Absolute poverty: UK sees biggest rise for 30 years

[fellow]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68625344

"The energy price crisis caused the sharpest increase in UK absolute poverty in 30 years, new figures show. Steep prices rises, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, meant hundreds of thousands more people fell into absolute poverty.

The figure jumped to 12 million in 2022-2023, a rise of 600,000. This means the rate of absolute poverty in the UK now stands at 18% - a rise of 0.78 percentage points.

Absolute poverty is the measure used by the prime minister when describing the government's record."

[morty]

So proving that inflation is a tax on the poor?

[nome]

I've yet to find an official definition of just what constitutes "poverty" 

Despite the word being thrown around so much there doesn't appear to be any specific definition.

I have seen various differing attempts at vaguely defining "poverty" based on it being a percentage of the average UK income and from my own back of fag packet calculation scraped together from different sources the one figure I arrived at was that for a household of one adult and one child if they have less than approximately £280 a week to live on after housing expenses then they are classed as "living in poverty"

To my mind £280 per week for a one adult one child household after rent or mortgage isn't really my idea of a poverty stricken subsistence level of existence. 

[Stewy]

I don't see anyone walking around emaciated or without footwear. 🤔

Next clickbait please. 

[Lucky Larry]

High energy prices - blame Putin , high food prices blame the EU , high inflation - blame the Chinese for eating bat stew and causing Covid , illegal immigrants - blame the French , never do the Brits ever take any responsibility for energy companies profiteering and causing price spikes, their own management of Covid and the billions stolen for useless PPE and the deaths it led to , the stupidity of refusing a centre in Calais to process asylum applications as offered by France or the insanity of a hard Brexit to pacify raging gammon faced knuckle dragging racists. The only thing left to flog off is the NHS which the Thatcherite Starmerites will push through until the only asset left is the people and that's when the modern day slave auctions return.  Nobody is more responsible for poverty in the UK than the criminals in charge of it.

[Lucky Larry]

7 minutes ago, Stewy said:

I don't see anyone walking around emaciated or without footwear. 🤔

Next clickbait please. 

I used to work in the most deprived housing estate in Europe just because you don't see it from the bay windows of your leafy suburban residence doesn't mean it doesn't exist 

[FallingAwake]

1 hour ago, nome said:

I've yet to find an official definition of just what constitutes "poverty" 

Despite the word being thrown around so much there doesn't appear to be any specific definition.

I have seen various differing attempts at vaguely defining "poverty" based on it being a percentage of the average UK income and from my own back of fag packet calculation scraped together from different sources the one figure I arrived at was that for a household of one adult and one child if they have less than approximately £280 a week to live on after housing expenses then they are classed as "living in poverty"

To my mind £280 per week for a one adult one child household after rent or mortgage isn't really my idea of a poverty stricken subsistence level of existence. 

Surely "poverty" should be related to whether or not you know where your next meal is coming from. *

* The choice of whether or not to use Uber Eats doesn't count.

[Orb]

3 hours ago, nome said:

I've yet to find an official definition of just what constitutes "poverty" 

It's much like pornography... it lacks a definition, but one knows it when one sees it. 

[nome]

10 hours ago, Lucky Larry said:

I used to work in the most deprived housing estate in Europe just because you don't see it from the bay windows of your leafy suburban residence doesn't mean it doesn't exist 

I've spent 25 years in a job where I'm interacting face to face on a daily basis with all members of the community and I can assure you those who are most often described as "vulnerable" and "poverty stricken" families and in receipt of TC/UC quite clearly have more disposable income than I do working full time in an above minimum wage job.

[Lucky Larry]

51 minutes ago, nome said:

I've spent 25 years in a job where I'm interacting face to face on a daily basis with all members of the community and I can assure you those who are most often described as "vulnerable" and "poverty stricken" families and in receipt of TC/UC quite clearly have more disposable income than I do working full time in an above minimum wage job.

I can assure you if that was the case you would chuck your job and sign on , its bolloks 

[regprentice]

11 hours ago, nome said:

I've yet to find an official definition of just what constitutes "poverty" 

Despite the word being thrown around so much there doesn't appear to be any specific definition.

Absolute poverty - Absolute poverty refers to when a person or household does not have the minimum amount of income needed to meet the minimum living requirements needed over an extended period of time.

Here inflation in food and energy prices have pushed many people into poverty. For example, all things being equal, a single man whose only Income is JSA now has to spend 47% of that income heating his home before he has paid his rent or bought food link 

There are other kind of poverty measured in different situations. For example in 3rd world countries where food is scarce they talk about "abject poverty" which is defined as "a days work not buying enough calories to do a days work". Again a fairly vague definition, but as soon as wages go up the cost of food goes up as well. 

[Stewy]

2 hours ago, nome said:

I've spent 25 years in a job where I'm interacting face to face on a daily basis with all members of the community and I can assure you those who are most often described as "vulnerable" and "poverty stricken" families and in receipt of TC/UC quite clearly have more disposable income than I do working full time in an above minimum wage job.

Exactly. They generally seem to have enough money for cigarettes, alcohol, takeaways, multiple smartphones and illicit drugs. Strange that. 🤔

[nome]

1 hour ago, Lucky Larry said:

I can assure you if that was the case you would chuck your job and sign on , its bolloks 

It's not ******** at all, it's facts borne out by first hand experience, unlike your emotive nonsense. 

Unfortunately I'm not in position to take advantage of the profligate benefits system that's readily available to those who choose to have children they can't afford then choose to work minimal part time hours in order to receive optimum benefits,  because I don't have and don't want kids.

[nome]

43 minutes ago, regprentice said:

Absolute poverty - Absolute poverty refers to when a person or household does not have the minimum amount of income needed to meet the minimum living requirements needed over an extended period of time.

