An Unexpected Journey For Puss
ChatterBank1 min ago
Child poverty
25 Answers
According to the Media, 200,000 more children in the UK were classed as being in poverty last year. Does anyone know of a child in poverty, & what criteria is applied to classify them as such?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by amsterdammer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Poverty in the UK is different than poverty in say Africa. I do know people with low incomes who have children. They do have luxuries though like mobile phones and televisions and sometimes cars.
The criteria is as follows:
"The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) household income in that year.
The latest year for which data is available is 2005/06. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth �108 per week for single adult with no dependent children; �186 per week for a couple with no dependent children; �182 per week for a single adult with two children under the age of 14; and �260 per week for a couple with two children under the age of 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment."
The criteria is as follows:
"The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) household income in that year.
The latest year for which data is available is 2005/06. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth �108 per week for single adult with no dependent children; �186 per week for a couple with no dependent children; �182 per week for a single adult with two children under the age of 14; and �260 per week for a couple with two children under the age of 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment."
I find this hard to understand as going by what is classed as poverty in this country, myself and my son are in poverty. I am a single mum with one child and i am on income support.
I do not class myself as being in poverty, although i do not have very much money i can afford food for us both, i can pay the bills, although do struggle with this sometimes! I can buy secondhand clothes. I do have a tv, it is very old and i bought it before i had my son. I do not have a car as i had to sell this when my son was 2yrs old because i couldnt afford to run it. I do have a bike though, and now prefer it to a car.
The laptop i am using is secondhand and was actually a present from my Grandad as well as the internet connection, i would not have either if he had not bought it for us.
I am very careful with my money and i am unable to get any credit, which is a really good thing as the cash i have each week is all i have.
We are definately not in poverty, i see poverty as not being able to feed and clothe yourself and your children. In this country i think it could maybe have more to do with poor parenting skills and lack of education that cause the children to be in poverty.
I think i am very lucky to be able to stay at home with my son while he is young and be supported to do this. Children do not need a lot of money and luxuries, just a lot of love and time. I am rich because i have my gorgeous son and a loving family.
I do not class myself as being in poverty, although i do not have very much money i can afford food for us both, i can pay the bills, although do struggle with this sometimes! I can buy secondhand clothes. I do have a tv, it is very old and i bought it before i had my son. I do not have a car as i had to sell this when my son was 2yrs old because i couldnt afford to run it. I do have a bike though, and now prefer it to a car.
The laptop i am using is secondhand and was actually a present from my Grandad as well as the internet connection, i would not have either if he had not bought it for us.
I am very careful with my money and i am unable to get any credit, which is a really good thing as the cash i have each week is all i have.
We are definately not in poverty, i see poverty as not being able to feed and clothe yourself and your children. In this country i think it could maybe have more to do with poor parenting skills and lack of education that cause the children to be in poverty.
I think i am very lucky to be able to stay at home with my son while he is young and be supported to do this. Children do not need a lot of money and luxuries, just a lot of love and time. I am rich because i have my gorgeous son and a loving family.
The difficulty with these measures is, as Gromit has identified, poverty is defined by referring to an average income. There are various measures used and Gromit has referred to the most widely accepted. But because they all reference an �average� income (whether mean, median or mode) by definition there will always be a large proportion of the population �in poverty� regardless of how much income they have because there will always be people living on below average incomes.
Often the reason why people are in alleged poverty is their lifestyle choices. Many people choose to have children when they are not financially equipped to support them. Many choose to smoke and drink heavily (often to escape the depression of their �poverty�). Many choose to gamble away what little funds they have. Others choose to buy drugs.
Lots of people allegedly �in poverty� fall into these categories. They are not really poverty stricken. They still have all the essentials (a roof, food, drink and clothing). It�s simply that they don�t have as much money as others may have.
The post from aims1202 made interesting reading and sums up the situation. Poverty � like beauty � is often in the eyes of the beholder. Her chosen lifestyle means she does not have to work to support herself and her child. Clearly she is dependent upon others for her income. Some of these provide for her voluntarily, others involuntarily through their taxes. But this, apparently, presents no moral dilemma for her.
