Ship of Fools: What is poverty?

Thread: What is poverty? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023835

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Recently, I heard somewhere (can’t link, and for this discussion, it probably doesn’t matter) that something like one in six Americans is now “poor.”

I wondered about this primarily because the poverty thresholds for most public assistance programs I deal with on my clients’ behalf are hair-raising. If the one-in-six figure is accurate, then the practical reality must be much, much worse. In my state, anyway, you have to be all-but-destitute to qualify for most kinds of aid. There’s a waiting list of about 7 years for Section 8 housing.

What IS poverty, though? What does it mean to be “poor?” Are we talking about a lowered standard of living? An inability to meet basic needs? What are “basic needs,” anyway? Is it enough to ensure that people get adequate calories (even if these are from a nearly nutrition-free starch-and-sugar diet)? Or should we be trying to ensure adequate nutrients?

Are the “basic needs” of a suburban family whose 10-room house-with-swimming-pool is worth less than their mortgage different from the “basic needs” of the family living in crime-ridden public housing? Are “basic needs” ever relative to the circumstances in which your neighbors live?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

"Measure by measure : the world's richest country tries to count its poor", in, The economist. - 2011 Jan. 20

quote:
America's official poverty measure is far simpler [than the British measures]. Developed in the 1960s, the poverty threshold represents the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three. A family is judged to be poor if its pre-tax income falls below this threshold. But the official measure provides only a blurry picture. Food spending has become a flimsy reference point—in 2009 groceries accounted for just 7.8% of Americans' spending. The poverty indicator does not account for programmes that help the poor, such as the earned-income tax credit, nor does it adjust for regional variations in the cost of living. In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences recommended changing the measure, but only now is a new one close to being established.

The “supplemental poverty measure” (SPM) will not replace the official one, which is used to determine eligibility for government programmes. Rather, census officials hope the new indicator will provide a better understanding of America's poor, by measuring both the needs of families and the effect of government help. The SPM estimates the cost of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, then adds a further 20% for other expenses. This threshold is adjusted for the cost of living in different regions and for whether a family owns or rents its home. To assess a household's ability to pay for basic expenses, the SPM counts cash income as well as food stamps, tax credits and other government support, minus tax payments, work expenses and out-of-pocket medical costs.

Final figures are due to be published in the autumn, but preliminary results were released this month. In 2009 15.7% of Americans were poor, compared with 14.5% in the official measure (see chart). The share of those in extreme poverty fell, relative to the official measure, thanks to the inclusion of government support. The poverty rate dropped in rural areas and rose in urban and suburban ones. It jumped in the north-east and the West, while staying almost level in the South and falling in the Midwest. The most dramatic rise was for the elderly—from 9.9% in the official measure to 16.1% in the SPM, in part because of their high medical expenses.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

No clean water, not enough food, inadequate shelter.

That's poverty.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The inability to participate in the society in which one lives. In places where even getting to church requires a car, a car becomes a necessity. In places where every job is advertised online, and very few are advertised elsewhere, an internet connection becomes a necessity. If you lack, because you cannot afford them (rather than deliberate choice), things that society at large assumes everyone has, then that seems to me to be poverty. If you try and define it in absolute terms then it becomes absurd. Not having access to antibiotic would seem a terrible level of deprivation in most western societies, but 100 years ago even the rulers of those societies would be in "poverty" by that measure.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think poverty has to be defined in relative terms. It isn't a 'thing' that we can label, it's a social phenomenon in unequal societies. I agree with what Arethosemyfeet wrote above.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

If you are unable to participate in the normal life of society because you lack certain things which you could buy if you had the money I'd classify you as poor.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
"Measure by measure : the world's richest country tries to count its poor", in, The economist. - 2011 Jan. 20

quote:
America's official poverty measure is far simpler [than the British measures]. Developed in the 1960s, the poverty threshold represents the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three. A family is judged to be poor if its pre-tax income falls below this threshold.

