How poor is poor?

Ah yes, queuing up outside the food bank, at our food bank it is quite usual for clients to be accompanied by a friend who isn't queuing for food ,

It's interesting to see some figures, daphne. Are the sums you give before or after tax?

OlderNoWiser,

If you don't agree that 'typical' self-employed incomes aren't around £10k, go and take it up with HMRC, because they certainly think so. It could, if course, be that the self-employed don't declare all their earnings, but the vast majority of self-employed people run small, part-time businesses and the figure sounds about right to me. (I'm one of them, by the way! ;-))

LuckyFour,

According to the official definition of poverty, there are no poor pensioners. Single pensioners without a full state pension and/or a company pension will have their pensions made up with Pension Credit to above the poverty line. They are also eligible for full housing benefit and council tax relief plus a few other hand-outs. They might be poor compared with some other pensioners, but they are not poor compared with some working age people.

The argument, which is so often used, that pensioners have paid into the system all their lives, doesn't apply here.

It wasn't said or implied that all the mothers were smoking. Perhaps they were queueing up outside the food bank.

I am puzzled that people in food banks are allowed to smoke , expect an explanation will be given, but it does put mothers with pushchairs in food banks in a bad light

Little understanding shown by many here

An economist's definition of poverty is a "condition where people's basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter are not being met." Anybody who has basic needs met, even if they have to skimp and save for them, is NOT poor.

In a modern economy, the definition of poverty is linked to money, because most transactions involve money (although not all - such as doing somebody a favour because they've done one for you), but bills and most consumer goods need money.

The "official" definition of poverty was (until recently) an income 60% below the MEDIAN income for people in a similar situation - please note, NOT the MEAN income. Therefore, in the UK people are classified as being in poverty if they have a household income below about £11,500. Four million people are below that threshold.

Relative poverty has been criticised because it actually reduces in a recession, although people are no better off, and it doesn't take into account different household needs. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation produces levels of absolute poverty, based on a "basket" of basic needs. Interestingly, the figure is very consistent with the level of relative poverty, usually slightly higher. Distinctions are made between housing and non-housing costs and households with different numbers of people.

The JRF's current poverty lines (after housing costs) are:

Single working-age adult £176pw
Pensioner couple £238pw
Couple with two children (age 2 and 8) £452pw
Lone parent with one child (age 1) £265pw

The vast majority of people who are totally reliant on benefits have an income below those levels. I find it even more shocking that two thirds of children whose parents receive benefits live in a household where at least one person works.

Whatever people's perception of poverty, four million people in the UK have a lower income than the above and do not have the choice to save, because their incomes are below what they need just to survive healthily in today's society.

(and yes, I have read the book...)

I think people in general deserve more credit - no one I know assumes that all families on benefits or having to use food banks are feckless wastrels - we know the majority are in the position they are in through no fault of their own.

Don't understand the Stepford reference, how is it relevant?

Exactly Penstemmon , all these people being criticised are individuals , life has the nasty little habit of knocking some down and they have to deal with it

great if one can save to buy what they need, what if those who have no money left to save? Great if on a very small income and family bring essential foods , what of those who do not have this support

We do not live in Stepford

Indeed Annieb Through work I knew many families who truly struggled against the odds to live a decent life but most of my friends were in reasonably to well-paid jobs Since I moved away from London I have made a much wider range of friends. Some of my friends locally have lives that have gone awry because of illness, death of a spouse, disability of a child, poor parenting etc. They struggle to manage the benefit system, find work, pay the bills, stretch low incomes etc. All of them are lovely people, who love their kids, want to live a good life, want to have friends, to dress nicely, to give presents, to meet up with others etc. Amazingly just like everyone else!!
Their lack of funds is not because they are wasters or bad people..they have just had some awful bad luck or made a mistake.

I know the media will highlight the few who do take advantage of the welfare system but they really are the minority..which is why they make news! So unfair on the majority of folk, depending on benefits, who are living honest, purposeful and difficult lives.

Start by stop criticising the have nots, accept they exist and not all brought it on themselves

Sobering thoughts this brand new year. Was particularly impressed by the final comment by oldernowiser. The biggest challenge might be as to how to solve the problem of the haves and the have nots. Can't help noticing that while some people are bound up by entertainments of all kinds (sport/dancing/cruising etc) others have to rely on handouts.I read that our hunter gatherer primitive anscestors were egalitarian-sharing everything and that it was the appearance of settled communities (farming) that created a more "competitive" society -the pursuit of personal wealth.(c/f Sapiens:A brief history of mankind :Yuval Noah Harari/Harvell Seeker 2014)

Why do so many expect everyone to live as they do, I cut my cloth/ I saved/ I grew up on cabbage sandwiches etc . I wish these critics would get out of their comfort zone and mix with people who are hungry, unemployed , addicts, no family support .

The trouble with our own memories of our earlier lives managing on little and being happy etc. is that as children we may not have been aware of other families whose parents made different choices from ours, whose parents did not have the personal 'pride' to keep us/the home clean etc. There has always been dire poverty and folk who managed better than others.

We are a rich country, despite what we are told, and there should be enough work that pays a wage that provides sufficient money for rent/food/clothes AND a few treats for all citizens!