Here inflation in food and energy prices have pushed many people into poverty. For example, all things being equal, a single man whose only Income is JSA now has to spend 47% of that income heating his home before he has paid his rent or bought food link 

There are other kind of poverty measured in different situations. For example in 3rd world countries where food is scarce they talk about "abject poverty" which is defined as "a days work not buying enough calories to do a days work". Again a fairly vague definition, but as soon as wages go up the cost of food goes up as well. 

I do agree that JSA is a pittance and barely worth even claiming if you're childless and fit for work. 

It's the profligate "in work" benefits that are ruinously generous and exploited by those who choose to have children they can't afford and then choose to work minimal part time hours in order to receive optimum benefits. 

[Locke]

The government defines poverty however suits its current position

[winkie]

13 hours ago, morty said:

So proving that inflation is a tax on the poor?

Of course it is......people's savings built up over a lifetime of work that once used to have buying power have been devalued and can only buy a fraction of what they once could.....tax is higher on everything that is bought, 20% vat on £50 is less than 20% on £100....... freezing the personal allowances for years means paying more tax every year.

Housing and rent increases with no cap or stability, no security will eat up more income each year, money that will never see and can never spend.....enough to make some go on the bottle......no way, no stake, no hope....

When all in the boat together relative poverty is fine, we can then compare ourselves with others just like us.......huge growing inequality will make some feel different to others, a failure.....tell anyone they are a failure and useless enough times without offering practical help and that is exactly what they become.....live up to their name.

[scottbeard]

18 hours ago, Stewy said:

I don't see anyone walking around emaciated or without footwear. 🤔

Next clickbait please. 

As per the other thread, the dictionary definition of poverty is not "emaciated and without footwear".  Dying whilst on an NHS waiting list also counts.

But hey, you're just a troll trying to get people riled up, so I won't get riled up.  I shall have a nice cup of tea

[Lucky Larry]

6 hours ago, nome said:

It's not ******** at all, it's facts borne out by first hand experience, unlike your emotive nonsense. 

I've been inside the building I posted , families were still living existing there, so how is yours first hand experience and mine is emotive nonsense when I experienced it first hand 

Emaciated man deemed 'fit for work' despite weighing six stone dies after health problems - Daily Star

was he emaciated and poverty stricken and would you pass him fit for work ? You're just a bitter wee man with a self entitlement issue 

[desiringonlychild]

6 hours ago, nome said:

It's not ******** at all, it's facts borne out by first hand experience, unlike your emotive nonsense. 

Unfortunately I'm not in position to take advantage of the profligate benefits system that's readily available to those who choose to have children they can't afford then choose to work minimal part time hours in order to receive optimum benefits,  because I don't have and don't want kids.

aren't children expensive so even if they get more, they have to spend more on the kids. 

[msi]

6 hours ago, Stewy said:

Exactly. They generally seem to have enough money for cigarettes, alcohol, takeaways, multiple smartphones and illicit drugs. Strange that. 🤔

You'd hope so or you couldn't earn from your Uber eats gig, innit

[nome]

2 hours ago, Lucky Larry said:

I've been inside the building I posted , families were still living existing there, so how is yours first hand experience and mine is emotive nonsense when I experienced it first hand 

Emaciated man deemed 'fit for work' despite weighing six stone dies after health problems - Daily Star

was he emaciated and poverty stricken and would you pass him fit for work ? You're just a bitter wee man with a self entitlement issue 

The Benefits system has become a complete bastardisation of what it was set up to be.

It was primarily formed to act as a safety net for the genuinely  disabled and those who found themselves temporarily out of work... it's those two groups who now find benefits the most difficult to access and the least generous if they can make a successful claim. 

Meanwhile the "anxiety and depression" brigade and the degenerate underclass of feckless breeders can easily access a wealth of generous benefits as a lifestyle choice.

[Speed1987]

9 hours ago, nome said:

It's not ******** at all, it's facts borne out by first hand experience, unlike your emotive nonsense. 

Unfortunately I'm not in position to take advantage of the profligate benefits system that's readily available to those who choose to have children they can't afford then choose to work minimal part time hours in order to receive optimum benefits,  because I don't have and don't want kids.

I think for most, it's the design of the system rather than choice.

Childcare is costly, so some choose to work part-time and have benefits. The option is either you look after your children or someone else does. You can see why low earners opt to work part-time.

I do however agree that people should plan for a family without the intention of becoming a burden to the state.

The government are changing this, to offer free childcare for younger ages, in phases. This will encourage people to remain in work.

https://www.childcarechoices.gov.uk/

"Now accepting applications for 2-year-olds for April 2024

Up to 15 hours of early education over 38 weeks of the year for 2 year olds.

Up to 30 hours of early education over 38 weeks of the year for 3-4 year olds.

From Sept 2024 - Up to 15 hours for eligible working families in England with a child between 9 and 23 months old. 

From Sept 2025 - Up to 30 hours for eligible working families in England with a child from 9 months old up to school age."

Edited March 22 by Speed1987

[winkie]

22 hours ago, Stewy said:

I don't see anyone walking around emaciated or without footwear. 🤔

Next clickbait please. 

You are sick....if you think poverty is that you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Maghull Mike]

22 hours ago, Lucky Larry said:

I used to work in the most deprived housing estate in Europe just because you don't see it from the bay windows of your leafy suburban residence doesn't mean it doesn't exist 

Ah..................yes i recall Old Liverpool well, or is this NI?

[Lucky Larry]

3 minutes ago, Maghull Mike said:

Ah..................yes i recall Old Liverpool well, or is this NI?

It's Glasgow