rural poverty

[Russethouse]

 But not everyone who has children is unemployed, nor does the fact that someone is unemployed mean that they are in that position of their own valition - what's your source Pat ?

[woolybanana]

There is a huge difference between those with children who do try to work and take care of their own and those who make no effort but just simply sponge off the taxpayer. The latter are not deserving and should be pot under pressure to work, whilst the former should receive incentives and top ups. excessive numbers of children should never be rewarded.

[Russethouse]

You are right, but surely it can never be correct to punish a child, or put their welfare in jeopardy because they had the misfortune to have feckless parents ?

 Surely any society has to do the very best it can for its children or as a species we have no future at all.....

Its very easy to be negative about this, but their are millions of ordinary parents doing a very good job of raising their children to be worthwhile human beings, not every single mother lives in a housing association property and has purposefully had multiple children by different fathers.....

[cooperlola]

Exactly, R/H, this is what bothers me.  As angry as it makes me that people might (and I think this is a pretty big might, and probably only applies to a tiny number of newsworthy families who serve to back up these silly arguments in the red-top press) bang out kids just to get tax breaks and social security, it really is not the fault of the kids.  And sorry, but punish them and they will react by mirroring their parents' behaviour as the only way to benefit from a society that treats them like scum.

[crossy67]

I have a lot of 1st hand experience watching my two older sisters with their children. One has two grown up children one has a decent full time job the other (daughter 18 years old) has just got her 1st proper job in a shop, she didn't want to work.  This sister had her 1st child very early but both her and her husband work hard for their money and used to get help from the state.  Good on em.

The 2nd sister is a totally different story.  I have nothing to do with her for various reasons so some of the details are a bit sketchy.  She has somewhere between 5 and 7 children, she has NEVER worked, and I mean NEVER, a day in her life.  She started spewing out consumers at an early age and married a mug with a well paid job.  Eventually he got wise and out.  Since then she has had many more babies and lived with a few men, the latest one has stuck around, he has never worked either.  They live in a council house, own a car and are alive and well.  To my mind they are cosy living in the knowledge society will never see them and their many children out on the street, that's more than can be said for the sister that has worked hard to buy their own house and who's jobs are now shakey.

My mother has had the odd part time job when I was growing up but for the past 25 years to my knowledge she has never worked, she found her self a builder that was on invalidity benefit, strange, he is well enough to do the odd foreigner.  They own their own house, mortgage paid by the state, a decent car, paid by the state and even have a caravan in Cornwall.  I wish I was so ill I couldn't pay tax! 

Where I live I see lots of people living in council accommodation with a few dirty shouted at children that don't work yet they can all afford to buy Henleys cloths.  Why do the poorest chavs always buy the most expensive tacky clothes available with their dole checks?  You can walk round town in in a week day and see them, not working but wearing the equivalent cost of my car in cloths.

Now, back on topic again. 

What level of income would every body class as poor enough to induce poverty?  Based on the cost of living here in the UK and forgetting mortgage payments I would say anything below £7k is hardship, not I can't afford a topup for me moby hardship, proper I can't afford new shoes hardship.

[Quillan]

[quote user="crossy67"]What level of income would every body class as poor enough to induce poverty?  Based on the cost of living here in the UK and forgetting mortgage payments I would say anything below £7k is hardship, not I can't afford a topup for me moby hardship, proper I can't afford new shoes hardship.
[/quote]

"The European Union uses a comparative measure which sets a poverty line at 50% of the median income. (The median comes half-way up the income distribution). This means that there is more poverty where there is more inequality, or 'economic distance'." Source

"The results of the 2009 ASHE show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK grew by 2.0 per cent in the year to April 2009 to reach £489. Median earnings of full-time male employees were £531 per week in April 2009; for women the median was £426." Source

So basically anyone with an income of or below (£489x52)/2= £12,714 is considered to be living in poverty.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Hoddy"]There's something wrong here Q. Are you seriously trying to tell me that my hard-working single parent daughter gets £303 from the government each week for the first of her children with an additional amount for the second ? Hoddy[/quote]

Some of the £303 will of course be taxed but then it depends how much you earn as to which tax bracket you are in but I would think that for most it will be 20% which brings the figure in real terms down to around £253 per week. Source

There are some other benefits which I neglected to put in the calculation and a visit to the source should explain why I left them out.

[Russethouse]

Frankly Q I'd be amazed if most people got all the benefits you talk about.....if they did why would would mothers worry about going back to work ?

