Child poverty 2024

[dottydodah]

Shocking statistics .Apparently a quarter of children in the UK are in absolute poverty! Govt minister on FMB being grilled by Ed Balls,usual excuses .Also what is Absolute poverty compared to poverty ? Does anyone know .Tried looking it up but not very clear .Anyway really awful IMO .Do benefits cover the basics or not go anywhere near? YABU Yes Benefits should cover basics ,YANBU not near enough to get by

@dottydodah This is your bedtime reading. I think the differences are relative poverty and absolute poverty. The first is a comparison against others. The second is where it’s impossible for a family to meet basic needs.

The IFS does the best number crunching and is a respected source of data on finance and how government policies and other factors influence household living costs.

As far as I understand, absolute poverty is income which is 40% below median income in 2011. Relative poverty is income which is 60% below median income for the current year.
I don't have an answer as to whether benefits should cover the basics... My gut says yes, otherwise what is the point of benefits.

Benefits should cover basics - food accommodation, education and things required for education, absolutely yes.

The issue isn’t imo benefits- it’s the totally out of control rise in cost of living. It’s pushed many on basic salaries into poverty.

If the definition of poverty is a percentage below median income then surely there will alway be that same percentage in poverty?

Whats more useful to know is basic cost of living vs income.

The issue is that benefits are paid in cash and so there is no control over the priorities of what it is spent on. Though I’m sure there are higher rates of child poverty in working families though I can’t remember where I saw that.

There won't always be the same percentage in poverty due to social mobility. People move up and down between levels of income which makes the figure dynamic.

@dottydodah This is from the House of Commons Library. So absolute has a base line. Relative fluctuates depending on earnings of others.

Sorry: relative is measured against the earnings of others in a single year!

Difficult one to get really

In my area it's v expensive to live
We have the highest water and council tax rates as well as higher petrol costs.

I'm not sure about benefits meeting basic needs as I'm sure in many cases they don't if a private rent is way over the lha for that area which in our area that's a definite so benefits are having to top it up leaving people using food banks.

We now have over 3000 food banks in the Uk so that tells you a lot of people on benefits can't meet the basics however there are also a lot of people that don't put the money in the right places in the first place,choosing luxuries over necessity

I also see a lot of that in my area

Fillers,nails,hair,the pub and expensive take aways but kids walking around with holes in their shoes etc

It depends. We live on dh's small wage topped up with UC and I don't think we are doing too badly but we haven't been on holiday for about 20 years and I worry about will happen if one of our very old cars goes wrong. However our housing costs are low as the house comes with dh job which helps (although if he loses that, we are stuffed) and our children were all born before the 2 child benefit restrictions came in which helps as well. I think we are probably in relative poverty because I think we are fairly average in terms of money but this is what I have been used to since I've been an adult really and a lot of people think their lives are fairly average I think. I know that there are a lot of things that for example my bil and sil do that they think is normal and I think is something only incredibly rich people do, like several after school activities for their dc or turning the heating on in May (we turn ours on when it gets down to 13 degrees in the house and it goes off at the beginning of march).

I would think people who can't afford to have a fridge or a washing machine are living in absolute poverty or people who need to use a food bank long term (not just when moving from tax credits to universal credit or for a temporary loss of benefits). Most people I know who are struggling like that though either have huge debts or their partner is struggling with an expensive addiction, so it's still extremely difficult but it's not a problem with a lack of money coming in, it's just it goes out again before they can spend any on food, rent etc.

The problem with defining poverty as a percentage of median income is that if middle-earning people get a pay rise, it plunges more people in to poverty even though nothing in their circumstances may have changed. It's nonsense.

In any event Gordon Brown 'cured' child poverty. He gave lots of big speeches proclaiming the fact. In truth, what he did was give certain people relatively modest rises in benefits which moved them across an arbitary income line to just the other side. In truth, no-one's life chances were changed, as today's report demonstrates.

It is all relative, and almost no children in the UK will be in actual poverty.

Parental mismanagement of money is the biggest issue and I don't believe money should be given in cash. They need food vouchers (in their name) which can't be used for alcohol or tobacco, rent should be paid straight to landlords, vouchers to be given for utilities.

