68,000 homeless in Britain, and it's going to get worse

[Ms Macbeth]

I'd like to see actual monetary figures defining poverty. A single person on basic JSA living independently with no other income will be in poverty, but another person on the same amount, living in a parental home may not be. A single person with no barriers such as disability or a chronic health condition should of course be best placed to find work.

 

Spending choices, debt, and location all have an impact on quality of life, as do family structure and housing tenure. Two similar households on the same income can have very different financial scenarios.

[ECCOnoob]

Meanwhile, another 700,000 have joined the 14 million already in relative poverty...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poverty-britain-joseph-rowntree-foundation-report-theresa-may-social-mobility-commission-million-a8089491.html.

 

That's a fifth of the population. But still some people on SF refuse to acknowledge the decline in living standards.

 

Nice choice of stats and wording chosen by the JRF to get their headline grabbing attention. "relative poverty" "median figures show" "average" this.... "appear to show" that....

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

So, we are defining a working person having a household income of 16k a year or £32k a year for a couple as the threshold for "proverty" now. REALLY!!

 

Low income? - yes. Struggle? - yes. Should be better? - yes. Proverty? - I dont think so.

 

If they really wanted to make a point why dont they stop chasing the headlines and focus on what the real issue is called. Inequality.

 

Should have called it by its proper name with focus on the proper issues.

 

All this trying to peddle horse crap vague definitions and undefined figures to be used as some anti-tory anti-austerity shtick just makes people see right through it and disregard any genuine point they tried to have.

[El Cid]

So, we are defining a working person having a household income of 16k a year or £32k a year for a couple as the threshold for "proverty" now. REALLY!!

 

Low income? - yes. Struggle? - yes. Should be better? - yes. Proverty? - I dont think so.

 

 

I earn around £15k; living on my own means I have the same housing costs as a couple, so it I make the right choices - I am ok.

Someone with the housing costs of living in the South would struggle.

[Anna B]

Nice choice of stats and wording chosen by the JRF to get their headline grabbing attention. "relative poverty" "median figures show" "average" this.... "appear to show" that....

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

So, we are defining a working person having a household income of 16k a year or £32k a year for a couple as the threshold for "proverty" now. REALLY!!

 

Low income? - yes. Struggle? - yes. Should be better? - yes. Proverty? - I dont think so.

 

If they really wanted to make a point why dont they stop chasing the headlines and focus on what the real issue is called. Inequality.

 

Should have called it by its proper name with focus on the proper issues.

 

All this trying to peddle horse crap vague definitions and undefined figures to be used as some anti-tory anti-austerity shtick just makes people see right through it and disregard any genuine point they tried to have.

 

Full time (36 hours) on minimum wage works out at less than £12,960 p.a.

Plenty of workers on that, less if they can't get full time work, 'gig' economy, 0 hours etc.

 

Plenty of self-employed on less than that. Plenty of pensioners on less than that. Plenty of unemployed on less than that. Plenty of disabled on less than that.

 

So yes, I'd say that was a pretty hard to manage on, and covers a lot of people. Add in things like debt (often through no fault of their own,) and I'd say that was relative poverty.

[ECCOnoob]

Full time (36 hours) on minimum wage works out at less than £12,960 p.a.

Plenty of workers on that, less if they can't get full time work, 'gig' economy, 0 hours etc.

 

Plenty of self-employed on less than that. Plenty of pensioners on less than that. Plenty of unemployed on less than that. Plenty of disabled on less than that.

 

So yes, I'd say that was a pretty hard to manage on, and covers a lot of people. Add in things like debt (often through no fault of their own,) and I'd say that was relative poverty.

 

I know that but you are completely missing the point.

 

This "poverty" which those "shocking" figures are based on is a median average salary and the JRF report is based on their own ludicrous definition of 60% or less of that median being classed as "poverty".

 

That boils down to any individual earning up to £16.5k still being classed as in poverty. Get towards the top end and it clearly isnt. In fact, is clearly rediculous.

 

Can you not see that their deliberately using such a broad definition gives a hugely inflated estimate of what the "poverty" situation looks like, perfectly fits their agenda and is calculated and worded in such a way to grab more headlines.

 

I wouldn't argue that those at the bottom of the scales on minimum wage may well be struggling. However, those on a more manageable sum of £15-16k pa are not so much.

 

Scale that up across the board, and add on couples who may have a combined household income of mid-high £20ks and you would hard pressed to agree any of them are what should really be defined as "in poverty".

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2017 at 14:52 ----------

 

I'd like to see actual monetary figures defining poverty. A single person on basic JSA living independently with no other income will be in poverty, but another person on the same amount, living in a parental home may not be. A single person with no barriers such as disability or a chronic health condition should of course be best placed to find work.

 

Spending choices, debt, and location all have an impact on quality of life, as do family structure and housing tenure. Two similar households on the same income can have very different financial scenarios.

 

Completely agree.

 

This is what I dislike about any of these sensationalised articles. They never bother to report the full facts or even where the data is gathered and how its interpreted.

 

Stats can be minipulated to prove or disprove anything. But of course that wont stop the papers splashing their stories to get more copies out of the door.

Edited December 5, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Ms Macbeth]

Full time (36 hours) on minimum wage works out at less than £12,960 p.a.

Plenty of workers on that, less if they can't get full time work, 'gig' economy, 0 hours etc.

 

Plenty of self-employed on less than that. Plenty of pensioners on less than that. Plenty of unemployed on less than that. Plenty of disabled on less than that.

 

So yes, I'd say that was a pretty hard to manage on, and covers a lot of people. Add in things like debt (often through no fault of their own,) and I'd say that was relative poverty.

 

A huge rise in single person households hasn't helped. There are plenty of couples like my husband and me, who would be far worse off if we lived separately, and in many cases would need benefits to get by. As it is, we manage comfortably, but I suspect might fall under the definition of 'poverty' when we are far from that. Poorer families used to pool resources to get by, the way the benefits system operates discourages sharing. Hence the rise of a single parent and children in one property, with the 'partner' living separately to maximise what can be claimed.

[El Cid]

Plenty of self-employed on less than that. Plenty of pensioners on less than that. Plenty of unemployed on less than that. Plenty of disabled on less than that.

 

 

But if they are over 40, shouldn't they have saved and be wealthier as they get older?

I have struggled due to divorce, but around 48% stay married.

[*_ash_*]

I'd like to see actual monetary figures defining poverty. A single person on basic JSA living independently with no other income will be in poverty, but another person on the same amount, living in a parental home may not be. A single person with no barriers such as disability or a chronic health condition should of course be best placed to find work.

 

Spending choices, debt, and location all have an impact on quality of life, as do family structure and housing tenure. Two similar households on the same income can have very different financial scenarios.

 

The figures were on the bbc link in earlier post - but even they (the GREAT BBC) were politically influencing I thought, by not quoting the source correctly.

 

I know the figure which matched 'me' was £144/week.

 

However I had to click on the their own link to the source which says that this standard that people use, is after housing costs - which is quite considerable omission IMO. (as you probably know too, I knew this already)

 

The BBC did mention this in the next paragraph but still - I thought - 'in a newspaper headline' type manner.

 

-

 

Based on the poverty source, for at least the last 4 years I'm included in the 'living in poverty' stats.

 

However, I neither think I live in poverty, nor do I wish to be used as political firepower for Labour or any left-wing rags.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2017 at 23:52 ----------

 

Meanwhile, another 700,000 have joined the 14 million already in relative poverty...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poverty-britain-joseph-rowntree-foundation-report-theresa-may-social-mobility-commission-million-a8089491.html.

 

That's a fifth of the population. But still some people on SF refuse to acknowledge the decline in living standards.

 

Do you feel sorry for me living in poverty Anna?

 

I doubt it -

 

-

 

the bold here is another point, so you have brought 2 things together here.

 

This bold, I think is a strawman.

[Cyclone]

Relative poverty is defined as 60% of the median income.

In case nobody had already said.

 

Relative poverty is more useful as an annual comparison to see if the gap between comfortable and low income is widening or falling.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2017 at 08:47 ----------

 

Its relative poverty though, if the rich get richer, that means relative poor increases.

The worrying thing, is the cost of housing, which is a major factor in being homeless.

 

To be fair, it's if the average get richer.

The median is largely unaffected by the income of the super rich.

[Mister M]

Nice choice of stats and wording chosen by the JRF to get their headline grabbing attention. "relative poverty" "median figures show" "average" this.... "appear to show" that....

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

So, we are defining a working person having a household income of 16k a year or £32k a year for a couple as the threshold for "proverty" now. REALLY!!

 

Low income? - yes. Struggle? - yes. Should be better? - yes. Proverty? - I dont think so.

 

If they really wanted to make a point why dont they stop chasing the headlines and focus on what the real issue is called. Inequality.

 

Should have called it by its proper name with focus on the proper issues.

 

All this trying to peddle horse crap vague definitions and undefined figures to be used as some anti-tory anti-austerity shtick just makes people see right through it and disregard any genuine point they tried to have.

 

On paper 16k doesn't equate to poverty to me either (that's just above my yearly salary - howver I'm fortunate in that I'm single and have no children).

 

However there must be something about the experience of those who, for example, are subject to the Work Capability Assessment, because MPs from all sides of the chamber spoke about how constituents judged fit to work died or became suicidal soon after assessments:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/17/atos-attack-emotional-commons-debate

Or just today, in the Commons, the MP Heidi Alexander was in tears at hearing the impact of the latest social security reforms:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/news/tory-mp-in-tears-after-hearing-welfare-reforms-speech/vi-BBGh6ox?ocid=spartanntp

 

Looking at the raw figures on the page from the perspective of someone who may be doing very nicely thank you is one thing; but empathising with the daily grind and the real misery of the lived experience of those low down in society is another.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mister M