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?

all sources were very clear that as he (well "we" the first 2 times, which was actually more than once within each year as we explored different avenues) had suitable housing, and he owned it there was absolutely no way he could claim housing benefit.

The only way they would have done it is we'd actually got the eviction notice from the mortgage company, until that time it was a no go.

probably SAF. I think the general rule is "you have a house - go and live in it, come back to us when you are no longer able to live there" (ie you're evicted or you've eventually sold it).

guess it goes to show though how the system isn't cut and dried, and if you have low literacy levels, and don't know where to turn for help (or can't afford to get to the places that help can apparently be found!), you could end up stuck in a situation.

A generation or more ago there was greater poverty, kids without shoes, severe overcrowding, poor education that many had to leave at 14.

And yet many of that generation and that background were driven on to become very successful indeed, Alan sugar, many of our parents.

Today educational opportunities are far greater, social mobility increased. I'd suggest the difference is simply that the poverty for many today simply isn't bad enough to spur them on. I would never want a return to that, no one would. But I do think there is a lack of " hunger" for many today.

Just had a looked at the CAB website it says

"f you have two homes or you are temporarily away from home, you may be able to get Housing Benefit, depending on the circumstances." - obviously our circumstances didn't meet the "right circumstances definition" .

Jogon - that lack of "hunger" - or aspirration is a part of poverty!

Baroque - wasn't for thousands a generation ago and still isn't for many today.

Some people get up and grab life by the bollocks regardless of circumstances and some don't.

You can't blame lack of dosh for everything. being poor doesn't stop you doing local volunteer work that you can cycle or walk to. It doesn't stop you knocking on doors to find work or setting up a local cleaning round. it doesn't stop you leafletting or phoning local businesses.

My parents were poor, dirt poor.No qualifications, out of school at 14 , moved 500 miles to find work, went to night school , now minted.

Inflation in property and 'starting out' at a time when housing and living costs were more in line with income. There was also social housing.

There was incredible social mobility in that generation - working class council estate to multiple property owning isn't that unusual. It coincided with the UK's biggest investment in the public sector.

Won't continue with the carefully targeted cuts eg EMA, tuition fees of the current administration.

Sure it's all been said but I still get steaming angry that we, having started to buy our home after years of scraping by will get nothing whilst I'm out of work - as i am at the moment, dh working p/t, but if we had sat on our arses and stayed as council tenants we would be getting help with rent - how is that fair.

swallowedafly.

Yes, some of it was house prices ( which is the same for my generation) but most of it was working 2 or 3 jobs, saving, investing, working, saving, going without and working.

At a time when housing costs were more in line with income, combined with high interest rates so that savings quickly grew in value.

The post-war generations also benefited massively from improvements in all areas of education, especially for girls.

1,000's weren't so lucky though Jogon - you know that don't you???? or obviously you don't....

My parents were one of those lucky group as well, they earned enough to be able to afford to move south, hoping for "better job prospects" for my brother and I >. They left behind many others that had no means to do that (there were no jobs! to work 2 or 3 jobs, certainly no extra cash to invest, and they were already going without. Some simply didn't have the apsirations and the background to be able to do it.

The poverty trap is very real and alive in the UK today - as it always has been.

Of course you could argue that many of those living in "poverty" a generation or 2 again weren't really living in poverty, I mean they'll have had electricity, and running water, maybe only an outside toilet, but it would have been a "toilet" as we know it (we had an outside loo when I was little ), they had free education, free healthcare, the welfare state was already in place...........of course rewind another couple of generations...............

Hey it must be all bull shit - there was no poverty in our parents generation

I'm not doubting your parents worked very. very hard btw.

My point is more than peoples' lives happen in particular economic, political and historical circumstances that can't be ignored.

For example, my grandparents worked all the hours sent - at Billingsgate fish market, cleaning and chicken factory - from the ages of 14 to death basically. They caught the end of the Victorian/Edwardian times, so opportunities and rewards were much, much fewer than those born a couple of generations later.

I know, they were terribly lucky to be brought up in two up two downs with 6 sibs and 7 sibs. Two of whom died as infants.

Even luckier to have been dragged out of school by their parentsleft school at 14.

I suppose the REAL bit of luck was when they packed a suitcase each and got on a bus to take then 500 miles from anyone and anything they'd ever known to get work. Where they lived in one rented room for five years working in factories all day and going to night school three nights a week.

I'll remind them of how lucky they were, thanks.

So best not to try, eh?

None of what you say is an excuse not to try.

Far too many people accept their lives for what it is without any gumption to change. And one of those reasons is that it is easier to do nothing and live the same lifestyle( or better) you'd get through doing a minimum wage job.

The real reason previous generations got on their bikes was because there was no welfare state willing to give them fag money and a laptop.

It's not rocket science to see that if there is no incentive to get a job, you won't bother.

There is no stigma attached to a life on welfare anymore either in many quarters.

'my dad is from that generation and he really does feel lucky and recognise all of this and how hard it is for kids to get started now.'

My father is, too, swallowed. He's 75. He realises that times now are not the same, things are not the same. Imagine that, things not being teh same as they were in the mid-1950s when he was a young man?