Vocal Voices

A report by the governments social mobility tsar, whatever that means, says that people "simply do not earn enough to escape poverty", even though they are working.

I am a bit confused. There is being poor and there is poverty, and the two are not the same especially when the report brings middle-income families into the mix.

So, what is poverty? Is it living below a full-time income provided by the minimum wage? Is it an income lower then the average? Is it getting working tax credits? Is it holding below a certain level of savings, and if so what is that level? Is it being on a pension? And why is it always measured in money and possessions.

There are times when I think that emotive language is used only to get attention, but is fairly meaningless. This is one of them.

The mobility czar is mentioning the cost of living rather a lot; as is the BBC and the Labour party.
This is not too surprising as the mobility czar is Alan Milburn, Blairite ex-Labour MP.

I am still non the wiser.

Milburn is ex-Labour appointed by the Tories as a czar or a tsar, but what point is he making?

Do I have to be "rich" to be excluded from poverty? If that is the case then "relative" poverty will never be eradicated. Or is there a list of absolute necessities for someone to survive, in life? If that is the case very few, if any, people in Britain can be said to be truly in poverty. They might be in hardship, but that is not he same thing.

Well, according to Wiki:

How poverty in the United Kingdom is defined and measured

There is no one definition of poverty. The most common measure, as used in the Child Poverty Act 2010, is ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is such an income that exactly a half of households earn more than that and the other half earns less.
In the year 2004/2005, the 60% threshold was worth £100 per week for a single adult, £183 per week for a two adult household, £186 per week for a single adult living with two children and £268 per week for two adults living with two children. This sum of money is after income tax and national insurance have been deducted from earnings and after council tax, rent, mortgage and water charges have been paid. It is therefore what a household has available to spend on everything else it needs.

Consider also:
"There are basically three current definitions of poverty in common usage: absolute poverty, relative poverty and social exclusion.
Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to meet basic needs.
Relative poverty defines income or resources in relation to the average. It is concerned with the absence of the material needs to participate fully in accepted daily life.
Social exclusion is a new term used by the Government. The Prime Minister described social exclusion as "…a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown". - House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee

In the early Eighties, Tony Byrne and Colin F. Padfield defined relative poverty in Britain as a situation in which people are able to survive adequately, but they are either less well off than they used to be (such as when they retire from paid employment) or that they are at a serious disadvantage “in their ability to experience or enjoy the standard of life of most other people – for example, not being able to afford an annual holiday.”
It is expected that the official measure of poverty, for which households earning less than 60% of median income fall into, will be redefined. This proposed redefinition could lead to accusations that the figures are being fixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ed_Kingdom

It's an interesting read, as is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line

Yes but when these politicoidiots talk about "Poverty" are they talking about "Absolute" or "Relative".

My guess would be relative but they act as if it's absolute.

People on a mission. With tax payers money.

Remember 1egg per person per week. 2ounces of butter or margarine if you were lucky! Those ration books.. The black market did a roaring trade. Poverty? The present generation don't know the meaning of the word. The poverty. Stricken still have their cigarettes and bingo and a pint to ease the pain .

The point is that the meaning of poverty has changed considerably over the years.

When I was a child we had virtually nothing, compared with today's children, and yet we never considered ourselves to be poverty-stricken.

I've given up trying to understand the way many people today view poverty. They don't know how well off they are.

Aggers wrote:I've given up trying to understand the way many people today view poverty. They don't know how well off they are.

Apparently my childhood would now be considered "poverty". Yet I considered myself well off even if I did have to take a weekend job for pocket money.

The phrase "You've never had it so good" seems to come to mind. Would that we had a PM with enough chutzpah to say it.

We seem to have "Wage poverty", "Energy poverty" and now apparently we have "Social poverty".

And there was me thinking that poverty was struggling to put a roof over your head, water to drink and food to eat. With everything else including clothes, heat, light, radio, TV, internet, holidays abroad coming further and further down the list.

Apparently my measure of poverty is well off...

poverty means different things to different people
when i see programs of people living with nothing
slums in india that to me is poverty
i grew up in the 40/50 s yet we had holidays
dad had a motorbike/sidecar it was ok
yes we had handme down clothes and my mum used to knite and sew
but so did i when i married and had children
im now a pensioner and no im not hard up
so im not poverty stricken as papers like to print
99 percent of the uk population should count there blessing
and the rest should shutup and leave well 40 0/0 really

Some people think poverty means being reduced to one car.