How poor is poor?

pensionpat, I used to volunteer in a Trussell Trust foodbank, so I know what's in the packs. Each parcel has enough to feed a certain number of people for three days. They contain enough calories to avoid starvation and the food is safe, because it's nearly all processed. Eating like that for three days won't do anybody much harm, but if you look at the labels, the food has too much salt and sugar for long-term good health and lacks fibre, minerals and vitamins. The aim is to fill bellies cheaply, so it's very carbohydrate heavy.

The real problem is that people don't finish their foodbank parcel and start eating nutritious fresh food. They'll continue filling up on the cheapest food they can find. Many of the people who came to us didn't have a freezer, so buying frozen veg and bulk cooking wasn't an option. Many of them also had to be very careful about how much fuel they were using (either because bills hadn't been paid or they were on expensive prepaid schemes), so it was expensive to cook cheaper meats. Personally, I would have liked every poor family to have a slow cooker!

Other problems were that some people lived in bedsits and didn't even have proper cooking/storage facilities and others had learning difficulties, so found it very hard to plan balanced meals.

OldernoWiser You don't own a thread just because you started it, and nobody, other than GN, has the right to say "subject closed". The thread will come to an end when people stop contributing.

grannylynn65, It can be reassuring to get supportive pms but is it really necessary for you to repeat a critical comment made about another, albeit unidentified, poster and then to follow it up with sarcastic remarks?

Oldernowiser, I am a normal person. Yes, I know people who are poor, someone who had to go to a foodbank because the family's benefits were stopped.

Is that an acceptable response, or do you want to stop all discussion of this very important subject?

I was surprised that it was put in chat, but put it down to you being a relative newcomer to gransnet.

It is not a subject that should be in chat, being very political in my opinion.
I presume I am allowed to have opinions on your chatty thread.

I must defend the food given out at food banks. If aligned with the Trussell Group, guidance will have been provided about the nutritional content of the selection of food given out. Plus, if requested, cooking guidance.

OlderNoWiser,

Was there any need for that personal comment?

You're quite right. I would never do what I do if I had to rely on my self-employed income to survive. Fortunately, I have other sources of income.

Nevertheless, it pays more than claiming Jobseekers Allowance and many unemployed people were 'encouraged' by the Jobcentre to become self-employed.

Many people registered as self-employed work part-time as couriers, party planners, hairdressers, etc., etc. Many of them are semi-retired or parents looking for a top up income.

Unfortunately, some people are looking to make a living out of self-employment, because there seems no alternative. When Universal Credit is introduced, they will be forced to abandon their businesses, unless they can get backing.

Indeed

Agreed Grannlynn for threads where support is needed or helpful suggestions, the last thing people need is an unpleasant answer.
In a political thread, more robust comment is expected. I am surprised at this thread though, which is really for our opinions on 'how poor is poor' and not for having a go at posters who don't agree with the answer!

I was actually, am actually upset at how bad it can get, surely to God it is a platform to share experience and hope. It seems to me that some people who share deeply personal and private things are asking for help as they have no-one.
They should not be shot down or trivialised. imo

Glad I'm not the only one, grannylyn. This seems to be a characteristics that is particular to social networking / forums, i.e. strangers feel free to abuse and be nasty to other strangers, thinking it's not "real", just the Internet.
I don't really subscribe to that view and would not say anything "virtually" that I would not say to somebody's face. Probably an old-fashioned way of looking at things, but so be it.

Maybe a good subject for another thread - how nasty is nasty, and why?

Older, as a fairly new poster I am often astonished at some of the nasty arrogant comments.I was upset at someone who sounded off to me at an innocent remark. I was cheered by a pm from another gnetter who told me not to worry as this person has a vicious tongue. I am tempted to enquire ' Oh dear, butlers day off is it? Servants having a lie in ' But as I am such a nice person I couldn't possibly

Thanks for your reply, daphne. If child benefit and tax credit are factored in, that makes more sense to me. And of course I appreciate the higher costs associated with older children.

Question to admin:- Is there any way one can cancel or terminate a thread one has started here when one regrets ever having asked the question because stupid, narrow-minded people drag it down to their infantile level and turn everything into a point-scoring exercise, abusing complete strangers in the process?

If so, could you please let me know how to do this and I will cancel this thread forthwith.

And just for your information, daphnedill, I never said that I do not believe the "typical" figure of less than £10k p.a. for the average freelancer. All I said was that I personally have never earned this in my 25+ years of freelancing. If you do, then you must be in the wrong business.

Subject closed.

Yes, it does go back to the Commons, but if the Lords haven't changed anything, it's just a rubber-stamping exercise. I would be surprised if the Lords change the child poverty target part of the Bill. Maybe time for Change or 38 degrees!

