger family and live remotely. Some will do fine on this amount and others not, obviously. I don't see it necessarily as a figure for people being automatically perceived as being in poverty.

Housing to me affected my idea of being a poor child when I was younger. I grew up in the 1960s though so it wasn't unusual though.

We had no heating or indoor bathroom at different times. The walls were wet with damp. Mould everywhere. Furniture and furnishings were crap but I blame my father for that more than us being 'poor'. However, I had books - some bought so we weren't so poor to not afford some things, I had a bike and toys, I went on school trips and to school clubs. Comparing then with now is difficult though.

If you had two families on this weekly disposable income figure and one had bad housing conditions and the other good or relatively good I think that would make a difference - in my view - as to what relative poverty was. I think your surroundings make a difference and the ability to change your surroundings varies a lot even if you're on the same money as it depends on where you live.

relative poverty is the right yardstick - the challenges of poverty have changed. The poorer quartile now are more likely to have obesity issues due to the cheapness of junk food - it's not a moral failure, it's a failure related to poverty.

do we really know what real poverty is in GB

yes, we do. And it's not OK that we still do. It sounds like you would be happier if there were people teeming in slums because at least they would be deserving poor.

My mum was a social worker in Clydebank. Real poverty certainly existed there not so long ago.

Ohhh I'm poor! In my 4 bed house in SE England. Really wouldn't class myself that way though. We run two cars have the occasional take away meal out. My children has ample clothes, toys, activities and pocket money. We don't holiday every year, but could if that was our priority. I don't have cash to do whatever I want when ever I want but I don't think it makes us below the poverty line. It's an odd system that thinks if everyone in a country can barely afford to eat only the starving are in poverty but if everyone is a multi millionaire those with only say 5 million are in poverty. For me they have set the bar too high.

Dealing with relative poverty is important. If children are fed and clothed but can’t afford things like music lessons or sports clubs they’re disadvantaged - and it means that certain aspects of life are only for the wealthy.

I can understand why people get defensive about these things - we see ‘£x isn’t enough for a family’ and hear ‘you don’t provide enough for your children’.

re music, art, sports - especially when school provision of non-core areas is cut to the bone these days. We had a music evening a few years back and the difference between the kids whose parents had paid for private music tuition and those doing music at (state) school was terrifying.

@cornishstripes It’s probably got even worse since then. Many schools have got rid of music and drama GCSEs/A Levels anymore. Very sad that such basic things are considered luxuries for the rich.

i see in the news also that in the poorest areas of Scotland, they also have the least choice in highers subjects due to teacher shortages, pretty dismal reading. Whereas if you trot round the merchant schools, music and art galore. whatever your family income, if your local schools are in poor areas, you get screwed over again in terms of your opportunities.

Piggywaspushed I think you need to go and look around many other countries if you think we have any real poverty in the GB, there is a safety net,

£413 a week is a lot of money

of course its not a lot of money to cover all bills, food, expenses of any kind for FOUR people. It's fuck all money.

Holy shit we live in poverty then! Madness definition.

What is poverty now days ? is it not having 4 Bed house, two cars, two working parents, two holidays a year, meals out, cinema, coffee and cake, music and art lessons, etc, That's is for and all ways has been for the wealthy people,

Real poverty is having now were to sleep, no money for food, the only cloths you own you wear, no were to get dry or warm etc.

I think that setting the bar for poverty quite high so it appears to include what looks like fairly average families distracts from the people that are in real poverty

user this thread is actually about relative poverty but I think you need to look around parts of the UK more perhaps.

What is poverty now days ? is it not having 4 Bed house, two cars, two working parents, two holidays a year, meals out, cinema, coffee and cake, music and art lessons

don't be inane.

There is real poverty in the UK, there are children homeless, there are children going hungry, there are girls missing school because they can't afford sanitary protection.
Don't be so fucking flippant.

"What is poverty now days ? is it not having 4 Bed house, two cars, two working parents, two holidays a year, meals out, cinema, coffee and cake, music and art lessons, etc, That's is for and all ways has been for the wealthy people,"

Wrong. These fairly normal things have not always been the preserve of the 'wealthy'. Plenty of families on one income could afford these things (ok, maybe 1 car and 1 holiday) a generation ago.

The cinema is a perfect example of a recreational pastime that used to be very affordable - even the poorest kids could go to the cinema a bit - and now it is so expensive relative to say, the minimum wage, that it is classed as a luxury out of reach for a lot of people.

Yes poverty and living standards have changed. But not everything modern is better - health care? Obviously yes, but food quality? I think it is much lower.

Junk food was never an option for people in the past so I think if we are to directly compare a modern diet with people pre-war, then actually "everything organic" (though not from Waitrose), is more comparable comparing with than modern food made with preservatives, fillers, binders, stored or chilled for months on end, sprayed with pesticides, animals fed with hormones and bred for fast growth, and produced for profit not nutrition or real taste. It is no wonder or coincidence that cheap food does not satisfy hunger.

Of course there were people who went hungry back then (as now), but of those who did have the money to by food, what they received for that money was much higher than Tesco Value or Aldi value. We have allowed the bar for food quality to drop very low and I think this disguises poverty.

Also, I think our housing standards are very low. We hark back to the Victorian 2 up 2 down as a sign of poverty, but so many people nowadays cannot afford even that. Many people live in homes that are little more than a series of boxes stacked on top of each other or side by side and often smaller than the 2 up, 2 down. Many of these homes are damp and mouldy with no access to the outside.

In the past, rural farm workers may have had little money but they had space, and countryside and fresh air, and a garden and could walk to work. It obviously wasn't completely idyllic but there were benefits whereas now, these same rural cottages can only be afforded by the wealthiest and those who have to walk to work because they cannot afford to run a car, are stuck in the boxes with the air pollution and no space to grow any vegetables or keep a chicken.

Except for the example of the additional cost of repeatedly having to buy poor quality shoes, I think we don't give enough emphasis to the quality of what we can buy with our disposable income.

MiggeldyHiggins with the very generous benefits with have in this country most people should be ok, but sadly there are people that slip through the safety net,
I was being flippant as I cannot believe some peoples idea of poverty

I think we need to repeat that £413 is the absolute top end of that measure...

It's less than May's lauded Just About Managing group : more of a just about scraping by group at the top end of the scale down to abject poverty at the bottom end.

The news has just had as their top story the vile companies who 'loan' white goods to this category of people (specifically targeted) who can pay £400 pm for a washing machine fgs.