The question that really needs asking is who is better off? Is it aims1202, or the working couple who get no state aid and drag themselves out of bed at 6:30 each morning to get their children off to school and themselves off to work? The couple, of course, see upwards of 25% of their income forcibly removed from their salaries and some of this finds its way to the income support for aims1202.
Often the reason why people are in alleged poverty is their lifestyle choices. Many people choose to have children when they are not financially equipped to support them. Many choose to smoke and drink heavily (often to escape the depression of their �poverty�). Many choose to gamble away what little funds they have. Others choose to buy drugs.
Lots of people allegedly �in poverty� fall into these categories. They are not really poverty stricken. They still have all the essentials (a roof, food, drink and clothing). It�s simply that they don�t have as much money as others may have.
The post from aims1202 made interesting reading and sums up the situation. Poverty � like beauty � is often in the eyes of the beholder. Her chosen lifestyle means she does not have to work to support herself and her child. Clearly she is dependent upon others for her income. Some of these provide for her voluntarily, others involuntarily through their taxes. But this, apparently, presents no moral dilemma for her.
The question that really needs asking is who is better off? Is it aims1202, or the working couple who get no state aid and drag themselves out of bed at 6:30 each morning to get their children off to school and themselves off to work? The couple, of course, see upwards of 25% of their income forcibly removed from their salaries and some of this finds its way to the income support for aims1202.
I did not really choose to be in this situation, i did not know that i would be a single mum. But i am in this situation and yes i did choose to stay at home with my son because i believe it is the best thing for him. I did actually go to work part time when he was 2.5 yrs and he went to a childminder but it did not work out, i realised he was too young to be left and we were was not as happy, so i gave it up after a few months. I was no better of financially when i was working. I
t is hard being a working parent and even harder if you are single, but i do think when a couple choose for both to work when the children are very young, it is not because they have to, but because they want a certain lifestyle that needs more money.
Young children really need one parent at home with them, not to be put into the care of someone else.
Some of you may think of people on benefits as scroungers, but like many others i am just doing what is best for my child. I always worked before he was born and now he has started school i am going to work again.
New judge, Do you think that there should not be support for single parents? and that we should leave our babies/young children in childcare and go to work full time?
t is hard being a working parent and even harder if you are single, but i do think when a couple choose for both to work when the children are very young, it is not because they have to, but because they want a certain lifestyle that needs more money.
Young children really need one parent at home with them, not to be put into the care of someone else.
Some of you may think of people on benefits as scroungers, but like many others i am just doing what is best for my child. I always worked before he was born and now he has started school i am going to work again.
New judge, Do you think that there should not be support for single parents? and that we should leave our babies/young children in childcare and go to work full time?
I do have some difficulty with the level of support provided to some (not all) lone parents. In particular I do not like the idea of children being supported by taxpayers when their father is able to provide for them but chooses not to. I also do not condone very young mothers who have deliberately chosen single parenthood as a means of having housing and benefits made available to them at an age when they should be still studying or working.
The original question asked about childhood poverty. I believe that often (but again, not always) there is a strong link between this perceived poverty and the lifestyle choices of the parent(s) concerned.
I don�t know the particular circumstances which led you to be in the position in which you find yourself, and it is not proper to discuss them here. The important point that you made is that money, whilst important, is not everything. It seems that whilst you may lack funds you provide support for your son in numerous other ways. Such support is often sadly lacking from many �affluent� parents who seem to believe that they can buy their children everything.
They can�t, and the results are to be found everywhere � spoilt children who know the price of everything, the value of nothing and who believe the world revolves around them and their needs.
Hopefully your son will not turn out that way and that will be a credit to you and him. You can then both reflect upon your �poverty-stricken� days and answer the question I posed at the end of my earlier post � who is better off?
The original question asked about childhood poverty. I believe that often (but again, not always) there is a strong link between this perceived poverty and the lifestyle choices of the parent(s) concerned.