[crossy67]

Not talking about government figures. What do you think you would need to live a decent basic level life?  I have managed for years on £12k with a small mortgage, holidays and no scrimping.  This is the reason I have been able to save enough to hopefully have the life I want now.  We have managed on less for a few years at a time, when my wife lost her job or when I went back to uni for instance we survived on far less quite comfortably.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"]
Frankly Q I'd be amazed if most people got all the benefits you talk about.....if they did why would would mothers worry about going back to work ?
[/quote]

Well perhaps it's different courses for different horses. My mother didn't go back to work until I left primary school, she felt her place was at home, being there when I got home from school and looking after my father and the house. Some mothers go back to work within weeks, for those that do there is £175 per week available for childcare which actually gives them an incentive to go back but what if they were like my mother and don't want to go back straight away or perhaps go back part time while their child/children are at school. It is then down to their partner to support them unless both are unemployed (or are single) in which case they get a raft of benefits like council tax paid, housing benefit etc and the interest on their mortgage paid if they have one. Those numbers when added up are probably worth a lot more than the £175 per week.

[Russethouse]

  I think you are confusing cash payments with childcare vouchers, but in any case I 'm far from sure that £175 per week would pay for a full week in some areas (here  for example)

Even so it is often very borderline as to whether returning to work is worthwhile, childcare can  be very expensive

 Consider that a few years ago good full time, state run nursery schools were available for working Mums...

[DraytonBoy]

The child benefit we receive here is double what we received in the UK. Some of it is means-tested but most is not. It does explain why my cotisations are so high though.!

[Chancer]

[quote user="crossy67"]Not talking about government figures. What do you think you would need to live a decent basic level life?  I have managed for years on £12k with a small mortgage, holidays and no scrimping.  This is the reason I have been able to save enough to hopefully have the life I want now.  We have managed on less for a few years at a time, when my wife lost her job or when I went back to uni for instance we survived on far less quite comfortably.
[/quote]

It makes a mockery of the poverty level being set at £12K when people like yourself can achieve what you have as a couple and still save to achieve the life you now have.

Many people I know really do believe that they are living in poverty on £12K a year.

I live on £4500 a year (2009 figure) and I am anything but poor, I consider that I live well in the circumstances, I dont have a mortgage and over the past 3 years have had to make economies and cut out all but the essentials to get down to that figure, for instance in 2007 I lived on £6750, when I do this years reconciliation I expect it will have dropped a little again but not much as there have been very few additional economies that I could make.

I also run a car and make several trips back to the UK on the above figure, I have a pied à terre over there which costs me a total of  £900 a year in addition to the above figures, the car when it finally is uneconomical to repair will have to be replaced out of savings or borrowed money.

I do acknowledge that if one is employed then their are other costs to be considered, commuting, clothing,  tools etc, also when my car breaks down I walk, I can take my time to effect economical repaits, those working 25 miles from home will have to use a garage and may even have to hire a car, they will probably have a newer more reliable car with the attendant repayments, servicing costs etc.

Someone suggested the figure of £7k a year as the poverty line, I would say for a single person who has to travel to work it is close to the limit, perhaps it equates to the minimum age, I doubt though that they would be better off sitting at home on benefits unless they have ovaries [6]

[Gluestick]

I believe, JRC, one carefully consider a number of variables, here.

If a younger person with few assets tries to live on say £12k P.A., then they fall foul of the intensive nature of the modern bureaucratic state.

Quite modest income levels place wage earners into the position where they have to pay income tax and NIC: that's why various state benefits and credits were introduced: as well as those aimed at encouraging benefit-dependents to seek work.

For example, they would struggle to even afford NHS dentistry: if they could find one.

The "Free" bits are very limited: same with opticians.

It is now significant how the number of 30 something mothers at the lowest end of society in UK have the sort of gaps in their teeth I can well remember from the early 1950s and early 60s.

Housing benefit has growed and growed like Topsy, only since council taxes are far too high and rents also silly, relative to lower income spectrum.

Perhaps most critical of all, they would be unable to make any forward provision for the future: at a time when state pensions are diminishing and will diminish yet further.

Living on limited means is much easier for older people who already have access to reasonable assets: such as property.

[Russethouse]

Crossy - how many of you in family ?

[crossy67]

Just my wife and I in our house. 