Where I live someone whose income was only three times the cost of basic food would be homeless. There are no rents that low.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

In American poverty is everywhere but sometimes even people who are poor deny it. Rich people in the middle classes and above pretend not to see it. All along the US/Mexico border are colonias, many with no running water and houses with occasional electricity.

There are people who don't have gas or electricity to cook their food so they cook using make shift stoves and fire just as they do in other parts of the world.

I don't know a single food bank that isn't always in a bind. There just isn't enough to go around, yet I've read recently that 40% of the food bought in the US is thrown away.

The lines are short in the medical industry because the poor don't get access to them. The medical business in the US is fragmented and extremely expensive with thousands of businesses having their hand in for a piece of the pie of the people who have insurance. Sure, in many areas there are hospitals for the indigent and programs, but the waiting list is month long. So many people not in this business model health care system just die.

There are homeless people even in small towns nowadays. There are beggars under every bridge, with signs saying "will work for food." Every time you're driving with a new acquaintance-anywhere in the country-someone will tell you how rich that beggar really is "he has an iPhone.!" "She lives in a nice apartment, I have a friends who's seen it!" And then forgotten again.

Really is amazing. The rich and poor are so segregated that Smuts could take notes. Separate zip codes, streets, shops, and of course churches.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No clean water, not enough food, inadequate shelter.

That's poverty.

I agree and would only add heat in cold climates and medical care.

I would never stretch it to include "things most people have," or a car to get to work. Those things might make us more competitive and better able to get out of poverty but are not poverty itself. I don't have a mobile phone, I didn't have a TV or computer when most people did, I've lived in areas with no public tranportation and had no car but I wasn't cold or hungry at that time so I didn't call myself poor.

I did live in poverty at one time. When I was first married my husband was in college, tuition and our rent was paid for by his father. Our parents all thought that he was working a part time job to buy food etc, but no one was hiring guys with shoulder length hair in 1967 and he wasn't about to cut it. I couldn't get a job because I was pregnant. This was before the second wave of feminism and Men had decreed that it would be harmful to mother and baby if the pregnant woman worked outside the home. It was okay to starve but not okay to work. I remember a period of several weeks when all I had to eat was canned applesause my mother had given us. It's terrifying to be pregnant and not have food.

I happened to be looking at the foods supplied by WIC coupons the other day and they are a great thing. At first I had thought they were a bit "nanny state," (no potatoes or corn because they're too starchy, for instance) but over all it's a very good thing to have coupons for only healthy food during the mother's pregnancy and the baby's first few years of life. Food stamps are great, too, of course.

One thing I don't worry about too much for America's poorest is medical care. The poorest get Medicare and are better off in that area than the low income workers who make too much to qualify for Medicare but can't afford insurance. Drugs for the elderly are another problem altogether.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Even I know that the poorest in America get Medicaid, not Medicare - Medicare is for the elderly. I also know that what is covered by Medicaid is extremely limited.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One thing I don't worry about too much for America's poorest is medical care. The poorest get Medicare and are better off in that area than the low income workers who make too much to qualify for Medicare but can't afford insurance. Drugs for the elderly are another problem altogether.

There are two different programs: Medicare, primarily for seniors, and Medicaid
, primarily for the poor. Many poor people continue to go without health care for lack of facilities / personnel in their area who participate in Medicaid. It's virtually impossible for low-income women in my area to get prenatal care; no OB-GYNs around here accept Medicaid patients. Women have to use Planned Parenthood, which has had its funding slashed and now has months-long waits for appointments, and go through a gauntlet of anti-abortion protestors to access the facility.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
In American poverty is everywhere but sometimes even people who are poor deny it. Rich people in the middle classes and above pretend not to see it. All along the US/Mexico border are colonias, many with no running water and houses with occasional electricity.

It isn't just the rich who ignore the poor. Recently, a local church began opening it's doors to the homeless and allowing them to sleep on the floor of their fellowship hall. The city council cited them under a housing code because they had no shower facilities. At the hearing, the church argued the obvious-- while not ideal, surely being in a safe, warm building w/ no shower was better than being on the street. The city council argued, incredibly, that there were no homeless in the city (then why are we having this hearing? one might ask). Permit denied.