I don�t know the particular circumstances which led you to be in the position in which you find yourself, and it is not proper to discuss them here. The important point that you made is that money, whilst important, is not everything. It seems that whilst you may lack funds you provide support for your son in numerous other ways. Such support is often sadly lacking from many �affluent� parents who seem to believe that they can buy their children everything.
They can�t, and the results are to be found everywhere � spoilt children who know the price of everything, the value of nothing and who believe the world revolves around them and their needs.
Hopefully your son will not turn out that way and that will be a credit to you and him. You can then both reflect upon your �poverty-stricken� days and answer the question I posed at the end of my earlier post � who is better off?
It is very difficult to answer the question, who is better off?
It depends on may things, such as how happy you are with what you have and whether you feel money and 'things' make you happy or not.
A child can be deprived if living in a wealthy family or a family with a low income, if they do not receive the love and attention they need. I think that there is not really financial poverty in this country but there is poverty in the sense that children can be deprived of what they need.
You are right about fathers, and some mothers, they should help towards their children financially and should want to do this instead of being forced to. But more importantly they should want to be a part of their upbringing even if they are not together.
I think there are very few, if any, young people who choose to have children just so they can get benefits. The single parents i know and including myself have found themselves in that situation and are doing the best for their children. Most want to get off benefits eventually, when the children are older.
I dont think we would have a better country if we did not have state benefits. It would not mean there would be no single parents. Even single parents and some couples who work, rely on some benefits to help support them as it is impossible to survive on a low income if you are working and having to pay childcare.
I actually think there should be support for all parents on a low income so that at least one of them can stay at home with the children. There would be very few couples who would need this help, as i said before most choose to both work because of the lifestyle they want.
It depends on may things, such as how happy you are with what you have and whether you feel money and 'things' make you happy or not.
A child can be deprived if living in a wealthy family or a family with a low income, if they do not receive the love and attention they need. I think that there is not really financial poverty in this country but there is poverty in the sense that children can be deprived of what they need.
You are right about fathers, and some mothers, they should help towards their children financially and should want to do this instead of being forced to. But more importantly they should want to be a part of their upbringing even if they are not together.
I think there are very few, if any, young people who choose to have children just so they can get benefits. The single parents i know and including myself have found themselves in that situation and are doing the best for their children. Most want to get off benefits eventually, when the children are older.
I dont think we would have a better country if we did not have state benefits. It would not mean there would be no single parents. Even single parents and some couples who work, rely on some benefits to help support them as it is impossible to survive on a low income if you are working and having to pay childcare.
I actually think there should be support for all parents on a low income so that at least one of them can stay at home with the children. There would be very few couples who would need this help, as i said before most choose to both work because of the lifestyle they want.
The trouble is... what is regarded as a 'low income'?
My daughter isn't entitled to EMA (education maintenance allowance)for college because we earn over 30k a year. Her friends with parents who earn less than that get �40 per week. They are better off than her because I cannot afford to give her that amount.
It has come to the stage where the 'richer' parents are penalised, and the 'poorer' parents can afford for their children to go to college.
My daughter has had several friends had to drop out of college because their parents literally cannot afford to go without EMA. They have had to leave their studies in order to get a dead-end job instead. They cannot be right..can it?
My daughter isn't entitled to EMA (education maintenance allowance)for college because we earn over 30k a year. Her friends with parents who earn less than that get �40 per week. They are better off than her because I cannot afford to give her that amount.
It has come to the stage where the 'richer' parents are penalised, and the 'poorer' parents can afford for their children to go to college.
My daughter has had several friends had to drop out of college because their parents literally cannot afford to go without EMA. They have had to leave their studies in order to get a dead-end job instead. They cannot be right..can it?
No Pippa, it cannot.
What you illustrate is the law of unintended consequences � something that crops up a lot these days, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. In making further education more widely available the government has penalised the very people who are funding most of it � people like the parents of your daughter�s friends. They know that those very people will make considerable personal sacrifices to see that their children receive the best start possible, but sometimes even their determination cannot succeed..
