Poverty

[Mick Mac]

What's the most a person and his/her family can earn and still be defined as being in poverty?

[Brendan]

Oh fuck the poor. Our lords and masters elect will shut them up.

[mockney piers]

According to someone I knew at Goldman Sachs 'You can work a double shift at McDonalds and be on 50 k', and if he said it it must be true, after all he went to public school. Therefore there is obviously no poverty in this country at all, it's just a ruse to get hold of our taxes...like global warming...i mean, did you see the snow this winter?!?!.

[Brendan]

Commie!

[*Bob*]

I can't believe anyone can 'get by' on less than ?50k these days.

That's what I said to our cleaner anyway. She didn't say much so I think she agreed with me.

[Loz]

I hate the downgrading/misuse of the word poverty. The word is 'poor'.

The Evening Standard recently did a series on 'The Dispossessed' that included an article about a woman living 'below the poverty line'. Her 'income' was ?38,844 tax free which is the equivalent of of over ?50K in taxed earnings. But, as she has 11 children, this is defined as 'in poverty'.

[Brendan]

Yeah. What?s she complaining about? Poverty my foot! Jealousy more like it.

Anyway how could a single mother of 11 possibly know anything about what?s good for society?

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hate the downgrading/misuse of the word poverty.

> The word is 'poor'.

>

> The Evening Standard recently did a series on 'The

> Dispossessed' that included an article about a

> woman living 'below the poverty line'. Her

> 'income' was ?38,844 tax free which is the

> equivalent of of over ?50K in taxed earnings.

> But, as she has 11 children, this is defined as

> 'in poverty'.

where's the misuse? why the hate?

poverty means: the condition of being extremely poor (cambridge advanced learner's dictionary) or the state of being extremely poor (oxford english dictionary)

in relation to the ?38k, it's not her money - it's the family's (12 people!). it's not like she could chose to keep it all for herself, so surely you have to consider surrounding circumstances (like number of dependents) when considering if someone is poor?

cue people moaning about spongers and the fact that people have children that they cannot support without assistance (doesn't mean they're not poor tho)

[VikkiM]

I think that the measure used in the UK is anyone living with a household income of less than 60% of the median income after housing costs. I think that would be a household income of around ?13,000 so basically not very much. As Loz says, I think that some measurements take into account the number of children you have.

The UK measurement is a measure of 'relative poverty' and as the median is used, the poverty line will rise if inequality grows.

'Absolute poverty' would be the same across all countries and would be essentially having nothing. If you wanted to try to put a figure on this in income terms it would be living on less than $1.25 a day.

[njc97]

To quote a friend of mine recently "I know people who earn 400k who are barely getting by"

[silverfox]

njc97 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To quote a friend of mine recently "I know people

> who earn 400k who are barely getting by"

That could be true and they could be worse off than some people on the dole in terms of disposable income if you think about it (eg career has resulted in a couple of divorces, children to maintain, put through schools, mortgages to pay etc)

[*Bob*]

.. can only afford to go skiing twice a year..

[Loz]

Poverty is not being able to afford the basics: food, shelter, clothing. Few people in the UK live in poverty. There are quite a lot of poor people, though.

Relative poverty is a nonsense. Compared to Richard Branson, I live in relative poverty.

'Absolute poverty' would be the same across all countries and would be essentially having nothing. If you wanted to try to put a figure on this in income terms it would be living on less than $1.25 a day.

I disagree. In some countries you can afford the basic of life for a few pounds a day. That's won't buy anything in London.

in relation to the ?38k, it's not her money - it's the family's (12 people!). it's not like she could chose to keep it all for herself, so surely you have to consider surrounding circumstances (like number of dependents) when considering if someone is poor?

Mick Mac asked the question, "What's the most a person and his/her family can earn and still be defined as being in poverty?". I've found someone getting the equivalent of ?50K - and the article suggests she and her family would still be in poverty at the ?60K mark.

[Brendan]

Poverty is a relative concept. From my personal experience someone living on ?5 a month on a subsistence farm in a village in Africa with the support of a basic local school, clean water and access to a clinic leads a far less deprived life than someone with an unemployed single mother living off benefits in SE London.

Granted they don?t have access to all the bells and whistles and if they get sick they may well die but when it comet to inclusion, sense of purpose and their general place and worthiness in the society they live in they are far better off. Disillusionment, crime, abuse and the various other ills caused by poverty are far less prevalent.

And that?s not even getting into the economics of how people with higher amounts of buying power push prices up and make basic necessities further out of reach of those with less.

Just because you?ve provided the masses with their bread and circuses doesn?t mean there is no poverty.

[Jeremy]

Let's face it, it is a bit of a daft article.

Does it come as a surprise to anyone that if a woman has 11 kids, and doesn't have any money, they might struggle to get by?

I'm actually quite surprised she can afford ?350 pw on food, and the top-end sky package.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac asked the question, "What's the most a

> person and his/her family can earn and still be

> defined as being in poverty?". I've found someone

> getting the equivalent of ?50K - and the article

> suggests she and her family would still be in

> poverty at the ?60K mark.

so a sensible answer is probably 'it depends how big the family is'

[nashoi]

You can work a double shift at McDonalds and be on 50 k

Let's see, Macdonalds pay ?5.80ph aka the minimum wage.

?5.80 * 16 * 7 * 52= ?50k. Any chance your friend can get me a job at Goldman Sachs Mockney? I've already got one of their calculators, guaranteed to keep me out of prison.

[woofmarkthedog]

Poorvity TM

Pay us a small annual "donation" & we will define your wealth ( or lack of it )

"Coz your worthless it ? "

( really I can do this stuff standing on my head , did you know the number 69 looks the same upside down ? )

W**F

[dulwichmum]

I should imagine that not having enough cash to pay for a pedi would be poverty in SE21...

[woofmarkthedog]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's the most a person and his/her family can

> earn and still be defined as being in poverty?

-----------------------------------------------

Just...

About enough to buy 40 "Sovereigns" ( in 10's ) but not enough to buy "Smirnoff" & do the key meter

W**F