SIGN UP

Tower Hamlets worst for child poverty?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 14:45 Wed 11th Jan 2012 | News
16 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16483257

How is it that in today's Britain any child can be classed as living in poverty?

And how is it that some areas are worst than others, surely no matter where one lives, everyone is is eligible for the same state help?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14014817

/// Plans for a maximum limit on the amount of benefits one family can claim a year from 2013 - of about £26,000 - were announced at the Conservative conference last October. ///

/// It is estimated the £500-a-week cap, which would apply to the combined income from benefits such as jobseekers allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, could result in about 50,000 families being about £93 a week worse off. ///

£500 per week that's not a bad weekly income, by any stretch of imagination.

Answers

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Can you provide details of the weekly out-goings of these people?
tower hamlets - all the cost of big city living without the glamour.
Question Author
jackthehat

/// Can you provide details of the weekly out-goings of these people? ///

In terms of what?

Size of TV screen purchased?

Latest smart phone?

Style of trainers?

Year of car?

How many cigarettes a week bought?

Trips to the Bookies?

Amount of scratch cards purchased?

The choice of Lager, Cider, Whisky, Vodka?

Amount of overdraft on credit card?

Holidays abroad?

If non of these, then surely £500 is enough for Food, Fuel, and Clothing and all other necessary outgoings?
By far, the largest outgoings will be rent and council tax.

If the Local Authority caps the amount of 'rent' it will pay on behalf of a claimant, which particular scenario do you envisage?

a) The Landlord will say, "No. That's quite alright...you continue to live in my property and I'll be happy to accept a below-the-market rental for it."
b) The Landlord will say, "Not my problem...you'll have to make up the shortfall in cash yourself."
c) The Landlord will say, "Sling your hook, I shall let this property out, privately, at full market rental."
d) put the landlord against a wall and shoot him!
aog this is paper talk if people truly believe that all those on benefit can just claim this amount of money they are in for a big shock if they ever try

ask anyone who has come out of work or who is on benefit they will give you a better idea
and on the radio it said manchester central was second in the country this includes moss side and ancoats
You are correct aog, if you have a roof over your head, heat, clothing, food and water then you are not in poverty. Nobody should be recieving huge amounts of housing benefit just because they want to live in a certain area. The rest of us who work have to live where we can afford, the same should apply to benefit claiments. Also if anyone on benefits can afford computers, cars, holidays, large screen tvs etc then they are obviously getting too much.
I sometimes think it was a bad day when the workhouses were abolished. There'd be no fripperies like holidays, cars, or computers, for the inmates in them.
The same utter rubbish being spouted as usual I see.
Take a slightly different scenario- take rural poverty- usually caused because the house rental prices for the pretty villages are now extortionate thanks to escape to the country yuppies who have displaced people who were born and bred there. In the village I live in there is no bus service, therefore anyone looking for work who lives there really HAS to have a car otherwise it's just not viable to get anywhere. Add these two things together and you have the local council being prepared to pay £91 per week for a cottage I let when I can actually get in excess of £150 pw for it privately, and someone who is living in it who has to own a car. If that person is made redundant then they have a massive shortfall to catch up and the choice between trying to do so or uprooting their kids from a vilage school and environment and taking them to live on the one of the ex authority estates which are frankly like Beirut. Not everyone on benefits with a car is a workshy git trying to spnge off the state, some people just find themselves in really dure straits through no fault of their own- and penalising them by cutting their housing benefit really will just make matters worse by creating ghettos from which some people will never escape.
The problem with so-called “Child Poverty” is it is a comparative measure and not absolute.

When I was at school, I understood someone living in “poverty” to be unable to afford the basic necessities of life: shelter, food, water. Today in the UK “Child Poverty” is said to be suffered by those children living in households with an income below 60% of the median average income (after housing costs). Until quite recently average income has been rising at a much higher rate than the cost of living. This means that the “poverty line” said to be experienced by poorer families has been steadily increasing with the result that those now allegedly “in poverty” (definition: neediness, destitution, privation) are nothing of the sort. Many of them suffer no material deprivation to speak of and, in many cases their disposable income is often greater than those who are not so “poverty stricken”.

The previous government suggested that poverty should no longer be defined as not having the basic necessities of life, but more as not having what everybody else has got. And that’s why so many children are said to be living “in poverty”.
every time i read one of these posts i think what a load of f****** crap, for every person in the paper that gets a good butty there are 100's if not 1000's that get peanuts

the ones that get peanuts do not make good stories for the press
Question Author
/// the ones that get peanuts do not make good stories for the press ///

Isn't that what this thread is all about?

Those living in child poverty are the one's supposedly living off peanuts.
>> £500 per week that's not a bad weekly income, by any stretch of imagination. <<


i would love to win £500 on the lottery aog it is the only way i would see that kind of money

i know of a family who would love that kind of money


just before christmas they could smell gas , gas board came out and did not just cut the fire off they cut off all her gas so she had no cooker.

not sure who supplied it but she ended up with a tiny little electric blow heater
and a two ring electric for cooking meals

lucky for her we have not had the freezing weather because that is her only heat for a three bedroomed house

do you honestly think she gets anywhere near £500 ?
in your header

>> surely no matter where one lives, everyone is is eligible for the same state help? <<

it seems some people can get it a lot easier than others
Question Author
Any ideas why this would be?

I would hazard a guess that asylum seekers and other immigrants into this country, have an expert provided who is skilled at arranging that they get the maximum benefits due to them.

Whereas the ordinary Jill or Joe have to approach the minefield of the benefits system all on their own.

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Tower Hamlets worst for child poverty?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.