We bought it young when I was 25 for £45k and have lived there for 16 years and have a very small mortgage left.  We survived for 4 years on my wifes wage of £15k before tax when I went to uni, that was in 2000.  I am now 41.  We have never spent much money but have a nice warm home with a decent tv and the usual white goods and toys.  We don't rush out to buy a new car when the neighbours get one, I own a 7 year old Corsa diesel that started out as a van I bought off one of our customers for £500.  We don't spend £45 a month on Sky we have a basic package.  I am very handy and buy basic washing machines that I can make last 15 years.  In short we are very comfortable but don't bow to the pressure to be a mega consumer.  When we have had one income we still have had a holiday a year, paid all bills, had heating on and bought presents for our loved ones.  Ok we never went out for meals or bought the more luxurious foods but we ate well.  Being vegetarian helps lots too (Julie is, I am not but might as well be).

The bit about poverty not meaning you can't afford a topup for your mobile wasn't a joke, the essential lists grow daily with unneeded junk.  Just because my neighbour buys a new car and I don't it is assumed I am poor.  Far from it, we live well within our means and as a consequence now we are earning good money we save a lot.  we don't have children which I think is a huge saving. 

I didn't mean that the £20 a week child allowance was a vast sum but all the other benefits can add up to a comfortable life for those that don't want to work.  I look at the children of today and I feel really sorry for them.  We have a large poor council estate (Cia park or Queens park as it was called, google it it's famous for a riot etc) and I see the young girls walking to and from it and wonder "how are they ever going to be able to afford a house"?.  Simple answer is most never will and they know it.  It's an easy cop out for them, get pregnant and have a home for life.  Sad fact of life but the only hope they have is their ability to conceive.

[mint]

Oh, Crossy, I agree with so much of what you say in the first part of your post.  The second part, I find utterly bleak and depressing and I can't comment on it as I am writing in rapid response mode and haven't had time to think through what you have pointed out.

I so understand about what you say regarding living within your means and considering yourself well-off.  When I look at some of the materialistic and consumerist nature of many of our own friends and family members, I feel frustration, disbelief and yes a huge sense of pity for them (and for this poor old planet of ours)

BTW, I know both Wrexham and Aubeterre and I know which place I'd prefer![:D]

[crossy67]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

BTW, I know both Wrexham and Aubeterre and I know which place I'd prefer![:D]

[/quote]

Should I stay here then?  lol [:(]

[idun]

If I am against big families, then I am also against 'no children' too. I know of lots of well educated, good people who made this choice of not having kids and frankly there was not 'better' people than these, to have kids.

I understand that some people cannot have kids and so be it, it"s bad luck. The 'luck' factor is something I am well aware of as I would always have been able to get pregnant, just not carry a child without the benefit of modern medicine.

[Panda]

I have to agree with the doubters of your stats above Q, these are not reality.

175 childcare 'whether you work or not' is not valid for inclusion as income, vouchers can only be given ot carers so can not be misused (great system), the others are income based so for example 54 tax credit would only be for the very lowest incomes.  I can assure you that the above numbers are not doled out (pun intended) regardless, otherwise lots of working mums would be sitting at home!

I work with a number of them and they would laugh at these numbers.

[Russethouse]

Crossy, I think the part of the country you live in may have helped to keep your costs low, here £12,000 a year would account for some peoples mortgages on it's own, and they are certainly not for grand houses, just ordinary semi's

[Hoddy]

The high costs of maintaining children needs to be taken into account too. For example, at this time of year sturdy waterproof boots or shoes to walk to school in. A pair from Clarks is £130. There are cheaper boots at Primark, but they aren't waterproof.

Hoddy

[just john]

[quote user="Russethouse"] Crossy, I think the part of the country you live in may have helped to keep your costs low, here £12,000 a year would account for some peoples mortgages on it's own, and they are certainly not for grand houses, just ordinary semi's [/quote]

Or even, Terraces.  Buying a house then and now are two different things, living on a small salary with low mortgage/rent something quite different, a Two bed flat in the province's now for instance cost over £7K pa, before rates, utilities etc

[Patf]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Crossy, I think the part of the country you live in may have helped to keep your costs low, here £12,000 a year would account for some peoples mortgages on it's own, and they are certainly not for grand houses, just ordinary semi's

[/quote]

If the family income is as low as that they wouldn't have a mortgage. They would be renting and claiming housing benefit. the new limit will be £400 per week.

[crossy67]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Crossy, I think the part of the country you live in may have helped to keep your costs low, here £12,000 a year would account for some peoples mortgages on it's own, and they are certainly not for grand houses, just ordinary semi's

[/quote]

More buying just before a boom more like, our area is cheap to live in though. [8-|]

The question I posed was excluding paying for your home though.

Edited to make it sound less grooooovey lol.