Over 50% of people

Frank the tank

Living in poverty in the UK.......................... ARE IN WORK!! :evil:

According to an item on the BBC news today.

solosuperia

Bear with me here........... But from the dark recesses of my brain the following:-
Because of the way poverty is calculated there is always a certain percentage of the population that is going to be classed as in poverty.
That is it, I can't back it up with any hard and fast facts.

Stevo_666

SoloSuperia wrote:

Bear with me here........... But from the dark recesses of my brain the following:-
Because of the way poverty is calculated there is always a certain percentage of the population that is going to be classed as in poverty.
That is it, I can't back it up with any hard and fast facts.

From memory it's relative - calculated along like the bottom x% of people on so even if we were somewhere lilke Luxembourg or Monaco where the average income per head is very high, there would still be the same percentage of people in poverty...gives people something to whinge about though. I'll leave it to Frank to show us a link to the supporting info and definition of poverty used so we can see if this is any more than sensationalism.

Alternatively, Frank has walked into a trap of his own making by proving that benefits are way too high and need to be cut

BillyMansell

Stevo 666 wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Bear with me here........... But from the dark recesses of my brain the following:-
Because of the way poverty is calculated there is always a certain percentage of the population that is going to be classed as in poverty.
That is it, I can't back it up with any hard and fast facts.

From memory it's relative - calculated along like the bottom x% of people

The figure isn't calculated on the % of people but on the number of people living below 60% of the median income.

Stevo_666

BillyMansell wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Bear with me here........... But from the dark recesses of my brain the following:-
Because of the way poverty is calculated there is always a certain percentage of the population that is going to be classed as in poverty.
That is it, I can't back it up with any hard and fast facts.

From memory it's relative - calculated along like the bottom x% of people

The figure isn't calculated on the % of people but on the number of people living below 60% of the median income.

It is relative then and would probably get a large number of people measured as living in poverty in any country no matter how affluent the country.

Main question is what's the median income used for this article?

BillyMansell

Stevo 666 wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Bear with me here........... But from the dark recesses of my brain the following:-
Because of the way poverty is calculated there is always a certain percentage of the population that is going to be classed as in poverty.
That is it, I can't back it up with any hard and fast facts.

From memory it's relative - calculated along like the bottom x% of people

The figure isn't calculated on the % of people but on the number of people living below 60% of the median income.

It is relative then and would probably get a large number of people measured as living in poverty in any country no matter how affluent the country.

Main question is what's the median income used for this article?

Bandying about the word 'relative' when you don't know what you'r referring to by relative makes any subsequent discussion pointless. Those in poverty is not a fixed percentage of population as you originally stated.

Stevo_666

Both measures are relative so think before you spout off. I am asking for the basis of the point so we can have a debate about it. That's up to the OP.

tim_wand

I bet well below 50% of those receiving benefits fall into the class of having an income below 60 % of average earnings.

My concern now (and I know pensions make up the biggest proportion of the welfare bill) is .

Someone who left school at 16 and has never worked will be eligible to more of a state pension than someone who left school at 16 and will make 54 years worth of N.I contributions before they can retire at 70.

A proportion (say 3%) should be taken from benefits received and paid into N.I to cover the state pensions of those who do not or cannot work.

At the moment those at work Pay N.I to and P.A.Y.E to cover benefit payments , and those who receive benefits (other than pensioners who have worked and are taxed at 40% on their state pension if in receipt of a private pension) contribute nothing and live comfortably all their lives having never worked.

The rest of us will just drop before we are 70 and never be able to get any of what we've paid in back.

team47b

It is called relative poverty, ie relative to the country you live in and not compared to a third world country, it is 60% of the average income.

"The latest year for which household income data is available is 2008/09. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: £119 per week for single adult with no dependent children; £206 per week for a couple with no dependent children; £202 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and £288 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 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."

source: http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml

BillyMansell

Stevo 666 wrote:

Both measures are relative so think before you spout off. I am asking for the basis of the point so we can have a debate about it. That's up to the OP.

Now calm down, put your toys back in your pram and step back. 8)

Unfortunately it was you that spouted off with your misinformed view as to what was meant by relative in this context as, by your own admission, you hadn't even researched the story whereas I had sought out the story and simply explained the reference.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be academic researcher but not having even reading the story? Come on, put some effort in before spouting off.

freddiegrubb

Regardless of the finer points "poverty" seems to be an extremely emotive word to use I for one think of rags/rickets/no soles on your shoes. A loaf of bread is a feast to a hungry person so perhaps a different word should be used I'll leave that up to the forum.

daviesee

freddiegrubb wrote:

Regardless of the finer points "poverty" seems to be an extremely emotive word to use I for one think of rags/rickets/no soles on your shoes. A loaf of bread is a feast to a hungry person so perhaps a different word should be used I'll leave that up to the forum.