The next month, every church in the city, every denomination, sent a contingent to the city council meeting to assure them that yes, there were homeless, and yes, the church in question was doing a very good and needed thing. Permit granted, and now the churches are working together to expand that fledgling ministry.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think poverty has to be defined in relative terms. It isn't a 'thing' that we can label, it's a social phenomenon in unequal societies. ...

This.

It's just too easy to say that poor people are still better off than people in ______. Nobody defines rich as having more money than someone in _______. In some cultures, it is considered shameful to be wealthy and have poor relatives. Why can't we apply the same standard to the entire human family?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think poverty has to be defined in relative terms. It isn't a 'thing' that we can label, it's a social phenomenon in unequal societies. ...
This.

It's just too easy to say that poor people are still better off than people in ______. Nobody defines rich as having more money than someone in _______. In some cultures, it is considered shameful to be wealthy and have poor relatives. Why can't we apply the same standard to the entire human family?

And this.

One of the reasons I became disillusioned with, and ultimately left, the church I once belonged to was the eagerness that congregation had to aid the "truly" poor in various countries south of Texas accompanied by complete scorn for the "undeserving" and "scam-artist" poor on our doorsteps.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Even I know that the poorest in America get Medicaid, not Medicare - Medicare is for the elderly. I also know that what is covered by Medicaid is extremely limited.

Yes, you're right, I often mix up those two names, both are government provided medical costs. My son (not elderly) had medicare supplemented by medicaid for years and it was great, providing 100% of all his medical costs including pharmacy costs. It never seemed extremely limited to us.

Last year he got a ten cent raise and became responsible for all his own medical costs. His monthly medication cost alone is $700.00 per month; compare to his monthly income of $1200. net pay. That's why I think the second lowest income bracket is sometimes worse off than the lowest. I know people in his situation who have quit their jobs so that they can get back on medicare/medicaid.

In this town, the local hospital provides care for medicaid and medicare patients, all the pre-natal care, pediatrics through geriatrics. It's a shame that they are having trouble finding providers in other areas. Even so, when a provider is found medicare and/or medicaid does cover the costs, which is better than having a doctor and not being able to go to him because you don't have the money. When I was pregnant, I was kicked out of my ob/gyn's office by his angry receptionist because I was behind in my payments. My son was four years old before we finished paying the hospital for his (normal) birth. Medicare and Medicaid may not be perfect but they are far better than no medical assistance at all.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I once heard of a social worker who made national news for saying that the community she visited in Europe was poorer than the one she was working with in India. The politicians ranted and the media asked her to explain, given that she was working with very poor people in India and the people in the European countries had enough food, schooling, healthcare etc.

She said the difference was hope. The Indians knew that they were in a bad situation but had hope that their situation could improve. The Europeans had given up believing that anything could ever get any better for them - they had no jobs, they had no future or expectations.

Subsequently, someone from the European country went to visit the Indian community and whilst he was there learned he had lost his job, which made him upset because he did not know how to pay the bills. Some time later, he received a parcel from the Indian community - which was something they'd made/grown - and a note saying that they were sorry to hear about his misfortune and that maybe he could sell their produce to make money.

Who was the poor and who the rich?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks cliffdweller. I would hope that the next time the state oppresses the dispossessed in that particularly obscenely refined evil way (lawyers eh ?), as I fear it might even here in England, especially now squatting's a criminal offense, ALL of the churches would emulate the Danish Royal family under the Nazis and wear yellow Stars of David by opening their doors.

Somehow I doubt they would. Here or there.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

According to Amayarta Sen - a lack of real freedoms, which includes the freedom to make choices that keep you healthy and safe. So nutritional food, living somewhere that protects you adequately from the weather and has minimal crime, primary health care, the education that is needed to take part in society.

The Human Development Index uses health, education and living standards as the main dimensions.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

She said the difference was hope.

Hope and aspiration.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Hope and aspiration

Not sure what you mean there. I want (aspire to) several things; whether I believe they're achievable (hope) is another matter...

It kind of reads like you're suggesting that some of us can't want things, even if we believe they're achievable...

Posted by watervole (# 17174) on :

There are a host of indicies you might use for different purposes.

The basics of life are clearly part of it. If you lack food shelter, clothing you are poor.

But I would also say that lacking sufficient to participate in the society in which you live is also poverty.

The fact that poverty can be ghettoised into certain areas or parts of settlements does not remove its effects.

I loathe the way the poor are demonised by the more affluent, who very often are more affluent by reason of luck and birth rather than any other issue. It cannot be claimed that wealth follows hard work and application necessarily, or the favelas would be full of millionaires.

Nor can we blame the poor for bad health, and diet. It is no longer easy to live cheaply. In the UK, for instance, it is actually hard to find cheaper cuts of meat, as urged by our predecessors, that demands access to decent butchers who are increasingly driven out by supermarkets, and those that survive are found in more affluent areas of town. The paradox is that if you are wealthier you can get access to not only better raw ingrefdients than if you are poor but also cheaper ones too. The distribution system being dominated by a few large conglomerates. Of course if you have easy access to private transport that is may be over come, but guess what?

Posted by catthefat (# 8586) on :

The poor in some places are the very thin and starving, and in others the poor are the obese.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I would hope ... ALL of the churches would emulate the Danish Royal family under the Nazis and wear yellow Stars of David by opening their doors.

Somehow I doubt they would. Here or there.

Sigh, church I sometimes sing in just put in all new carpets. Ya think it's going to take a chance on allowing dirty stinking, whoops I mean mentally ill or on drugs, whoops I mean people who are surely deserving of our compassion but who won't respect the property but might urinate on the rug or infect the pew cushions with lice -- come inside?

Maybe we need to design and decorate churches in ways consistent with taking in the needy?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Somehow I doubt they would. Here or there.
Maybe we need to design and decorate churches in ways consistent with taking in the needy?

Why?

Our Church supports a homeless refuge in town and a night stop, both with material needs and wo/man power. We also provide a weekly luncheon club on our premises for the elderly and lonely. We spend Christmas day providing a meal and party for any and all who would otherwise be alone.

If our building were given over as a homeless shelter or night stop there would be nowhere to worship, to build up the workers, have the planning meetings, cook the food, collect the provisions etc etc.

Making the place into a urine soaked, lice infested hole would help no-one!

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
"Measure by measure : the world's richest country tries to count its poor", in, The economist. - 2011 Jan. 20

quote:
America's official poverty measure is far simpler [than the British measures]. Developed in the 1960s, the poverty threshold represents the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three. A family is judged to be poor if its pre-tax income falls below this threshold.
Where I live someone whose income was only three times the cost of basic food would be homeless. There are no rents that low.

I've been told that your rent should never be more than a third of your income. Haven't heard of food being an official measure.

I tend to think that there are at least two kinds of poverty, relative and absolute. Relative means you can only live paycheck to paycheck with no savings. Absolute poverty means you're unable to and are thus dependent upon government support. There's some grey area between the two (food stamps, I think, are a common one) but I think the ability to save money while living a modest lifestyle (which sadly is a relative term) is one indicator.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

poverty is when you don't have money to feed your children after you've paid for your beer, your cigarettes, your mobile phone, your satellite TV, your daily fast food meals, your betting habit, etc, etc.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
poverty is when you don't have money to feed your children after you've paid for your beer, your cigarettes, your mobile phone, your satellite TV, your daily fast food meals, your betting habit, etc, etc.

Mudfrog, is that you? Or has someone else logged on using your account?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Actually, I'm kindof with Mudfrog on this. There is a certain sort of poverty which is self-inflicted to a greater or lesser extent.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Of course, why didn't I realize that? If you didn't have the good sense to inherit a few billion dollars, like this woman did, then clearly, the reason you're poor is that you're a lazy drunk. The lack of jobs has nothing to do with it. Medical costs have nothing to do with it. The fact that the wealthiest people in the world are turning the rest of us into their colonial states, extracting wealth without regard for anyone else, has nothing to do with it.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I think all people in a bad situation are there because of a combination of bad choices and bad circumstances. It is rare that a person can honestly say that they had no contribution to their situation and it is rare that any situation is totally down to bad choices.

But one could say the same about millionaires, I agree. Most like to suggest that they earned their wealth out of hard work, but this is rarely true - most experienced an unusual level of good fortune.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Yes it is me [Smile]

What I wrote is certainly a little tongue in cheek but there is an element of truth in it. I was brought up from the age of 8 in a single parent household which then became two unmarried people, one of whom had a severe gambling problem.

There wasn't just financial shortage, there was financial crisis! I know what it is like to be poor.

In my work as a SA officer I have seen poverty here in the UK - I have also seen 'poverty' which has been caused by poor spending choices. As a non-smoker I wasn't really aware of the price of a pack of 20 cigarettes and then a few weeks ago I looked - £7+ !!!??? That's £50 a week on a 20 a day habit. Think how much food and how many children's clothes could be bought over a month for that amount?

It pains me to hear people say that in Britain poverty means having less than 60% of the median salary AFTER income tax, the mortgage,/rent, council tax (for local services) and water rates have all been paid.

The median salary in the UK is £28,000 ($44,487)
Poverty is defined as 'spending money' (not income) of £16,800 ($26,693) That means anyone having less than £323 ($513) in their pockets AFTER those bills have been paid, is 'poor'.

I really can't see how that can be poverty.

If parents want to spend money on cigarettes and alcohol and then resort to The Salvation Army food bank because they can't afford to feed their family, then I suggest the problem is not poverty but acute selfishness, total lack of parenting skills and a distinct inability to care for children.

... Oh, and don't give me the patronising nonsense about people having the right to 'spend their money on their only luxuries'. Kids should come first before self-indulgence.

[ 03. September 2012, 16:10: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Somehow I doubt they would. Here or there.
Maybe we need to design and decorate churches in ways consistent with taking in the needy?
Why?

Our Church supports a homeless refuge in town and a night stop, both with material needs and wo/man power. We also provide a weekly luncheon club on our premises for the elderly and lonely. We spend Christmas day providing a meal and party for any and all who would otherwise be alone.

If our building were given over as a homeless shelter or night stop there would be nowhere to worship, to build up the workers, have the planning meetings, cook the food, collect the provisions etc etc.

Making the place into a urine soaked, lice infested hole would help no-one!

No? It would help the homeless, one thinks. And possibly might help your worship as your worshippers would be able to see-- or smell-- on a weekly basis how we are living out the gospel we proclaim.

Not to deny your point, of course. There are choices to be made, hard choices, about how we use our resources. It sounds like your church is doing a good job of making those choices. But I think Belle is correct in reminding us that the choices we make in one area of our calling (i.e. worship) may affect our ability to live out other areas of our calling (i.e. service to others). And the converse is true. What Belle is suggesting is a sort of prophetic act-- where we make a high risk, counter-intuitive investment of our resources-- putting our money where our mouth is-- and trusting that God will meet us there. So far he always has.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

To add to that point, one things that strikes me is that it's easier to do what Belle is suggesting if you are in a small church with limited resources that is struggling to maintain the buildings you have. You have less on the line, less to lose. You're already having trouble keeping up the maintenance, so why not "go big or go home" and take such a prophetic leap. It's far harder to do if you are a more prosperous church with new, well-maintained facilities that often host Important* Meetings and weddings and such.

And maybe that's OK. The different kinds of churches, communities are able to meet different sorts of needs in different sorts of ways. And they appeal to different kinds of Christians at different points along their spiritual journey. My church is located in a very diverse urban area. Unlike like the neighboring city I mentioned above, ours has a thriving interdenominational clergy coalition that works together on these issues, and an almost miraculously positive relationship with the city administration. Recently one of the large megachurches held a wonderful conference where we brought together churches, pastors, and city officials to dream, plan and learn together how we can do even more. As we met on this very large, multi-million dollar campus-- extraordinarily lux-- I was able to reflect a bit on how much the megachurch was able to do (considerable) because of their superior financial resources and vast wo/manpower. And they're doing a lot. But almost none of it on their beautiful campus. (although I suspect their fancy gym might actually have showers-- how useful!). Meanwhile our very small church is able to do what Belle is suggesting in our small way, on campus, because we have much less on the line. The megachurch is able to reach out to a newcomers to the faith who don't have the hurdle of "what's the smell?". We have fewer new Christians in our church, but a lot of edgy young people who are excited about "going big" on living out the gospel.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Your calculations are off, Mudfrog. It's 60% of median disposable income, not 60% of gross. That's:

£119 a week for a single adult
£206 a week for a couple
£202 a week for a single adult with 2 children
£288 a week for a couple with 2 children

To put that in perspective, heating and power for a modest, well insulated terraced house will set you back £25 a week (but bear in mind that the very poor are likely to be on expensive prepayment meters and live in poorly insulated housing). Food, to eat reasonably healthily, is likely to be £40 per person per week. A monthly bus ticket works out around £15 a week, depending on where you are. Despite what others seem to think a telephone is an essential item, realistically £5 a week. That leaves just over £30 for a single person to cover clothing, prescription charges, dental check ups, optician, glasses, furniture, appliances, and, at the wrath of the Scrooges, some form of entertainment. A TV licence at £3 a week would not be considered an extravagance by most.

All of this supposes a level of budgetary discipline that most of us couldn't manage long term, even assuming we could keep so accurate a record of our spending as to make it even possible. Yet 20% of the population live on less than this.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Bit of a sidebar, but I thought the median salary in the UK was just under £21,000?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... In my work as a SA officer I have seen poverty here in the UK - I have also seen 'poverty' which has been caused by poor spending choices. As a non-smoker I wasn't really aware of the price of a pack of 20 cigarettes and then a few weeks ago I looked - £7+ !!!??? That's £50 a week on a 20 a day habit. Think how much food and how many children's clothes could be bought over a month for that amount? ...

Have you pointed this out to those poor smokers? What was their response?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes it is me

What I wrote is certainly a little tongue in cheek but there is an element of truth in it. I was brought up from the age of 8 in a single parent household which then became two unmarried people, one of whom had a severe gambling problem.

There wasn't just financial shortage, there was financial crisis! I know what it is like to be poor.

In my work as a SA officer I have seen poverty here in the UK - I have also seen 'poverty' which has been caused by poor spending choices. As a non-smoker I wasn't really aware of the price of a pack of 20 cigarettes and then a few weeks ago I looked - £7+ !!!??? That's £50 a week on a 20 a day habit. Think how much food and how many children's clothes could be bought over a month for that amount?

It pains me to hear people say that in Britain poverty means having less than 60% of the median salary AFTER income tax, the mortgage,/rent, council tax (for local services) and water rates have all been paid.

The median salary in the UK is £28,000 ($44,487)
Poverty is defined as 'spending money' (not income) of £16,800 ($26,693) That means anyone having less than £323 ($513) in their pockets AFTER those bills have been paid, is 'poor'.

I really can't see how that can be poverty.

If parents want to spend money on cigarettes and alcohol and then resort to The Salvation Army food bank because they can't afford to feed their family, then I suggest the problem is not poverty but acute selfishness, total lack of parenting skills and a distinct inability to care for children.

... Oh, and don't give me the patronising nonsense about people having the right to 'spend their money on their only luxuries'. Kids should come first before self-indulgence.

