What is considered on the bread line in England?

[MrsWho]

Just wondering

newlife, I agree that having a computer may well help save money in lots of ways. But that's only one example of how really being in poverty can cost more, as I'm sure you know. Utility bills - paying by direct debit is cheapest and sometimes it's hard not to, paying by prepay and credit repayment meters are far more expensive and some people have to do it to get electricity and/or gas. Thanks to our access to credit and my kind and reasonably affluent mother, DP and I pay less beteween us for our mortgage of a small 2 bedroom house than many people even in this area of London (one of the last that used to be cheap) pay for a room, and rent for the smallest nastiest studio flat would start higher.

DP's mother does live pretty much on the breadline, state pension, widowed more than 20 years ago, council flat, most expensive ways of paying her bills etc, and little access to ways of saving money on all the essntials.

Yes, yes! And online billing often gets you a reduction, and so on...

My rent has often been more than friends' mortgage.

"computer access appears to have become a 'norm', therefore to be without it can be classed as some as deprivation."
Does it count if you went for 11 years of your adult life without and only got it last month??? Lol...don't bother answering!

"The 'free school meals' posse around my way have more holidays and Sky TV than we do...."
That's probablt because they're on credit or have a gazillion loans. I know i'm going to regret telling people this, but due to various circumstances my family has been on benefits for a long time, so i am entitled to free school meals, but i certainly can't afford a holiday - not even on Sun! And we have not got Sky, although when our video recorder broke we invested in freeview box with hard drive.

We feel trapped into not working as we have done the calculations and with any jobs we could do, we would not only have less money coming in, but would also have to pay for...prescriptions, eyecare, dentalcare, lunch outta the house (unless close enuff to come home), school meals, rent/mortgage, tax...the list goes on. Oh, and insurance as we would be outta the house more...and i'm not even started on childcare!!!!

m21 - are you sure you're not me?? lol. at 18 I tried to sign on as well was living with DH at the time (DP) he was earning £150 p/m I think, we were paying rent of £60 p/w DH was smoking etc. I moved in with savings and within 2 months they'd gone. i'd worked from 18 went to college. they said I was entitled to nothing - apparently i'd not paid enopugh NICO's within the years 97-98 - well no I wouldn't have I was at F*ing school at the time. in the next que was a lady who didn't utter a word of english and was being given everything - I felt v v annoyed. like you I vowed NEVER to go on benifits out of principle. (we do ahve TC's now thou but that's all we'll ever have) - hopefully.

re the computer thing. it's DH's one luxury along wiht sky. but we alwasy shop about for the cheapest - he normally finds the connection he wants but I always tell him what he can and can't have - bit of a scrooge really as he earns it! lol. but as I say that and the sky are our two things - sky I could do without but I promised it to DH when he got his promotion.

only other thing he has the best of is shoes - i'm not bothered about mine, but DH has to ahve good boots for work, and we've both agreed DS will be having clarks until we can no longer afford them. this is a proprity, but if it can to new shoes or the net - we'd have the shoes. definatly the proprites.

I think that's the difference between us and some others - wemake choices instead of trying to have it all!
As for not going on benefits as a matter of principle, my dh and i swallow our pride and queue up with the drunks and drug-abusers cos if we didn't our kids would suffer.

If I had vowed to never go on benefits because of 'principle', my children would have starved to death. That's not principle, that is hubris.

Your comment about the lady who didn't speak English disgusts me.

It's not the fault of any other benefit claimants that benefits were cut back both by NI contributions requirements and on a level of means testing which creates a poverty trap (ie that even people on very low wages lose benefits and also important things to many like free prescriptions). As a matter of principle and as now a tax payer, I want those who need them to get the benefits they're entitled to, and my money to help to reduce the number of children brought up below the breadline/in poverty. I don't even mind if some of that money goes on tv or computers, really. Who am I to judge?

mrswho-the school uniform grants have been done away with this year.

alot of people have found themselves on the breadline due to having to pay back tax credits overpayments.and they still havent sorted the tax credits system,i had to phone up 5 times to check what to put on my renweal form,and they still got it wrong.

the oxfam article is depressing, chilling and seems so out of place in 2007...but is clearly painting a true picture....

