Sheffield children living in poverty!!

[retrogo]

Out of these categories, only (some) homeless people get priority. none of the other categories give you priority. Many working people do get priority.

 

Here is the lettings policy that both the council itself - Housing Solutions, and Sheffield Homes (area officers) follow when awarding priority. Its no great secret:

 

http://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/resources/Lettings%20Policy%20document.pdf

[Michael_W]

I thought that the current official term for poverty id 'social exclusion', which is by far a more appropriate term and and more widespread than many would believe. It basically covers the fact that there are people in this country who can't afford a family holiday, a trip to the cinema is a costly treat, cannot afford to eat out or even buy the food they would like to eat. It covers people who have to shuffle bits of money round to afford to keep up with needs of their children, ie school trips, clothes, shoes, dinner money, travel to school and interests..........despite being in work. We both work 5 days a week and we are this situation. So for those people who honestly believe that their is no such thing as poverty, you seriously need to find out a few more facts.This is a country where it's impossible to live without money and where the distribution of wealth is grossly unfair.

 

You both work, lot's of people struggle financially, balancing the incomings with the outgoings, it's gone on for ever, it's not classed as poverty, that's just how it is !

[hillwalker]

The parent's probably spend all their benefits on drugs and or alcohol!

 

Not to mention fags and bingo

[Tony Erikson]

Out of these categories, only (some) homeless people get priority. none of the other categories give you priority. Many working people do get priority.

 

Not if in the same circumstances and working. When it comes to council housing the unemployed always get priority. Housing associations give priority to the working and look how different housing association estates are to council.

[COOKIE MUNCH]

no need these days cheap clothes shops like primark and food shops like netto and always make a cheap meal

[evildrneil]

So if your on the standard rate of benefits (£130 per two weeks or £9.29 per day) you are in poverty? That's what I'm currently living on and I wouldn't say that I live in poverty - I'm certainly not flush and need to be very careful with my expenditure but poverty is pushing it.

[Badlittlepup]

So if your on the standard rate of benefits (£130 per two weeks or £9.29 per day) you are in poverty? That's what I'm currently living on and I wouldn't say that I live in poverty - I'm certainly not flush and need to be very careful with my expenditure but poverty is pushing it.

 

Yes, but if you had children you wouldn't be living on that. You would be having your income topped up to 40% of the national average income despite being in exactly the same situation as people without children working.

 

Do you honestly think it's fair that all that extra money is given to people purely because they have children at the expense of people who work on low wages, the retired, the childless etc, etc.

 

I would be a huge supporter of top ups for families where one or both parents work, but I hate this throwing of money at people who are idle just because they have kids. If they had to live in more straightened circumstances perhaps they would get off their backsides to improve their kids lives rather than expect the state to provide for them.

[Douglas J]

Not if in the same circumstances and working. When it comes to council housing the unemployed always get priority. Housing associations give priority to the working and look how different housing association estates are to council.

 

No, I'm afraid this is a myth that some people peddle. If you're interested, you could look at the lettings policy that has been posted at http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7420584&postcount=141 below.

[go4it]

Yes, but if you had children you wouldn't be living on that. You would be having your income topped up to 40% of the national average income despite being in exactly the same situation as people without children working.

 

Do you honestly think it's fair that all that extra money is given to people purely because they have children at the expense of people who work on low wages, the retired, the childless etc, etc.

 

I would be a huge supporter of top ups for families where one or both parents work, but I hate this throwing of money at people who are idle just because they have kids. If they had to live in more straightened circumstances perhaps they would get off their backsides to improve their kids lives rather than expect the state to provide for them.

 

It's exactly what is wrong with society today.

 

We can't stop people having kids.

 

We could stop giving them money.

 

But those kids would then turn to crime and terrorise neighbourhoods.

 

So we give them money.

 

And the parents stay out of work, leading their kids to follow suit and the cycle starts again.

[Cyclone]

I've not seen this figure before, that anyone with kids has their income topped up to 40% of the median, where does it come from?

 

Yes, but if you had children you wouldn't be living on that. You would be having your income topped up to 40% of the national average income despite being in exactly the same situation as people without children working.

In fact I'm confused by this whole statement?

 

It says being in the same situation, but then specifies as people without children, so it's not the same situation at all....