Child poverty in the UK?

rick_chasey

gtvlusso wrote:

<annecdote>.

For sure, the benefit trap should be addressed.

I know the states has a good system for incentivising work - untill recently they had a very high take up of jobs.

Doesn't mean that cutting benefits is necessarily the answer. It might be, but there are always unintended consequences.

That Paul Mason article illustrates what some of the consequences are, and they're not pretty.

clarkey cat

Compare £17,000 pa to the equivalent salary in Jamaica.

£17,000pa
£1,174.34 per month
£271.00 per week

It's not a lot, I'm not sure I'd call it poverty.

£17000 is the very TOP end of what the charity considers poverty.
Most people will be on alot less.

What has Jamaica got to do with this? Different PPP. Different currency. Different country.

gtvlusso

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

<annecdote>.

For sure, the benefit trap should be addressed.

I know the states has a good system for incentivising work - untill recently they had a very high take up of jobs.

Doesn't mean that cutting benefits is necessarily the answer. It might be, but there are always unintended consequences.

That Paul Mason article illustrates what some of the consequences are, and they're not pretty.

I agree Rick, I think I find it slightly repulsive that the decisions made in politics are clearly so heavily influenced by Charity lobbying. Yes, there are social issues, but those social issues should not be detrimental to the millions of people who work hard everyday both professionally and at home to maintain a standard of living for them and their loved ones.

I guess it is a vicious circle, MP wants to be seen to be involved with charities and caring for those less fortunate, it makes us all feel warm and fuzzy about the MP. Charity now has MP's ear (lets be honest - no MP is going to tell a major charity to f*ck off) and has major influence on how policy is defined and how cash is dispensed.

rick_chasey

gtvlusso wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

<annecdote>.

For sure, the benefit trap should be addressed.

I know the states has a good system for incentivising work - untill recently they had a very high take up of jobs.

Doesn't mean that cutting benefits is necessarily the answer. It might be, but there are always unintended consequences.

That Paul Mason article illustrates what some of the consequences are, and they're not pretty.

I agree Rick, I think I find it slightly repulsive that the decisions made in politics are clearly so heavily influenced by Charity lobbying. Yes, there are social issues, but those social issues should not be detrimental to the millions of people who work hard everyday both professionally and at home to maintain a standard of living for them and their loved ones.

Ultimately politics comes down to who gets f*cked the most.

To me and my lefty ways, it seams reasonable to place bigger burdens on broader backs, and smaller burdens to those who can't take as much.

In this instance, you may be p!ssed off your brother in law doesn't work, but judging from your comments elsewhere on here, you're not really struggling financially, to the point where you're off to the food-bank, anyway.

If you're of the opinion you get what you deserve in life, or variants on that theme then you might take a view that people who are comfortable and work shouldn't be punished to help those who obviously don't deserve much, given the way they life their life.

I don't think that solves much, and I think it creates further hardship and broader social problems, but then you knew I thought that already.

---

tl-dr - in a nation as rich as the UK people should never have to need foodbanks.

Gazzaputt

DonDaddyD wrote:

I want to be brutal and say that there is no such thing a poverty, as I understand it, in this Country. People are relatively poor compared to the relatively well-off, rich and Greg's.

F*ck me I agree with this.

Interview on 5 live said not being able to afford a pair of shoes. Come on a pair shoes can be had for a few quid these days.

I know someone who pleads poverty as a single parent. She even takes food parcel from some of my elderly neighbours. She eats this food in front of a 42" plasma watching Sky TV.

It seems to be mostly the parents getting their own spending priorities wrong that cause their child poverty.

clarkey cat

It seems to be mostly the parents getting their own spending priorities wrong that cause their child poverty.

strong statement.

gtvlusso

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately politics comes down to who gets f*cked the most.


tl-dr - in a nation as rich as the UK people should never have to need foodbanks.

Again - I agree with you. I am a lefty - of a fashion. I think you should work when you can doing whatever you can, for your own benefit - sometimes we all need a little help, it happens, things go wrong.

Makes me very sad to see that the current recession is not affecting the wealthiest elements of society....And that social care appears to be off the agenda in these circles.

