|
||||||||
In-work poverty hits a record high |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,622
|
In-work poverty hits a record high
The current system simply isn't working for too many people. Quote:
The number of workers living in poverty has reached a record high as the UK’s housing crisis fuels growing insecurity, a think tank has warned. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7458981.html
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) showed that 3.8 million workers, or one in eight, live in poverty. Low wages are regularly cited as the cause of in-work poverty, but the rising cost of rented housing is also pushing working people into extreme financial difficulty. A total of 7.4 million people, including 2.6 million children, are living in poverty despite being in working households, the report claims. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
|
Whine whine, it's not real poverty, whine whine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
|
Quote:
The current system simply isn't working for too many people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7458981.html If we give everybody in Britain a million pounds will there still be the exact same number of people living in "poverty" ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
|
Told you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,402
|
Poverty leads to deprivation eventually.
That is mainly the problem with it, the direction is down. ------------------------- When people talk about the numbers of people in work as a great achievement it is nonsensical. It's not the being in-work thing that has value, it's what comes from it; personal security and financial benefit to the state. You would think the Conservatives would wish people to be independent from the the state, and yet they have been as righteous about state dependence as Old Labour ever were. Labour liked it because they got a client who would vote for them, the Conservatives seemingly use benefits as a means of control. And also maybe of abuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
|
Quote:
Told you.
Wealth inequality in Britain is a serious problem in itself, but it isn't poverty and trying to pretend it is, doesn't help anyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,113
|
I just listened to an interview with a single mother who does part time work for a charity and gets around £1700 a month net after her income is increased by the universal benefit.
Many people work full time and don't end up with that net amount after they have paid tax and NI contributions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 626
|
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,218
|
Quote:
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,315
|
With tax credits and housing benefit I don't understand why anyone would be in real poverty, unless of course the money is not going where it should
However I will add that there needs to be more affordable council housing for those on low incomes as private rental is ridiculous |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,315
|
Quote:
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty I live on the south coast and 30k salary here doesn't go far with housing costs compared to other areas in the uk. But it's where the work is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
|
Quote:
In real terms wages are down, rents at all time high. UK has the highest rents in Europe
The one thing that is guaranteed to increase "poverty" levels is an increase in the minimum wage. Because the average income goes up as a result, the "poverty" level also goes up. Those that were ABOVE the level are now defined as being in poverty. A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty". The price of a loaf of bread could go up to £100/loaf and there would be NO change in the numbers in "poverty". Nonsense report, as usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Angular
Posts: 12,903
|
Quote:
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,218
|
Quote:
"Poverty" is defined by INCOME, not costs.
The one thing that is guaranteed to increase "poverty" levels is an increase in the minimum wage. Because the average income goes up as a result, the "poverty" level also goes up. Those that were ABOVE the level are now defined as being in poverty. A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty". The price of a loaf of bread could go up to £100/loaf and there would be NO change in the numbers in "poverty". Nonsense report, as usual. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,892
|
On the one hand I'm always a little skeptical about how poverty gets defined, but on the other, the increase in rents is hard to miss as a major cause when wages haven't gone up.
Back when I was renting, I would expect an annual increase of some amount but that was when we had inflation and interest rates above zero. There's no reason for the rents to be going up as much as they have, and even before that, a lot of rents were absurdly high. Also, stuff in the post from letting agencies claiming a shortage of flats to rent is obviously BS because they are talking about premium maximum-commission places that normal-ish-wage people can only barely afford, which is precisely where they pitch the price. I'm tempted to blame Tax Credits as they are the great pretence that a problem doesn't exist, and IIRC are these still on the HMRC budgeting rather than counted in the welfare budget? Plus I hate being implicitly bracketed in with all the greedy dodgy landlords that I previously managed to avoid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,968
|
Quote:
The current system simply isn't working for too many people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7458981.html What system is that then? |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
|
Quote:
And in real terms income is down. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...hdRXgZo1CJNmzw. Self-employed 'now earning less than in 1995'
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
How about you try and answer my question in post 3 ?
Wealth inequality in Britain is a serious problem in itself, but it isn't poverty and trying to pretend it is, doesn't help anyone. Neither does it help to broaden the definition to include many who live or could live fairly comfortably. The problem with wealth inequality is that it detaches people from the reality for much of the population. If such people form too high a percentage of the decision makers and fail to take steps to understand more fully the impacts of their choices the risks are very obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
Well it is no surprise that an increase in housing costs not matched by an equivalent increase in earnings will reduce the amount households have to spend on other things.
They really ought to stop calling it poverty though as it isn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
"Poverty" is defined by INCOME, not costs.
The one thing that is guaranteed to increase "poverty" levels is an increase in the minimum wage. Because the average income goes up as a result, the "poverty" level also goes up. Those that were ABOVE the level are now defined as being in poverty. A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty". The price of a loaf of bread could go up to £100/loaf and there would be NO change in the numbers in "poverty". Nonsense report, as usual. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
Well it is no surprise that an increase in housing costs not matched by an equivalent increase in earnings will reduce the amount households have to spend on other things.
They really ought to stop calling it poverty though as it isn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Why do people think that a proportion of the population lacking disposable income is good for the economy or society in general |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,402
|
The thing about poverty, it affects everyone because the monetary force to drive an economy just isn't there.
We want working-class people to have a significant disposable income. It's good for business, it's good for the middle-class and it's good for pensioners. Social stratification is perfectly fine, but economic stratification is not something that works. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Angular
Posts: 12,903
|
The Joseph Roundtree Foundation have two and half pages available on the internet which explain definitions of poverty
Relative poverty "Resources are so seriousky low below thise commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns ,customs and activities" |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,968
|
Quote:
The Joseph Roundtree Foundation have two and half pages available on the internet which explain definitions of poverty
Relative poverty "Resources are so seriousky low below thise commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns ,customs and activities" So who defines "ordinary"? |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Angular
Posts: 12,903
|
Relative income poverty
Where those with 60% of median income are classed as poor I cannot post the link but it is an interesting read |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:28.



A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty".