Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

I know several of those who 'work for themselves' - one of them being my BiL. He certainly only declares enough of his earning to pay minimal tax, most of his business is cash on hand.

There are fair few of the 'self employed' who operate like this; it's not only Big Business who fiddle the system.

Sorry Annie I must be stupid today as I've tried and tried to unravel the syntax in your reply and I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

Put it in a simple form I might understand please.

updates.oxfam.org.uk/c/1ILHzQOnEuB97CdRlEJ2VT51N

If Osborne did this, we would not need the cuts that will impoverish these children, or other children in the world.

" “1 in 7 of the labour force now work for themselves… They earn less than other workers. On average just £11,000 a year.”

This is right, according to the Office for National Statistics. Its latest figures show that just over 31 million people are employed, of which 4.5 million are self-employed. That’s around 14.5% of all workers, or one in seven (measuring over May-July 2015). Read more here.

Its figures show median income from self-employment was £207 a week in 2012/13—which would be £10,800 for the whole year. It hasn’t published a more recent update to this analysis. "

From Jeremy Corbyn's conference speech.

These people are going to be assumed to be paying themselves the living wage when it comes in next year. So from next April there will be many more families whose benefits will be cut.

Soon, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a well respected charity doing research on poverty. Why do you treat it with suspicion? Why should I bother giving you another link when all you do is criticise the two bodies that are most respected by the government?

The subject, as Gracesgran says, is that all these children are living in families that are going to be made poorer by this government's acts.
Do you not agree that that is worth discussing, rather than a definition of poverty?
"They are not really in poverty" is not the same as "they are not going to be made poorer."

How did you manage to twist my post to come to that conclusion, Gracesgran? You made an assumption about me which I wasn't about to let lie, so you accuse me of not having a thought for 'the children'!

Anya's right, threads such as this are dominated by certain factions trying to claim the moral high ground through rudeness.

Still avoiding the subject I see Ana with more thought for your own sensibilities then the children being put into poverty.

I am off now to look after a lovely lady of nearly 95 who suffers from dementia. My darling Mum still has more understanding and compassion in her little finger then many on here have in their whole being. You now have the information you asked for - how about a thought for the children?

No, Gracesgran, it is not obvious that you have never needed or know anyone who has needed to ask for some help even though they are working and doing the best they can.

My own daughter is in that very position. Please don't make crass assumptions.

Ana! At least you did not put "in words please, not by a link." this time.

It is obvious that you have never needed or know anyone who has needed to ask for some help even though they are working and doing the best they can. Which is great but anyone who has or who has helped someone who has will know it is not something you can easily simplify.

This, as I think someone has said above, equates to a household income of about £16,000 pa, or £1,333 a month or £307.69 a week. If you stop to think it is pretty obvious that this is the household income before benefits as the benefits which are added will depend on the composition of the household. It is taken from the Child Poverty Act which underpinned the existing framework and had all party support until IDS decided he knew better.

Is that before of after benefits are added on?

That was in the OP Ana which is why I suggested you read it.

Is that the definition then? That I was asking to be told last night but just got a lecture on my perceived shortcomings?

Right you are then - 60% of the average it is.

Oh ana I thought that it was 60% of the average? Do you think it is different?

No Anya, just giving my opinion of what I think concern for the welfare of children is and I do not think it is self righteous compassion, do you hold a different opinion ?

Anyway I'm off. Can't be doing with this level of pointless 'debate' where questions are stonewalled and one side tries to claim the moral high ground through rudeness, and persuasive arguement is unheard of.

Yes it would, as long as we're clear about what 'poverty wages' actually are.

It would be interesting to do a other exercise as to how a family of 4 manages on poverty wages.

And you have the monopoly on compassion of course Annie ?

Ceesnan I think that ww's post is implying you shouldn't 'bicker' but we should just let some people say what they want but not be allowed the courtesy of a response.

Being concerned for children living in poverty is not self righteous concern it is a compassionate concern for these children.

Shhhhh! Bicker, bicker gets on ones do das!

Look it up Ana, I am not employed as your researcher. Do you not regard that as rude, Gracesgran? As for reporting me, go right ahead

dj, having now started to look at your link, I notice that it is partly funded by the Joseph Rowntree foundation.

2 points really.

Why the Institute for Fiscal Studies needs funding from sources other than the government of the day, is troublesome to me.

Plus I think I am right in saying that hte Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a far from impartial organisation/charity.

When sources for information are suspect, personally I dont trust what is written.

If you have another link, I will gladly take a look at it. I also remember there was a programme link you put somewhere which I didnt get around to watching the programme.
You obviously do not have to provide links if you dont want to dj.

niggly I made much the same point on one of the political threads. And one of our longesr posting and respected members actually had a post deleted for expressing her opinion on this very subject rather eloquently. Her post was obviously reported by the subject.

The annoying thing is, as someone whose political leanings are to the left, is that I am being forced to distance myself from some discussions that I would rather support, by bringing reasoned and thoughtful persuation to the thread. I would be ashamed to throw in my lot with the 'heavies'.

I do hear the occasional sweet voice of reason from the left from some posters with whom I'd be happy to support. I'd also love to debate issues such as poverty, which means different things to different people.

I'm waiting now for the posts saying 'if you can't stand the heat' and 'if you think this is bad then' which will inevitably follow. That's not the point. There are those whose opinions are not being heard - only those who shout the loudest and most aggressively.

I am having a great deal of difficulty with this site on my laptop so this may or may not post.

Whitewave is right. Most of the posts (and I have allowed myself to be caught up in it) have aimed of the topic. Which is:

A well known and respected body, using statistical analysis accepted by all governments until the Tories decide to change it in the last few months (although we don't know what to) have said that Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020.

The children should be what we are thinking about surely.