There is a major problem in this country with a population becoming ever more dependent upon the State. Even among those in work huge numbers receive benefits of one kind or another. Businesses like it because it enables them to pay low wages but the taxpayer is subsidising those businesses to an alarming degree. The government likes it because it provides a subservient population whom they can control more easily by financial means.
The only people that don�t particularly like it are those who are neither rich nor poor but �comfortable�. And they are the people who form the majority. They get hammered to an enormous degree paying every form of tax imaginable (I estimate that many of them pay well over 50% of their income to the Exchequer) but qualify for none of the benefits as they are �too well off�.
This country will never prosper whilst this situation prevails.
What you illustrate is the law of unintended consequences � something that crops up a lot these days, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. In making further education more widely available the government has penalised the very people who are funding most of it � people like the parents of your daughter�s friends. They know that those very people will make considerable personal sacrifices to see that their children receive the best start possible, but sometimes even their determination cannot succeed..
There is a major problem in this country with a population becoming ever more dependent upon the State. Even among those in work huge numbers receive benefits of one kind or another. Businesses like it because it enables them to pay low wages but the taxpayer is subsidising those businesses to an alarming degree. The government likes it because it provides a subservient population whom they can control more easily by financial means.
The only people that don�t particularly like it are those who are neither rich nor poor but �comfortable�. And they are the people who form the majority. They get hammered to an enormous degree paying every form of tax imaginable (I estimate that many of them pay well over 50% of their income to the Exchequer) but qualify for none of the benefits as they are �too well off�.
This country will never prosper whilst this situation prevails.
That is exactly it, New Judge.
We have always been the 'Middle Person' neither rich nor poor, but constantly hammered because we are above a threshold.
Being too rich to be entitled to help (and I don't mean benefits as such..just the equality when it comes to education) and too poor to be able to afford a lot of luxuries.
My sister receives a lot of tax credits and they are far better off than us ~ as they were in council accomodation they bought their house cheap and without deposit. We had to save for our house, which we expected to do. They also go on 3 holidays a year.
I'm not bitter.
There is definately something wrong somewhere.
We have always been the 'Middle Person' neither rich nor poor, but constantly hammered because we are above a threshold.
Being too rich to be entitled to help (and I don't mean benefits as such..just the equality when it comes to education) and too poor to be able to afford a lot of luxuries.
My sister receives a lot of tax credits and they are far better off than us ~ as they were in council accomodation they bought their house cheap and without deposit. We had to save for our house, which we expected to do. They also go on 3 holidays a year.
I'm not bitter.
There is definately something wrong somewhere.
Pippa, what you were saying about your daughter not getting the �40 a week learning grant ,i am a bit confused.
�40 a week works out to be about �2000 for the year. Are you saying that your income is less than �2000 higher than those who do qualify? I maybe wrong but I thought your income had to be below �15000 for you to get extra help?
There has to be a cut off point and i suppose that there will be those who are just above that point and so will not qualify for any help. And those just under it will be the best off. It should be, but is it possible for it to be fair for everyone?
�40 a week works out to be about �2000 for the year. Are you saying that your income is less than �2000 higher than those who do qualify? I maybe wrong but I thought your income had to be below �15000 for you to get extra help?
There has to be a cut off point and i suppose that there will be those who are just above that point and so will not qualify for any help. And those just under it will be the best off. It should be, but is it possible for it to be fair for everyone?
I received the application for EMA just after my daughter started college.
On the first page it stated that if the income of the family was above 30k per year we would not be entitled to receive the EMA. Mind you, it is the student who receives it, not the parents.
I truly believe that as this is a payment for the student and is available, everyone should receive it. I have never found it fair that certain kids should be made to go without because of a threshold in income.
On the first page it stated that if the income of the family was above 30k per year we would not be entitled to receive the EMA. Mind you, it is the student who receives it, not the parents.
I truly believe that as this is a payment for the student and is available, everyone should receive it. I have never found it fair that certain kids should be made to go without because of a threshold in income.
Is this grant a really new thing, as i dont remember it when i was younger?