Relative poverty?

freddiegrubb

Agreed, but relative to what? I know the average wage is used but is this the correct way? This is being a bit silly, but if I eat steak very regular because I earn more than you does this mean you are in poverty ( admittedly not a good example)

brianonyx

I think they judge it to mean that you can't afford the Sky sports package once you have taken account of mum and dad's 40 ciggies per day, 15 pints of lager a week, macdonalds for a family of five for lunch and dinner, rent, and a pony a week at the betting shop. Plus food for the Staffy.

Frank the tank

Poverty is relative to the nation in which youn live and is therefore "relative" to the nation as a whole.

My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.

A fair days work for a fair days pay. If a fair days work doesn't put bread on the table then that is not right and the exploitive tory barstards should look into their hearts, if indeed they have one.

Stevo_666

BillyMansell wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Both measures are relative so think before you spout off. I am asking for the basis of the point so we can have a debate about it. That's up to the OP.

Now calm down, put your toys back in your pram and step back. 8)

Unfortunately it was you that spouted off with your misinformed view as to what was meant by relative in this context as, by your own admission, you hadn't even researched the story whereas I had sought out the story and simply explained the reference.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be academic researcher but not having even reading the story? Come on, put some effort in before spouting off.

No pram here, or toys. But as t47b has clarified for us, let's hear your words of wisdom on the actual subject...we're all in suspense

I wonder how many billions of people round the world who live in absolute poverty would bite your arm off to live in the UK definition of 'relative poverty'?

Anyhow, my Luxembourg and Monaco point stands under either definition. Just helping you to keep up as you probably didn't realise that on your own

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Poverty is relative to the nation in which youn live and is therefore "relative" to the nation as a whole.

My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.

A fair days work for a fair days pay. If a fair days work doesn't put bread on the table then that is not right and the exploitive tory barstards should look into their hearts, if indeed they have one.

Frank, it has got plenty to do with benefits if benefits are too high as in that case it will increase the proportion in work who are in relative poverty. Are you saying that the Labour introduced minimum wage is too low or are benefits too high?

verylonglegs

Is part of the problem the working tax credits? They seem to distort what is a sustainable living wage more than anything else from what I can gather. A hare-brained idea if there ever was one.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Poverty is relative to the nation in which youn live and is therefore "relative" to the nation as a whole.

My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.

A fair days work for a fair days pay. If a fair days work doesn't put bread on the table then that is not right and the exploitive tory barstards should look into their hearts, if indeed they have one.

Frank, it has got plenty to do with benefits if benefits are too high as in that case it will increase the proportion in work who are in relative poverty. Are you saying that the Labour introduced minimum wage is too low or are benefits too high?

ALL I AM SAYING IS if you work for a living you should be able to live outside of poverty. You should be able to afford at least the basics of life. Benefits (however low/high) should not come into it.

Monthly utility bills, council tax, rent/mortgage, food, clothes (not designer stuff etc) that has to come to at least £900 min (ball park stuff) and I live in the EM.

IF they scrapped the benefits system all together are you suggesting that that £900 figure would reduce..............I don't think so.

If you work NO WAY should you be dependent an any kind of hand out.

Stevo_666

Frank, I know what you're trying to say but have you looked at the definition of relative poverty in T47b's post above? £288 a week for a family to spend 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."

Part of the problem is how poverty is defined here.

GiantMike

Frank the tank wrote:

My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.

I haven't read the news story (because I can tell from your first post that it's unlikely to be a very good one), but does it say that 50% of people of people in poverty are in FULL TIME work, or just in work?

The concept of poverty based on ones earnings compared to a national median is seriously flawed. I live in the lap of luxury, have a yacht, several sports cars and a couple of houses. If everybody else in the UK got mega rich but my income didn't change, I'd still be considered to be in poverty. For me, poverty should be a measure of whether somebody has an income that allows them to live a life free from problems related to poorness.

It's also flawed because journalists don't understand statistics and usually quote them out of context because they're idiots or are trying to mislead the viewer/listener.

Frank the tank

I take on board what is being said about relative poverty and where you live.

If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.

GiantMike

Frank the tank wrote:

I take on board what is being said about relative poverty and where you live.

If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.

But did the news report say that 50% of those in poverty were working, or working FULL TIME? The underemployed skew these figures.

BillyMansell

GiantMike wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.

I haven't read the news story (because I can tell from your first post that it's unlikely to be a very good one), but does it say that 50% of people of people in poverty are in FULL TIME work, or just in work?

The concept of poverty based on ones earnings compared to a national median is seriously flawed. I live in the lap of luxury, have a yacht, several sports cars and a couple of houses. If everybody else in the UK got mega rich but my income didn't change, I'd still be considered to be in poverty. For me, poverty should be a measure of whether somebody has an income that allows them to live a life free from problems related to poorness.

It's also flawed because journalists don't understand statistics and usually quote them out of context because they're idiots or are trying to mislead the viewer/listener.