First.Aspect

My patner is a social worker. I can assure you that there is poverty in the UK. You need to see the world slightly differently (eg using social work case files as a prism perhaps) but poverty is plentiful. The welfare state is goo in principle, but it is complex and does not account for human failings. Children are reliant on adults to claim the right things and then to spend it right. There are shark landlords out there, addiction issues and frankly intelligence limitations to fully availing ones self of the welfare state. It's also perfectly possibly to be working and in poverty, because you are outside of the system or you fall between the cracks in the system.

Is there child poverty in the old eastern Europe? If you believe that there is, it follows that it also exists in some parts of the UK which are equally deprived.

DonDaddyD

clarkey cat wrote:

What has Jamaica got to do with this? Different PPP. Different currency. Different country.

OK, so your too intelligent for the 'ole, them over there 'ave it harder argument'.

There is poverty in the UK, you don't have to look hard to see it. I just get irked when they put a number to it because circumstances can be different. There are people on £20,000 who I'd say are worse off than some on £16,500.

msmancunia

The thing that seems to be new is that we seem to now have an underclass of "working" poor. A family will have both parents working, but are still both struggling to make ends meet, maybe because the father is on a low wage in an order-picking job in a warehouse or on reduced hours, and the mum is only part time because she can only work 10-3 because she's got to do the school run, and because they are just over benefits thresholds, don't get much help.

I've got mates who are teachers who have really seen the difference in how children turn up to school in the past few years, compared to before the recession. There are children standing in the playground at 0745 because their parents have nobody to take them to school and need to start work early to do extra hours, or turning up with shoes falling apart, or tatty uniforms, or no winter coat. They can't in some cases get a cheap school uniform from Tesco because the school rules insist that they buy all their uniform from recommended suppliers with logos on the jumpers and polo shirts. Both my friends take food to school (bananas and cereal bars or home made fruit cake) to give to children who are falling asleep or fainting in class because they haven't had any breakfast. This shouldn't be happening.

There probably isn't poverty in this country the way there is in places like Bangladesh or Mumbai. But children in this country need a certain basic standard of living to get on in life - to turn up to school neat and tidy, to be well fed enough to concentrate on homework, to have enough energy to do PE or play out after school, and increasing numbers don't get that.

Paulie W

There's nothing "new" about the underclass of working poor - they just kind of disappeared in the mid 90s!

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

what do you think it says about you that a charity expecting a higher standard of living for children in poverty than you expect for those same children

Irritates the f*ck out of [you]

?

What it says about me is that I have a different opinion on things.

Compare £17,000 pa to the equivalent salary in Jamaica.

£17,000pa
£1,174.34 per month
£271.00 per week

It's not a lot, I'm not sure I'd call it poverty. I wouldn't want to raise a family on that though, certainly not in London. I'm sure in some towns hit hard by the economic downturn there would be those that'd say "It's a job and it pays, more than I can say for me, I been unemployed for years and had to raise three kids". - That to me would be more like poverty.

It's a little like people saying their starving, you are not starving, you are hungry. Poor.

But we don't live in Jamaica, we live (you and I) in one of the most expensive cities on Earth.

WRT to GTV's point there is a mini baby boom at the moment, so primary school places are in short supply pretty much everywhere (if the govt. are looking for some infrastructure projects to stimulate growth, they could do worse than provide enough school places by restarting all those school building projects that they cancelled). Yes it is frustrating for 'us' but for the kids who are having a pretty difficult childhood already, making their school life a bit more stable is worth doing. That said, an entire school of children with difficult home lives isn't exactly going to be a relief from their difficult home lives.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

<annecdote>.

For sure, the benefit trap should be addressed.

Buy why isn't it? Successive Governments have failed, to the extent that we have whole generations of families that have never worked. Christ, I used to work with a lady who gave up her job after giving birth as she calculated she'd be better off on benefits. She was earning a damn sight more than £17k a year as well. It's beyond depressing.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

<annecdote>.

For sure, the benefit trap should be addressed.

Buy why isn't it? Successive Governments have failed, to the extent that we have whole generations of families that have never worked. Christ, I used to work with a lady who gave up her job after giving birth as she calculated she'd be better off on benefits. She was earning a damn sight more than £17k a year as well. It's beyond depressing.

I think it's complicated.

For every situation where a change has the desired outcome, there will be one where the same change causes even more problems.