That income for qualifying seems really high to me. It does sound that its unfair to you as you are just above it. If you were to earn a few hundred pounds less in a year your daughter would get the money,right? It would be better if they gave some of the money to people like yourselves.
Maybe you'll just have to ask for a pay cut!
That income for qualifying seems really high to me. It does sound that its unfair to you as you are just above it. If you were to earn a few hundred pounds less in a year your daughter would get the money,right? It would be better if they gave some of the money to people like yourselves.
Maybe you'll just have to ask for a pay cut!
I think it started a couple of years ago.
A pay cut wouldn't help as we wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage, let alone CSA payments..but that is another thread ;o)
I seem to recall the government telling everyone that an income of over 30k per annum means that you are rich. I think the only thing rich about that is the sentiment!
A pay cut wouldn't help as we wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage, let alone CSA payments..but that is another thread ;o)
I seem to recall the government telling everyone that an income of over 30k per annum means that you are rich. I think the only thing rich about that is the sentiment!
Oh, and by the way, aims1202, I know of many, many young women whose choice it was to become pregnant to secure council accommodation and benefits. I encounter them in some of the work that I do.
Their aim, since about age 10, was to leave home as early as possible (sometimes simply because they could not "get on"). They saw the easiest way to do this was to become pregnant and deposit themselves on the doorstep of the council offices as "homeless". The door to a lifetime of benefits and free accommodation is thus opened and in they go, most of them never to come out. It is a deliberate choice. They may not have been mature enough to make an informed decision about something so important, but make it they did.
It often turns out not quite so appealing as they thought and many of them regret their choice later. That is why, rather than shower them with money and gifts the country�s policy makers should instead devise policies that illustrate to them that whilst they may be capable of becoming pregnant they are not equipped to make such far reaching decisions. If they do, life may not be quite as pleasant as they imagined.
Yes, I know there are lots of reasons why girls do this (broken homes, abusive parents etc.) but that is no reason why the likes of Mr & Mrs Pippa should pay to support them and their children for the rest of their lives, whilst struggling to provide all they�d like to for their own offspring.
Their aim, since about age 10, was to leave home as early as possible (sometimes simply because they could not "get on"). They saw the easiest way to do this was to become pregnant and deposit themselves on the doorstep of the council offices as "homeless". The door to a lifetime of benefits and free accommodation is thus opened and in they go, most of them never to come out. It is a deliberate choice. They may not have been mature enough to make an informed decision about something so important, but make it they did.
It often turns out not quite so appealing as they thought and many of them regret their choice later. That is why, rather than shower them with money and gifts the country�s policy makers should instead devise policies that illustrate to them that whilst they may be capable of becoming pregnant they are not equipped to make such far reaching decisions. If they do, life may not be quite as pleasant as they imagined.
Yes, I know there are lots of reasons why girls do this (broken homes, abusive parents etc.) but that is no reason why the likes of Mr & Mrs Pippa should pay to support them and their children for the rest of their lives, whilst struggling to provide all they�d like to for their own offspring.
So maybe instead of just moaning about it and doing nothing people like pippa should help to prevent this from happening.
Those who choose that life should be and their families too, given support early on so that they do want better for themselves. That choice comes from them having very low self esteem and not believing they can do anything else in their life. There is some help out there for parents but not for many.
It is something i have always wanted to do, help those children who need it, some of which will become as you have described. I have worked with children in the past and am now applying to volunteer for homestart, which is one charity that does gives support to parents with young children. I am also applying to become a Foster carer.
It is not because of benefits that we have these problems, but because of lack of support for parents who need it.
Those who choose that life should be and their families too, given support early on so that they do want better for themselves. That choice comes from them having very low self esteem and not believing they can do anything else in their life. There is some help out there for parents but not for many.
It is something i have always wanted to do, help those children who need it, some of which will become as you have described. I have worked with children in the past and am now applying to volunteer for homestart, which is one charity that does gives support to parents with young children. I am also applying to become a Foster carer.
It is not because of benefits that we have these problems, but because of lack of support for parents who need it.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
