Is there such a thing as "severe poverty" in the UK?

[Niceguy2]

I'm being serious. I'm not talking about poor. Obviously there are plenty of people who either are poor or think they are. But I mean severe poverty.

I just read the Save the Children child poverty report which claims that 1.6million children live in severe poverty. And they define "severe poverty" as a family of 1 child who has an income of less than £7000 (or 2 kids with income < £12k).

But a quick tot up of benefits tells me that a family with 1 child would get the following each year:

Income Support £3412
Tax Credits £2850
Child Benefit £1055
Total 7317

And that's before you take into account housing benefit, council tax, free school dinners etc etc. So to me, no UK family should fall into that definition.

Then the report goes on to say they say someone is living in poverty if basic necessities are not met such as not "having enough shoes", not being able to pay for "home contents insurance" or children missing out on "having friends round" or "school trips".

When I hear "poverty" I think of children living in the streets with no food, not being unable to go on a school trip!

So given all that, is there such a thing as severe poverty in the UK? Or is it as I suspect that some families just can't manage their money?

I'm not trying to argue that £7k is a lot of money. I'm just saying that if that's the definition and the state gives you more, then surely there isn't such a thing?

A lot of people would say I grew up in poverty, my biological father left my Mum in a vast amount of debt and vanished. Our clothes were brought by the church, we had food but not everyday, we moved from place to place becuase we couldn't affort rent, we had no material treats, tv's, toys ect, we missed school becuase we didn't have anything to take for packed lunch. We had a rich childhood in other ways though, lots of fond memories and a very strong bond between parents and siblings.

poverty is relative, so a tribesman in a rainforest who has no mod-cons will not be poor, and will not feel poor provided that the people around him have roughly the same amount of resources as him.
Same goes for countries with good social policies.

Now, if you have country like the UK which has a HUUUUUUUUUGE rich-poor divide, then a person can be poor even though they live in a developed country.
One definition of poverty is being too poor to live by the social norms of your society. That might be being able to afford a pub lunch once in a while, owning a mobile or what have you. Things that everybody can do, and are expected to do, to be fully integrated into society.
There are lots of people who are too poor to do this. This makes them a disenfranchised group, they are unable to participate in social norms, the crime rate might increase because they are not invested in society.

Another, poorer country elsewhere, might not have the same crime rate because people are more equal. America is a perfect case in point.

I mean, American is a perfect example of a filthy rich society which has a lot of ghettoed poverty.
People also forget that in rich countries goods, especially food, are more expensive. Companies like Tesco monopolize the food market, whereas in developing countries there will be a much wider informal food market, lots of barter, home grown etc.
You can be very poor in a rich country if you can't afford food.

Relative poverty, not absolute poverty, is what matters. If a child's family is so poor that his/her experience of life is going to be severely curtailed in comparison with the experience of life of the majority of the population, the chances for that child of growing up to fulfill his/her physical and mental potential within the society he/she inhabits are very low indeed.

Absolutely agree.

equally SaF - you may not be able to get out of being a homeowner. We certainly couldn't, and exH can't now either, the problems that need fixing in the house (including a wet - no not damp - actually wet! - bathroom wall) have got progessively worse and no-one has wanted to touch it. The only way out in that situation is repossession, in which case you will have to wait until you are actually kicked out (and are homeless) before you will be homed.

Funny that no one ever asks Sir Fred Goodwin to justify the money he gets from the tax payer nor what he spends his money on.

TSC - there is a wealth of difference between a caring parent/s making the best of it and loving their kids, and the neglect others face. Your kids will be fine and they will be proud of what you did when they raise their own families.

bonsoir

I almost agree with you .But think there is some leaway in your statement
If a child's family is so poor that his/her experience of life is going to be severely curtailed in comparison with the experience of life of the majority of the population, the chances for that child of growing up to fulfill his/her physical and mental potential within the society he/she inhabits are very low indeed.

I think a lot of the above can be down to parents attitudes to.

Yes we would be classed as living in poverty but I go out of my way to make sure that dc experaince as much as possiable.I am fortunate to live witihn travelling distance of London and try to make sure the dc experiance all that it offers for free .Also local museums as well .

but you can't get housing benefit if you own a house! That's why exH is still stuck in a 3 bedroom terrace he doesn't need! He can't just move out as he'll get no help with his rent.

I remember seeing a programme in which a teenager was caring for her mother in a room in a hostel. Mum was dying of cancer. Beside herself with worry about what was to happen to daughter when she died (in a few months)

I don't understand why it is important to dismiss peoples experiences of poverty in the UK because there is worse in another country

well that's not what we were told on several occasions. (2005, 2008 and last year).

exH had a mortgage and a property in his name and that was that. They didn't want to know, CAB, Welfare Rights and the council all said the same thing.

we were upfront too! Honestly. Problem was it was "suitable" (bathroom wall and other problems aside) The bathroom was an odd one - I think the water "flow" over the wal was so great that actually it never really got damp - was most odd . It was deemed to be suitable for living in, and it was exH's house, so nothing they could do for him.

They did suggest (in 2009 - different circumstances) that if I was really not wanting him to be coming home so soon after his pyschotic episode, that I should move out with the DS's and they would pay housing benefit for me so that he could return home............but they wouldn't put him somewhere for the time being until I was truly comfortable with it. That was with the full weight and support of the CMHT and pyschiatric hospital behind us! (we turned them down on that offer - it had been a hard enough 3 weeks without then dragging my boys out of their home, and going through the hassle of moving house myself!!)