Britain's Child Poverty

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ving-poor-Africa.html

Also on last night's TV news they showed free food parcels being prepared, to hand out to 21st century Britain's hungry, we also heard of parents unable to buy new shoes for their children when their old ones wore out ect.

What is going off, why are some forced into such poverty in Britain's welfare state, while we still give cash to be spent on India's navy?

[LoftyLottie]

Tend to agree with Jeza.

[mrs.chappie]

I struggle to understand how families are in poverty. If their income is low, don't they get tax credits to make it up to a living wage?

[ummmm]

Depends what you consider a living wage and what you have to pay out of that wage.

[mrs.chappie]

I don't know how the levels are set, Ummmm, I can only go on the fact that some years ago I found myself having to claim benefit (as a single person).

Can't remember the exact figures, but I do remember that the amount I was given was meagre, but would've gone up quite considerably, had I been claiming for a dependant.

OH used to work with a chap with three kids. One day he told us how much extra he and his missus got (tax credits of some description) for the kids. I nearly fell through the floor. This man had a massive grin on his face, and I could understand why.

This gave me the impression that if you have dependants, you get a lot of help.

[ummmm]

You get 'X' amount per child. I don't know how much though.

[emmie]

its complicated, but you should look at what you could get if eligible, it's mindboggling

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/index.htm

[factor-fiction]

Whilst I agree that some children are undernourished I find it extremely difficult to believe that this is unavoidable. As I teacher I knew children who were supposed to be from the poorest families- and some didn't have a healthy diet, ripped uniforms or wore the same shirt 5 days a week- but in most cases they had a mobile phone (often better than mine), they often turned up at school with a can of red bull or coke and crisps/chocolate for breakfast, some had flashy trainers and some had dogs. Some children smoked. The priorities seemed completely wrong.

With child benefit, tax credits and welfare benefits i would be very interested to see the breakdown of income and expenditure for one of the families of hungry children.

Of course if the child is genuinely going hungry then help should be given, even if the parents are at fault, but there should be strings attached and/or some incentive to get priorities right.

[emmie]

it's an emotive issue, makes good headlines in the papers, but i don't believe there is the level they are talking about. If anyone cares or has the time to look at the link i added the raft of benefits are quite astonishing.

[factor-fiction]

Thanks em10. I agree that the benefits available to those in the know is mind boggling. In addition to child benefit (which on its own is far more than is needed to feed a child healthily, especially if they get free school meals) there are the other benefits listed there.
For example, for a working family: http://www.hmrc.gov.u...ork-no-childcosts.htm

Can anyone provide a link that shows the income and expenditure of a family that is forced to make their children go hungry?

[emmie]

I am sure there are children who do go hungry, i am not convinced it's because the parents can't provide for them. Neglect is also a big issue here, and those children may be under the radar of social services or someone who could help them and their families.

[factor-fiction]

I agree, em10.

[sandyRoe]

In my view the feckless parents who would let their kids go hungry are not fit to keep a dog, let alone a child.

[ummmm]

This programme was very eye opening. Until I watched it I was also of the opinion that no child has a reason to live in poverty in the UK (I don't know how to get the full programme)

[ummmm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hfbk4

[mike11111]

One of my first jobs after leaving school in 1966 was with the head office of the Family Allowance (precursor of child benefit) division. Even allowing for inflation the amount then was meagre; nothing for the first child, 40p per week for the second child and 50p per week for each subsequent child. Part of the rationale behind it was to encourage people to have more children to replenish a young population depleted by the war. I wonder what the effect would be if child benefit were to be abolished. People complain about pensioners receiving benefits regardless of income but the same applies to child benefit. Even the Royal Family would be entitled (though of course they don't claim).

[factor-fiction]

Hi mike- this was the case for child benefit but i thought it had recently been stopped for those earning over something like £45,000pa.

[ummmm]

Mike - Child benefit/family allowance is not a benefit as such. It was introduced to replace tax cuts that families were entitled to and would have seen in their tax code. The reason for this was so the money went to the main carer and not the main bread winner. Not all bread winners could be relied upon not to blow their wages in the pub/bookies etc.

[factor-fiction]

I think child benefit is a benefit ummmm - I think the removal of a child tax allowance about 40+ years ago is no longer relevant given that tax rates and tax allowances change all the time

[ummmm]

Yeah, I know, but I was answering Mike who worked there in 1966.

[factor-fiction]

Thanks for the link, ummmm- I'll watch the programme at some stage. Does it actually give a breakdown though of income (including benefits/tax credits) and expenditure to explain how the poverty has arisen?