You're right, it's a failure of consecutive gov'ts to deal with this. I don't think the complexities of welfare reform are easy to sell the public.

Ultimately public discourse on the subject, even at apparently high-brow levels turns into an argument about benefit cheats, which is a) relatively small fry and b) has little impact on the more pressing issues. On these issues the Tories are doing something. I don't particularly agree with it and I think it has some terrible consequences, but that shows the problems gov'ts have.

There is also of course, the point that people on benefits are voters too, and they have more time in their day on polling day to head out to the ballot boxes...

Obviously there are issues of both people getting benefits who don't need it and those who do are not, as well as incentives to work and not, and that's not even touching on the inefficiencies of it.

Child poverty should be an area where people agree it should be stopped, but as even this thread shows, you can't really have an objective discussion about anything welfare related.

clarkey cat

to the extent that we have whole generations of families that have never worked.

these are, despite their headline-grabbing nature, VERY rare.

clarkey cat

by DonDaddyD » Wed Sep 5, 2012 10:44 am

clarkey cat wrote:
What has Jamaica got to do with this? Different PPP. Different currency. Different country.
OK, so your too intelligent for the 'ole, them over there 'ave it harder argument'.

There is poverty in the UK, you don't have to look hard to see it. I just get irked when they put a number to it because circumstances can be different. There are people on £20,000 who I'd say are worse off than some on £16,500.

I don't think you know what you think.

SimonAH

First Aspect wrote:

My patner is a social worker. I can assure you that there is poverty in the UK. You need to see the world slightly differently (eg using social work case files as a prism perhaps) but poverty is plentiful. The welfare state is goo in principle, but it is complex and does not account for human failings. Children are reliant on adults to claim the right things and then to spend it right. There are shark landlords out there, addiction issues and frankly intelligence limitations to fully availing ones self of the welfare state. It's also perfectly possibly to be working and in poverty, because you are outside of the system or you fall between the cracks in the system.

Is there child poverty in the old eastern Europe? If you believe that there is, it follows that it also exists in some parts of the UK which are equally deprived.

OK, I agree that if you don't help yourself (or even wander into a CAB office and say "can I have some help please?" ) then there are cracks that can be fallen through.

I believe that my opening post was tempered with 'compos mentis' however. If you're suitably impaired by heavy substance abuse you're not going to have it easy - but, truthfully, that's usually self inflicted. If you're mentally impaired then you need social care (which presumably comes with benefit advice?) not a food bank.

The article that RC linked to, whilst very good, basically implied that the majority go to the food bank to tide themselves over whilst social services paperwork got sorted out, or because their benefits were being sucked into servicing high interest debt.

I'm doing OK. Yes RJSTerry I do have a few bikes and a decent house. It is beside the point that there have been numerous periods over the years when money has been too tight to mention (there have been a few oven chip meals in my life too) BUT to call those in receipt of the UK bnefit system without other modifiers such as a smack habit as being in poverty seems rather ludicrous.

I believe fully in a duty of social care for the vulnerable, and don't begrudge the massive fraction of my taxes that go to support it (the cost of the benefits system equates very neatly to 100% of the entire VAT revenue for the country BTW) but poverty? C'mon.

Gazzaputt

msmancunia wrote:

Both my friends take food to school (bananas and cereal bars or home made fruit cake) to give to children who are falling asleep or fainting in class because they haven't had any breakfast. This shouldn't be happening.

Again down to the parent. You telling me they cannot afford basic cereals or bread for their children? There are tens of thousands of parents in this country who don't give a toss about their kids. They see them as a hindrance to the lifestyle they believe they should lead. Kids leave for school with a parent actually being out of bed and I know this to be common.

clarkey cat

There are tens of thousands of parents in this country who don't give a toss about their kids. They see them as a hindrance to the lifestyle they believe they should lead.

steady on mate, not everyone who sends their kids to boarding school is like that.

SimonAH

Gazzaputt wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

Both my friends take food to school (bananas and cereal bars or home made fruit cake) to give to children who are falling asleep or fainting in class because they haven't had any breakfast. This shouldn't be happening.

Again down to the parent. You telling me they cannot afford basic cereals or bread for their children? There are tens of thousands of parents in this country who don't give a toss about their kids. They see them as a hindrance to the lifestyle they believe they should lead. Kids leave for school with a parent actually being out of bed and I know this to be common.