So you haven't read the article, understood the methodology and made assumptions of the journalistic intent. Surely the 'idiot' being misled is the one who chooses to misinform themselves in this way?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation haven't used just a single measure of poverty but have combined numerous socio-economic measures to create a more rounded picture of poverty and social exclusion yielding 50 indicators. It throws up some welcome changes among the young and old yet even with the reduction in median income the rise of poverty among those in low paid work is surprising and is likely to be worse now as the data is two years old .

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

I take on board what is being said about relative poverty and where you live.

If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.

Hello again Frank.
I have a job paying just above the minimum wage so can I regard you as being one of the country's rich, Frank? After all, it's all relative isn't it?
I work with some people who flatly refuse to work more than a certain number of hours so that their benefit entitlement isn't affected. We are breeding a class who would prefer not to work but claim benefits to give them a reasonable living. Probably goes some way to explaining this BBC story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

dave02

I will be in the 50% if i have to keep buying tubes because of the thorns all over the road, on no not again. :roll:

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I take on board what is being said about relative poverty and where you live.

If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.

Hello again Frank.
I have a job paying just above the minimum wage so can I regard you as being one of the country's rich, Frank? After all, it's all relative isn't it?
I work with some people who flatly refuse to work more than a certain number of hours so that their benefit entitlement isn't affected. We are breeding a class who would prefer not to work but claim benefits to give them a reasonable living. Probably goes some way to explaining this BBC story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

I'm on about average earnings "Bally" So not rich by any means.

I'll turn your point on its head. If someone is being paid such a low wage they have to claim benefits to make a decent living, who is the state subsidising.................the employee or the employer?

If the employer paid a proper wage the employee wouldn't have to go to the state for a hand out whatever form it takes.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I take on board what is being said about relative poverty and where you live.

If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.

Hello again Frank.
I have a job paying just above the minimum wage so can I regard you as being one of the country's rich, Frank? After all, it's all relative isn't it?
I work with some people who flatly refuse to work more than a certain number of hours so that their benefit entitlement isn't affected. We are breeding a class who would prefer not to work but claim benefits to give them a reasonable living. Probably goes some way to explaining this BBC story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

I'm on about average earnings "Bally" So not rich by any means.

I'll turn your point on its head. If someone is being paid such a low wage they have to claim benefits to make a decent living, who is the state subsidising.................the employee or the employer?

If the employer paid a proper wage the employee wouldn't have to go to the state for a hand out whatever form it takes.

Lets assume that a particular task requires 40 hours per week to complete. If a company pays 1 person 40 hours pay or 2 people 20 hours, the cost is the same.
My point is that people sometimes are choosing not to work and preferring to claim.
The company isn't being subsidised, but I admit the situation may give a misleading unemployment figure. People are being paid tax credits rather than job seekers.

verylonglegs

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I take on board what is being said about relative poverty and where you live.

If I had a job on the minimum wage (forget stats and what defines poverty etc) I would not be earning enough to give me anything like a decent living. If you work for a living you should not have to scratch about making the decision heat or eat. Now if having to make such choices is not a definition of (if not poverty certainly exploitation) I don't know what is.

Hello again Frank.
I have a job paying just above the minimum wage so can I regard you as being one of the country's rich, Frank? After all, it's all relative isn't it?
I work with some people who flatly refuse to work more than a certain number of hours so that their benefit entitlement isn't affected. We are breeding a class who would prefer not to work but claim benefits to give them a reasonable living. Probably goes some way to explaining this BBC story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

I'm on about average earnings "Bally" So not rich by any means.

I'll turn your point on its head. If someone is being paid such a low wage they have to claim benefits to make a decent living, who is the state subsidising.................the employee or the employer?

If the employer paid a proper wage the employee wouldn't have to go to the state for a hand out whatever form it takes.

The employee never went to the state from what I remember it's the other way round, tax credits and other benefits were pushed by government towards the recipient. They changed the culture where to be seen to be accepting handouts was shameful. There was a balance to be struck as being in need shouldn't be seen as to be in disgrace but it was missed. Now I know of more than one occasion where people have refused promotions as the tax credit system makes it more responsibility for no extra money so they don't bother.

tim_wand

What you tend to forget is that once you are in receipt of one benefit, there are a whole raft of other benefits or things that you are exempt from paying for , that those who are in full time work have to shell out for.

Housing benefit. Prescription charges, Council tax, School meals, Child care e.t.c.

My brother in law has not worked for over 10 years, and receives a JSA and Housing Benefit.

He has a far greater disposable income than me at the end of every week.

It doesn't pay to work below a certain amount of earnings.

mrfpb

I read (more than 20 years ago and can't give a reference) that if you lived in the UK or USA, even on benefits, you would be in the richest 5% of the worlds population. I think that access to education, healthcare, clean water were factors, but as I say it was a while back. So relative poverty, maybe; but absolute poverty? Very few in this country will experience it.