I realise how lucky I have been. Never been poor or in poverty. Always been able to pay utilities. Never got into debt except mortgage which is now paid. I did work the housing market. Do our houses up and selling on. We did the work after working all day. We had 3 jobs between us at one time. If running out of money just worked harder. Learnt new skills. In my own time. Had to wait for some large items I wanted. Didn't do extravagant holidays although always had a holiday. Felt. Would rather cultivate a good time here and now and not spend all year waiting for enjoyment on a 2 week holiday. We started with nothing. No parents money to help us. Sat at home for 2 years getting a deposit for a flat to buy.

There was always hope. We stayed in marriages that were past their sell buy date to live a better life. Now the young often end up on their own with kids and get into real poverty. No help from the fathers.

Poor I think is struggling with paying bills and no luxuries. Not being able to fix things that go wrong. Just existing. Horrible. And no hope.

Rosequartz, your claim that mothers smoke whilst in food banks , it's against the law to smoke in buildings used by the public

Mothers with pushchairs waiting for free food whilst puffing away on their ciggies ?

I'd agree that being in poverty is not being able to pay your bills and feed/clothe/house yourself and your dependants. I'd think pretty much everybody our age can remember living in cold houses with just one coal fire and ice on the inside of the panes. That was the just way of things in those days and didn't imply poverty. I think you're right, ONW...the definition has changed over the decades, as the general standard of living has risen.

On the other hand, my family were made poor and brought to the brink of poverty in the 90s by the soaring interest rates (17.5% at one point I believe) that rendered our monthly mortgage payment more than our total monthly joint income. They were bad times, we had to fight off the building society which was baying for us to relinquish the house. We juggled bills furiously. Every penny was pored over. Our toddler wore second-hand, as did we. I was ashamed to bring strangers into the house, it was so shabby and threadbare (and some strangers were ungraceful enough to let their lip-curls show). Everybody else was wearing big shoulder pads and shouting 'Loadsamoney!' We totally missed that boat.

Even as the economy improved we were short of money as we doggedly paid off all the debts accumulated during that time. That took over a decade. I'd been a poor art student so I had all the cook books like 'Cooking in a bedsitter' and 'Paupers Cookbook' and that stood me in good stead. We never went hungry. I still use those books! :-)

There's a happy ending. All this made us VERY good at managing money and we now live in a (tiny) mortgage-free house and can say we're more relaxed and secure financially. Over the last few years we've managed to replace much of the shabby stuff with new or newer of good quality, so it lasts. I'm proud of our little home now.

For the first time in 28 years' marriage we have savings. Bur we're mindful of the future, neither of us were able to afford to pay into pension schemes and the place hubby works doesn't provide one. I shall probably work as long as my eyes will take it; but as an illustrator I work from home so that's an advantage. Hubby is 8 years younger, so will be working for a while longer... just as well!

Sorry for the long post and congratulations if you reached the end without glazing over! :-)

The problem with measuring. Is as people have stated different lifestyles. There are too many people now to look at individually, so everything is general and not tailored for people's individual needs. Those paying taxes, our money can't afford to give money where it is not needed. There are too many people with no skills or the wrong skills. Not educated to a high enough level for today's world. We must help those people but in the meantime help them obtain the skills they need to earn money to support themselves to a level where they don't need financial help. Low wages benefit shareholders. Just saying!

I think it's wrong to say there are no longer poor pensioners. Many women in particular were not able to work when their children were young, and when they did return to work there were no company pensions available to them. They therefore don't qualify for a full state pension and have no works pension. How do they manage if they live alone.

But, JanT8, your sister had your parents to help out. Unfortunately, it's not that uncommon for parents (usually mothers) to be left in that situation. Imagine if she had had nobody!

Thank you, durhamjen, for understanding the point I'm trying to make.

Several years ago my then BIL left my sister with 2 small boys, 6 & 8 years old; she had no idea where he was and no means of contacting him. My sister was left to pick up the pieces and for many years received not a penny in maintenance for the boys, despite my BIL having his own business and a very lucrative lifestyle . My sister attended the family court so many times and my ex BIL never turned up; he even, on one occasion sent a message to the court saying that he couldn't attend as he had previously arranged business meetings to attend. He was actually in Spain, staying at his own villa, playing golf!! Sorry!! I could write a whole book on this!

My sister had to sell everything of value that she possessed in order to clothe and feed her boys. Fortunately our parents moved closer to her and helped as much as they could; even so I remember a time when she had to put cardboard in the bottom of the boys shoes as they were worn right through!

Sorry about the length of my post but my sister really was poor at that time!

On the other side of the coin, I always remember when my children were very small, on occasions I couldn't wait for Tuesday, family allowance day, to come round so that I could buy groceries for the rest of the week. However, I never considered myself to be poor, especially in comparison to others.

I really am going to stop now!!

So does anyone else think, like the government, that income does not matter and should not be an indicator of poverty?

fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/poverty_measure_changes_income-50463

As mentioned by Daphne, poverty should be measurable and not a matter of perception.

If you were an alcoholic ethelbags you would be far more likely to die from the alcohol than shame over unpaid bills, alcoholics and drug addicts do not think clearly , their world is such a dark place. Anyone on this forum could have become an alcoholic , it is not a life style choice , neither is drug addiction