living in poverty

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, willman said:

Being short of money for 4-12 weeks for a claim assessment isn't living in poverty.  Its being short of money for 4 -12 weeks.

The unfortunate ones like my sister who have had to wait 12 weeks, probably wouldn't even make the statistical analysis that is used to illustrate relative poverty.

You realise that "short of money" for up to 3 months means short of food, unable to pay the rent, eviction proceedings starting, no heating.

How is that not poverty.

2 hours ago, the_bloke said:

If her income in that time was less than 60% of the median income in the UK, then yes she would have been considered being in poverty.

 

Question for this thread; how do you take everyone out of relative poverty? If you arbitrarily make sure that the lowest wage or benefit amount is above that 60% threshold, what happens to the median income in the UK in response?

It's clearly possible, statistically speaking, to have a distribution where no value is <60% of the median value, although you'd primarily need to be constraining the upper end to achieve it in practical terms.

[the_bloke 17]

9 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

It's clearly possible, statistically speaking, to have a distribution where no value is <60% of the median value, although you'd primarily need to be constraining the upper end to achieve it in practical terms.

Yes it is; taking into account each time you increase the income of those at the bottom to take them out of the <60% region, you increase the median value. Eventually you'll reach that point but it's not something that could be done overnight in the real world.

 

Good luck with constraining the upper end; I'm not convinced that making people poorer works at either end of the income curve.

 

 

[Ms Macbeth 73]

8 hours ago, Cyclone said:

UC was supposed to ensure that working always meant you got more than if you didn't work.

 

A marginal tax rate due to the reduction of benefits of >100% is a disincentive to do any work and creates the benefit trap.  It's not a situation that should exist, but you don't solve it by reducing benefits to subsistence levels, you solve it by tapering benefits reduction as people work more, and you have to have a system that allows for fluctuating small amounts of work without punishing the claimant.  UC was supposed to be that system, but isn't.

 

So would you take work this week, knowing that it will mean that for the next 4 your benefits will be reduced.  It's just a short bit of work, no guarantee of more, but there is a guarantee that getting your benefits back will take much longer and cost you much more than the work itself pays...  That's a benefits trap and a disincentive to work.

In order to reject that these people are in poverty you've had to make up an undefined new state that is "true poverty".

The taper is 63%. And, dependent on various factors, some groups can earn up to an applicable level before any reduction.   I'm aware there are problems in the system, but when it works, claimants should be better off.  On JSA I understand only £5 a week was discounted before 100% applied.   Working even a few hours a week is surely beneficial in most cases?

 

https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Work-allowance-Universal-Credit

Edited June 5, 2019 by Ms Macbeth

[WiseOwl182 10]

9 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

In order to reject that these people are in poverty you've had to make up an undefined new state that is "true poverty".

True poverty as in, not the undefined version of poverty being used in this thread, but actual poverty. The made up definition is the one involving relativity to median income.

4 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

This, for me, is getting to the true heart of a genuine problem.

If that is the case in practice, then it is obviously very wrong and needs fixing immediately. I think the comments made earlier about the level of benefits (** when received) are still valid, in that they are low but adequate.

However, being on low levels of income, it's critical that work can be taken when it's available, and when it dries up, that benefit payments resume immediately. If they don't those people are going to be in trouble nearly straight away.

So, if the current UC system is in that state, somebody needs taking to task to ensure that it (or any other alternative) works properly, and that that's done double quick.

There speaks the voice of reason.

[willman 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

You realise that "short of money" for up to 3 months means short of food, unable to pay the rent, eviction proceedings starting, no heating.

How is that not poverty.

It's clearly possible, statistically speaking, to have a distribution where no value is <60% of the median value, although you'd primarily need to be constraining the upper end to achieve it in practical terms.

You do realise thats up to and not always and not every time for every claimant.

There are also funds etc available to help if such things as eviction are threatened,and heating and many other things.

 

Then on the other hand you have those that are happy to live at that level.

 

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Yes it is; taking into account each time you increase the income of those at the bottom to take them out of the <60% region, you increase the median value. Eventually you'll reach that point but it's not something that could be done overnight in the real world.

 

Good luck with constraining the upper end; I'm not convinced that making people poorer works at either end of the income curve.

 

 

"So long as the gap is smaller, they'd rather make the poor poorer".

 

- Margaret Thatcher

[Voice of reason 0]

13 minutes ago, willman said:

You do realise thats up to and not always and not every time for every claimant.

There are also funds etc available to help if such things as eviction are threatened,and heating and many other things.

 

Then on the other hand you have those that are happy to live at that level.

 

 

It might not be every time for every claimant. I've been fairly clear in my acceptance of the low payments received, on the basis they are just about ok to get by on.