The kids will get fruit and snacks in school? Cool! I don't need to bother with breakfast then!

There is, sadly, a large slice of people who will think like that....

greg66_tri_v2.0

Quite interested in views from across the L-R spectrum on the following:

If you claim food from a food bank
- and you smoke, you should have to give up smoking before you can claim food
- and you pay for subscription TV, you should have to give up your TV sub before you can claim food
- and you have a job, you should be entitled to money counselling

There are obviously lots of "and you" options that could be added, but let's start with these two.

gtvlusso

A question then:

Would you rather the option to financially aid a charity, or would you rather the gummint increased income tax and scrapped the child poverty charities?

Karlos69

How much poverty would we have if the likes of Sir Philip Green were not able to move huge amounts of money away from the UK via tax havens, money that was created here using our transport infrastructure and workforce?

davmaggs

I was talking to an experienced professional working in this very area only this morning.

I found out that is not uncommon for children taken away from their parents (into care due to neglect) to be found hoarding food in their rooms or pockets, or to go through the carpet looking for leftovers when left for a few minutes in a meeting room. And this goes on many many months since they were taken away.

I cannot imagine watching a child or teenager rummaging around in my carpet looking for crumbs.

This isn't typically about money, it is due to their parent(s) starving them as they spend their cash on themselves. You could double benefits tomorrow and those children would still be looking through bins.

bompington

Karlos69 wrote:

How much poverty would we have if the likes of Sir Philip Green were not able to move huge amounts of money away from the UK via tax havens, money that was created here using our transport infrastructure and workforce?

Well it's nice to have a few left-wing myths to counter the right-wing ones ;-)

il_principe

SimonAH wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

Both my friends take food to school (bananas and cereal bars or home made fruit cake) to give to children who are falling asleep or fainting in class because they haven't had any breakfast. This shouldn't be happening.

Again down to the parent. You telling me they cannot afford basic cereals or bread for their children? There are tens of thousands of parents in this country who don't give a toss about their kids. They see them as a hindrance to the lifestyle they believe they should lead. Kids leave for school with a parent actually being out of bed and I know this to be common.

The kids will get fruit and snacks in school? Cool! I don't need to bother with breakfast then!

There is, sadly, a large slice of people who will think like that....

I have two friends who are primary school teachers (one in Lambeth one in Bromley). One of them has taken to regularly taking home and washing the clothes of one of his pupils as the parents clearly don't bother. Can he discuss this with said parents without having abuse screamed at him? Can he f*ck. The other mate has 2 children who regularly come into work stinking of weed. Bear in mind that this is a primary school. As I said earlier, depressing.

gtvlusso

davmaggs wrote:

I was talking to an experienced professional working in this very area only this morning.

I found out that is not uncommon for children taken away from their parents (into care due to neglect) to be found hoarding food in their rooms or pockets, or to go through the carpet looking for leftovers when left for a few minutes in a meeting room. And this goes on many many months since they were taken away.

I cannot imagine watching a child or teenager rummaging around in my carpet looking for crumbs.

This isn't typically about money, it is due to their parent(s) starving them as they spend their cash on themselves. You could double benefits tomorrow and those children would still be looking through bins.

Extreme, but I agree with you in essence - Sh1t parenting is a huge factor. parents who are too stupid to know about what is important or simply do not care and make out that it is someone else's fault....

rubertoe

It has a lot to do with parents being unresponsible and not caring.

Paulie W

Greg66 wrote:

Quite interested in views from across the L-R spectrum on the following:

If you claim food from a food bank
- and you smoke, you should have to give up smoking before you can claim food
- and you pay for subscription TV, you should have to give up your TV sub before you can claim food
- and you have a job, you should be entitled to money counselling

There are obviously lots of "and you" options that could be added, but let's start with these two.

- and you can't count to three.

clarkey cat

there should be a test.

1) are you in a stable relationship?;
2) do you have at least 1 income capable of maintaining the family you intend to create?;
3) if not, will the second income adequately cover the costs of childcare and augment the first income to achieve (2)?
4) do you refuse to watch ITV on saturday nights?
5) do you only smoke 'socially'?

If yes to all 5 you can have kids.