My kids get free dinners, and I certainly cannot afford even a weekend away somewhere, nevermind several holidays and other single parens i know are the same.

I don't consider myself to be on the breadline.

A few years ago though xp was in a very low paid job and for some reason we were told we were about £2 above the cut off for Family Credit as it was called then.
Xp used to pick up about £700 a month and our mortgage was £450, the rest had to pay bills and feed and clothe 2 adults and 2 kids. I have no clue how we ever managed, well we didn't, the house got repossessed. I remember the neighbours used to lend us a tenner here and there and drop a pack of nappies on the dor step when they did their weekly shop, and my mum used to do a regular food shop for us too.

As it is now, yep I struggle sometimes, but can afford the very odd treat like a take away or a new top from Primark. You learn to live within your means and accept it.

I do know people though who's attitude is that because I am on benefits I shouldn't have a computer, mobile, new clothes or anything, and that if i buy my kids anything when it isn't their birthdays they are spoilt.
All i'd say to them is 'wanna swap then' ?

Oh i am lucky enough to still get a uniform rant, as a local charity supplies them. It's a godsend as i couldn't afford to buy them the stuff they need otherwise.

It's quite a political issue though isn't it? The left and Oxfam etc always go by relative poverty, the jealousy issue -if Ms Teacher earns £25k a year it's not fair that the school cleaners are on £X an hour. Also they did a survey of what people in the UK think about poverty it says - is that really agood way to do it - let the idiot populace decide if they're poor? If asked htey're bound to say they want more money, who wouldn't and what if they can't buy the bread because they bought the ciggies? The feckless poor will always be with us.

What should poverty be? Not being able to afford to clothe, feed and house yourself seems a good enough definition. As state benefits just about allow that there is probably argument that very few people are actually in poverty in the UK and certainly not 15m.

From the link...."What kinds of poverty are people living in?
One recent survey showed that about 6.5 million adults go without essential clothing, such as a warm waterproof coat, because of lack of money.

Over 10.5 million people live in financial insecurity: they can?t afford to save, insure their house contents, or spend even small amounts on themselves. About 9.5 million can?t afford adequate housing ? heated, free from damp, and in a decent state of decoration. The crucial factor about these findings is that they are based on a survey of what the general population sees as necessities.2

We also know what a dark shadow poverty casts, particularly over children?s lives and their futures. Eighteen per cent of children go without two or more items that the majority of the population says are necessities, such as adequate clothing, toys, or three meals a day.3

One in five non-working families on low or moderate incomes reported being unable to afford some basic food items on most days in 2000.4

Children from poor homes are more likely to die as a baby or a child, and have lower life expectancy overall. They also have a greater likelihood of bad health, a greater risk of unemployment, and a lower chance of high educational achievement.5

But xenia, why should there be such a massive divide between haves and have nots? I accept that if one has worked hard for one's money and is wealthy then one has the right to enjoy that wealth. However, why should it be that one man can be so ridiculously wealthy to the point that it affects the degree of poverty that a feckless pauper will experience.

if prices were not pushed up then getting out of poverty would not be as unttainable or as unpleasant surely. Being poor would be about having less but it wouldn't be about having nothing for quite so many people.

There are people who aren't feckless, who do work as hard as a city lawyer (for example) who leaves for work at 6am and returns home just before midnight, who still - despite great effort - will never buy their own home or have a holiday abroad.

Surely input should equal some sort of level reward?

Although I can appreciate what you say about idiots and the feckless - they do exist I suppose - I think you are failing to appreciate the huge social issues that can place a person below the bottom rung of the ladder.

And yes, poor people will always consider themselves deserved of more money, even if they did just spend their last benefit cheque on fags and a take out but so will wealthy people always resent purely income based tax. We are all greedy and out for ourselves to some degree. Since there isn't enough to go round, who do you believe should start sharing first?

If you're left wing the main criticism of Labour people should bring is that they have done nothing about the research they have that shows unhappiness is largely because of the gap between rich and poor which is quite high here. It's is why for many of us the UK is a great country to be in with lots of opportunities and incentives to work. Labour are too scared to do much about it. You would need to get back up to the 60% + taxes my NHS consultant father was paying under the old punitive labour regime in the 1960s or 70s with another 15% on top for investment income. In those days when some pop stars' top rate was 99% they started leaving the country.