We've seen in this thread, someone on jobseekers allowance gets £73 per week plus housing benefits. I think it's safe to say, on that amount they won't have a rainy day fund saved up.

So, they then get temporary work on min wage, and the benefits stop. They then get laid off the temporary job. They could easily then have virtually no money from day 1 of no work.

So, in that situation, what happens to the food shop, or the pay by card electric meter etc? I'd suggest it means leccy going off pretty quick and food shop cut to nearly nothing.

If we are having a system like we do ( and I think is necessary to induce people back to work) , it has to be coupled with benefits resuming straight away after work stopping.

[Robin-H 11]

23 minutes ago, Voice of reason said:

It might not be every time for every claimant. I've been fairly clear in my acceptance of the low payments received, on the basis they are just about ok to get by on.

We've seen in this thread, someone on jobseekers allowance gets £73 per week plus housing benefits. I think it's safe to say, on that amount they won't have a rainy day fund saved up.

So, they then get temporary work on min wage, and the benefits stop. They then get laid off the temporary job. They could easily then have virtually no money from day 1 of no work.

So, in that situation, what happens to the food shop, or the pay by card electric meter etc? I'd suggest it means leccy going off pretty quick and food shop cut to nearly nothing.

If we are having a system like we do ( and I think is necessary to induce people back to work) , it has to be coupled with benefits resuming straight away after work stopping.

There is extra help available for people transition into work. The benefits shouldn't stop straight away, and wouldn't stop entirely unless you were earning over a certain amount. 

 

https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Extra-help-when-entering-work

 

When you move into work you can get 4 weeks run on of Housing Benefit and Council Tax support the previous levels you received it at. 

 

There is also the 'Employment on trail scheme', which is for people who have been out of work for at least 13 weeks. This allows them to start a job and if it doesn't work out they can leave the job and start claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance without this affecting their benefit (unless they have been sacked or have left due to misconduct). 

 

All of these are of course caveated by the understanding that not everything that is supposed to happen, does happen. 

 

 

[Voice of reason 0]

3 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

 

All of these are of course caveated by the understanding that not everything that is supposed to happen, does happen. 

 

 

This is the key. If the systems are there, and they work, then fine. If they don't then it's going to put people in trouble.

[tinfoilhat 11]

I saw Hammond getting a bit of pasting in an interview yesterday. Apparently, according to aUN report - from that Aussie chap if memory serves - which stated as fact that 14m of us are living in poverty. That’s 20% of the population. That can’t be right can it?

 

Now, Hammond got a kicking for not accepting those figures. “well you won’t see them, you’re chancellor and very wealthy”. But I’m neither and I wouldn’t recognise 1 in 5 of the people of (every) queue I’m stood in Aldi as being in poverty. I’m not living in a wealthy area by some distance, but I wouldn’t suggest 20% - or more - of my community are living on poverty.

[Robin-H 11]

31 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I saw Hammond getting a bit of pasting in an interview yesterday. Apparently, according to aUN report - from that Aussie chap if memory serves - which stated as fact that 14m of us are living in poverty. That’s 20% of the population. That can’t be right can it?

 

Now, Hammond got a kicking for not accepting those figures. “well you won’t see them, you’re chancellor and very wealthy”. But I’m neither and I wouldn’t recognise 1 in 5 of the people of (every) queue I’m stood in Aldi as being in poverty. I’m not living in a wealthy area by some distance, but I wouldn’t suggest 20% - or more - of my community are living on poverty.

It comes down to what people understand poverty to mean. 

[Ms Macbeth 73]

9 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

I saw Hammond getting a bit of pasting in an interview yesterday. Apparently, according to aUN report - from that Aussie chap if memory serves - which stated as fact that 14m of us are living in poverty. That’s 20% of the population. That can’t be right can it?

 

Now, Hammond got a kicking for not accepting those figures. “well you won’t see them, you’re chancellor and very wealthy”. But I’m neither and I wouldn’t recognise 1 in 5 of the people of (every) queue I’m stood in Aldi as being in poverty. I’m not living in a wealthy area by some distance, but I wouldn’t suggest 20% - or more - of my community are living on poverty.

Thats how it feels to me too.  We are pensioners, pre 2016, and our income would suggest we are on the cusp of relative poverty according to statistics.  But thats not how it feels. We eat well, heat the house, drive (old car low mileage) manage the odd holiday and treats for the grandchildren.  If we had been in the more recent cohort of pensioners, we'd be quite a bit better off, as the current state pension makes having a small private pension really worthwhile. Its around £40 a week more than the previous basic.   

 

i suspect there are lots of people like us who don't consider themselves anywhere near poverty!  

Edited June 6, 2019 by Ms Macbeth