The issue is not with benefits, it is with the errant spending of the claimants.

In truth left wing politicians and poverty campaigners don't have any incentive to cure poverty or they'd be out of a job. We're paying out record amounts in benefts. We've had several threads recently about people taking home over 4 grand a month in benefits. Those people have very skewed incentives when it comes to working and 'growing the cake' rather than endlessly finding new ways to redistribute it.

Poverty and social mobility are a generational thing. What changes outcomes is education. Decent schools, especially the ones run by people like Katharine Birbalsingh. But her solutions are hated by the left because they actually change people's life chances and prospects of living in poverty by creating high expectations rather than creating a society of competing victimhoods.

As a leftie I do want to see poverty solved and I do believe in decent all round education for children , including free university or technical / trades training

Hope that helps you understand the left position because you clearly don't

Maybe we should just have workhouses instead with a diet of gruel?

I'm inclined to agree. At the end of the day, some people have to be below the median, that's why it's a median. While nobody wants to see kids suffer, most of it will be down to the parent's poor life choices.

We all know of people picking up their fags and lottery tickets on the way to the food bank. That's not real poverty. I have sympathy for the kids, but not the parents.

Some of it is about stats. The increase in state pension has lifted many pensioners out of poverty. This is a good thing. However, it has raised the median income which puts other groups into poverty, even where their circumstances remain the same as before. On the other hand Inflation has also made it much harder for everyone to make ends meet.

Some people don't spend wisely but our economy relies on people, including the poorest, spending money on things they don't need. The poorest suburbs of my home city are full of nail salons, betting shops and takeaways. These business and the jobs they create and taxes they pay wouldn't exist if everyone in poverty saved up their money, or bought nutritious food at Sainsbury. The government has no real incentive to help people stop spending in the way they do, even if children suffer as a result.

We cannot make uni free when 350,000 go every year. Who can afford this and why should the poorest pay for others to go to uni? The grad tax is fairer.

The definition of absolute poverty is stupid.

Relative poverty is when you are poorer than most other people. If you live in a rich country you are probably still ok and have what you need.

Absolute poverty is the same anywhere and its where you can't afford the basics - decent food, a safe roof over your head, essential health care, weather appropriate clothing, basic education & materials for children, nappies etc.

I'd also agree that in the uk there will not be 25% of children in true relative poverty.

We have masses of safety nets that prevent this - from free school meals, to child benefit & child elements of UC.

The only people getting 4 grand a month in UC will be getting it for childcare and rent, therefore they are ALREADY working. Unemployed single mothers would get a fraction of this. I have a friend who is looking for work currently so has no childcare costs. She gets £1400 a month for herself and two children. Her rent is almost £1000 so she has to pay all the bills, food, clothes, and other living expenses on £100 a week after rent. That is real poverty.

There are definitely some children loving in true poverty, but these are usually those for whom the safety net doesn't exist - such as those who are waiting on an immigration decision and have no recourse to public funds, can't work (apart from exploited low paid cash in hand), living in the garage of a landlord exploiting their vulnerability. I have a few families I work with as a health professional who literally cannot afford the basics. They cannot afford to clothe their children, eat very basic foods, children and adults both extremely thin. They get given a small amount of food vouchers for a specific supermarket, which they sometimes can't afford to get the bus to. My children's clothes and shoes which have grown out of are given to them via their support worker (to preserve dignity) and that's all they wear.

I don't smoke, drink, gamble, get my hair or nails done. I can't work for MH reasons, yet don't qualify for any form of disability benefits. My rent isn't in arrears.

Why should I have to have be given vouchers? Can I use them online? What about in the corner shop when it's the only one I can get to? Why should the staff in the shops know I'm on benefits? What about if I manage to budget a bit better, am i allowed a coffee when I'm out?

Ffs

And vouchers wouldn't enable someone to pay the gap between the housing costs element of their benefits and their actual rent (£400 in a case I dealt with this week), to pay bus fares or a taxi to get to medical appointments, to fix their washing machine when it breaks or any of a myriad of other things that crop up in people's lives.