If you're not left wing then you don't think jealousy of the poor is an issue, you nkow that the lower taxes are the higher the tax take and the more the poor benefit etc. When our highest tax rate went down to 40% tax revenues jumped.

I can think of some pop stars who I wouldn't mind leaving the country.

It is not resolvable because no Government will ever take the decisions that will result in lessening the gap.

But they deliberately have abroad in countries like Scandinavia where people are happier because the rich and poor gap is closer. It was only when Labour stole tory policies Kinnock get elected when they ditched the taxing the rich until the pips squeaked, aiming to ensure no one could leave money so we all start with a clean slate etc

if we determined really no one needs say more than 2 x the average wage of £20k or whatever or more than say £50k a year and then tax punitively the balance over that at rates from 40% up to say 65% or even 80% for investment income then you would close the gap. House prices would fall. Some people would leave the country.

The press is full of this at the moment as some business tax rates are 10% which is why parts of the economy are doing so well - great I'd say but not great others who are into the close the gap, etc.

I am on 8k a yr and i am a single parent. I do get tax credits and quite alot of maintence but my mortgage is 700per month. childcare is 300 per month.Some months i dont pay bills and i spend about 10/20 per week on food. I have a small amount of debt on my credit card which i am paying off slowly. I have a new credit card which is interest free but is for true emergencies and no for clothes etc. I dont buy takeaways or convience food apart from the odd can of soup or spaghetti hoops. Somehow we manage. I buy all of our clothes once a yr from primark and i research before i buy anything.

This is all because the x left and i had to pay him off and remortgage my house by 18 times my salary to keep a roof over our head.

It seems i am feeling bitter as its a year today. I have managed a year.

jelly. {{{{hugs}}}

Thanks, I really felt fine but now feel like crying. He is still such a jerk.

Interesting that Xenia is outlining how our government should pursue socialist policies -I wish! - and I remember thinking "go on then" re Phil Collins' threat to leave the country - what an ego to think that you're important enough to make that threat. I wish Labour had addressed private rents and crazy house prices and the two are related back in 1997 when they came to power. I'm well above the breadline myself now but there are far too many people who are kept there by costs of essentials which rise far faster than thheir income will.

It doesn't work. When we had rent controls we had virtually no private rented sector homes to rent. Now we don't control rents there is property to rent. To do it properly you wouldn't worry about that and have a massive public sector council house building programme and cradle to grave accommodation/care package at little cost (except tax) but again I doubt it would work. One way Labour has moved ahead in socialist terms I suppose is that 1 jub in 3 is now in the public sector I think with much better pensions those of us in the private sector pay for, having raided our funds to fund it in a sense and in some equality legislation and aims to encourage women to work full time - the latter I can applaud, all the rest is no help. The trouble is those of the left have no one to vote for and those of the right don't either. There's just a muddy middle ground with little difference between either side.

I'm a council worker and I actually pay contributrions which are currently 6% but will soon increase slightly. Plus I'm a tax payer and pay as much for other public sector provision as tax payers whose earnings are private sector, possibly more - not paying my council tax or other tax and council charges is a sacking offence. 20% of London's workforce works in public services. Far too many of my colleagues don't feel that they can afford to be in the pension scheme and will get no publicly funded pension (other than the state one) as a result - this is often because of housing costs. It's often low paid and part time workers who are disproportionately affected. Public service workers in work and in retirement/or after losing their jobs to ill health etc are pretty vulnerable to being or ending up on the breadline, and housing costs are a big part of that problem.

Far too many women in the UK don't make pension contributions and suffer, many many more than men and sadly this government has hugely messed pensions up. They've even said they will give pensioners a guaranteed income which means Mr X who saves in effect is penalised where Mr Y who always drank away all his spare money gets his lack of pension topped up.

I consider us poor. DH earns £27k, our rent is £650 and we have £200 left at the end of the month for food, clothes, dinner money. Sometimes I wonder if we would be better off on a lower income with free school meals and tax credits.

Only if you don't mind having a partner, 3 kids, and trying to find a place to rent for £403 a month. That's the sit i'm in at the moment. Only places i can afford are either two bedrooms or in the worst parts of town.