Doesn't it go back to the commons after the Lords?
Hope the Lords are sensible and get rid of that bit, or at least bring it to the public's attention.

The change is part of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015 and has already passed through its stages in the Commons. I believes it's due to be discussed in the Lords soon.

"The income-based targets the government uses at the moment were set by the 2010 Child Poverty Act. They’re based on income and material measures of poverty:

For less than 10% of children to live in households with less than 60% of median income. These households are considered to have ‘relative low income’ (they’re often referred to as being in ‘relative poverty’);
For less than 5% of children to live in households with less than 70% of median income and that experience material deprivation—the inability to afford goods and activities that most people can afford;
For less than 5% of children to live in households below 60% of median income in 2010/11, adjusted for inflation since then. These households are considered to have ‘absolute low income’ (often referred to as being in ‘absolute poverty’);
For less than 7% of children to live in households which had income below 60% of median income for at least three out of the last four years.

These targets were due to be met by 2020/21 and the measures they describe have been used as the government’s main measures of poverty. The Child Poverty and Social Mobility Commission has said it has “long been obvious” that the targets will be missed, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) agrees.

The new act removes the government’s legal duty to meet these targets and removes “most” duties and provisions set out in the act. Instead, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions must report annually on the workless households and educational attainment measures. The bill doesn’t give targets for these measures.

Experts have criticised the removal of low-income working families from the measures. Two-thirds of children in poverty by the current relative poverty measure live in working households. The government says that the new measures reflect its view that the best route out of poverty is work. We’ve got more on work and poverty in our factcheck."

This is why they want to change the law, and bring in a new act.
I wonder if they will allow it to be debated fully in parliament.

It doesn't vanish, Annie. They just use different indicators, like worklessness in the family.

fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/poverty_measure_changes_income-50463

They will still tell us about income, but make it more difficult for us to find the figures, particularly if they change the FoI rules.

Have just got his latest book, the Joy of Tax, daphne.
You will notice I quite often put links to taxresearch, and get told off by those who do not care.

So don't mention money and poverty vanishes

dj, I know. It's one way of eradicating child poverty ~lol~

Glad to meet another reader of Richard Murphy's blog.

But the government is now thinking of removing any mention of money in the definition of poverty.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/06/24/child-poverty-stats-are-not-collected-for-their-own-sake-david-cameron/

Maggie,

It would actually equate to a lower salary, because automatic Child Benefit (£33pw) would be factored in. Until recently, there would also have been an amount for Child Tax Credit.

I agree with you that it seems quite a lot, especially if the children are young. However, when the children are older, they cost a fortune and the figure just highlights that. These days parents end up being financially responsible for their children than in the past.

I don't know how the calculations have been worked out. Children have to stay in education until they're 18, but the Educational Maintenance Allowance for Sixth Formers has been scrapped. Sixth Formers don't automatically get school transport paid and they often have to pay for their own books. Since student grants have been abolished, it's almost impossible to pay for university without parental support. If the child doesn't go to university, but can't find a job, he/she gets so little in benefit that he/she will almost certainly have to continue living at home and be supported by parents. Maybe all this has been taken into account - I'll check it out.

For younger children, maybe it's assumed that both parents will be working and the children will need childcare. Average fees are about £600pm for day nurseries round here (and can be over £1000 in London). Again, I'll check out how it's been worked out.

In any case, the government doesn't use those figures. They use 60% of the median income, which is about £11,500 and it's that figure they use when they say that 4 million people are living in poverty. Four million households have incomes below that figure, but the government doesn't differentiate, so a single person who's paid off a mortgage could probably cope, but I think a household with children and rent/mortgage would really struggle.

TriciaF,

If you have enough to 'make do' you're NOT poor (although it might feel like it) - that's the whole point of what I've been trying to say.

There are four million people who do not have enough money to 'make do' - even the government admits that!

Being someone nearer Bijou's generation in age, I've never been worried if my income has suddenly reduced (which it has many times for various reasons) - we make do with what we've got.
eg now I don't go to the food banks, but I do watch avidly the "overdate" section in the supermarket and buy their bargains.
From what I've read about the UK, those who are genuinely poor are the families with a few children and one wage-earner, on a low wage.

I am a little bemused by the figures, though. £452 a week after tax and NI - the amount quoted for a family with two children - equates to one earner with an annual salary of £30k. And this is the sum needed after housing costs and before any added benefits to be classed as being above the poverty line? I'm sure £30k will be a low wage in many areas of the UK, but here in my Northern town, it is a middle management salary. Jobs are typically advertised at half that.

I'm not disputing that many families are living in poverty, and that it is a national disgrace, but this bar would put most families round here into the category, and that's just not the case.