I'd like a source for those figures but we'll let that ride for now. In any event there are people like those you describe, but selfishness, a lack of parenting skills is neither new nor confined to 'the poor'. As for the cash in hand after paying the rent and essential bills you have to consider where we put the poverty line: is it the point at which you have a an utterly boring subsistence diet and a single pair of shoes or is it where you can pay a full part in society, including most vitally the ability to get to any job in a reasonable travelling distance of home (which for me is from Cardiff to Bristol and anywhere in between).

I consider the latter a better practical measure, because ultimately, your DWP will decide on that basis whether you are a genuine job seeker, and if you don't have the means to get to a job you are capable of then you are poor, or you soon will be, because 'I can't get to that job' is no excuse and you can easily lose your benefits. Because the public transport system even in a highly urbanised area like South Wales, is uncoordinated (even through tickets on bus services as one example) a car is necessary for all but the shortest journey and they are not cheap. Many job applications have to be completed online, so I'd suggest that a PC and broadband are essential too. The list goes on.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Also worth saying that some people are unable to budget because of a) poor education b) lack of white goods (like freezers) c) lack of choices about where to buy food (and the kinds of food to buy).

In many situations, their lives are so stressful and crap that it is hardly surprising they spend fairly large amounts on alcohol and cigarettes.

Rather than being like self-righteous tee-totallers of previous generations, it'd be interesting if Mudfrog could tell us how the Salvation Army is trying to address the deeper issues - which are deeper even than the inability of people to make sensible choices about their spending.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Your calculations are off, Mudfrog. It's 60% of median disposable income, not 60% of gross. That's:

£119 a week for a single adult
£206 a week for a couple
£202 a week for a single adult with 2 children
£288 a week for a couple with 2 children

Those are the figures I've seen too. It means anyone relying on unemployment benefit is living in poverty. A single adult who is unemployed will get £71 a week (or £56 if under 25) which will have to cover all the expenses you listed plus water rates. A couple will get £111. I'm not sure exactly what a couple with 2 children will have to live on but I think it will be around £200 a week.

There's a common perception of pensioners as poor but the poorest single pensioner will have a minimum of £142 a week disposable income plus additional help with heating costs (winter fuel allowance & cold-weather payments) and free off-peak bus travel. Relatively poor perhaps but not living in real poverty.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This is my start on the issue, not complete by any means.

Poverty is children who go to school without breakfast.
Poverty is people in winter without a warm place to sleep.
Poverty is people without hope for anything.

It's associated with addictions.
It's associated with mental illness.
It's associated with physical illness.
It's associated with crime.

It's more common when political economies are organized to minimize social services and programs and make the user pay.
It's more common when individuals and corporations get to make decisions about what money they donate and spend in the public sector, and tax policies are organized to make this so.

It results in the wealthy thinking that they are superior to the poor, minimizing the effects of parental wealth, luck and what used to be called "the old boys club".

It results in seething anger among many of the poor, and apparently even worse among many who have managed through chance and effort to rise above their origins, and they see how the world is organized.

Note. There would seem to be at least 2 ways of discussing this. One would be within a society. The second would be wealthy nations and poor nations. The second is probably the first writ large?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Your calculations are off, Mudfrog. It's 60% of median disposable income, not 60% of gross. That's:

£119 a week for a single adult
£206 a week for a couple
£202 a week for a single adult with 2 children
£288 a week for a couple with 2 children

Those are the figures I've seen too. It means anyone relying on unemployment benefit is living in poverty. A single adult who is unemployed will get £71 a week (or £56 if under 25) which will have to cover all the expenses you listed plus water rates. A couple will get £111. I'm not sure exactly what a couple with 2 children will have to live on but I think it will be around £200 a week.

There's a common perception of pensioners as poor but the poorest single pensioner will have a minimum of £142 a week disposable income plus additional help with heating costs (winter fuel allowance & cold-weather payments) and free off-peak bus travel. Relatively poor perhaps but not living in real poverty.

Those on jobseeker's allowance will also get hosing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free school meals and other stuff. They will not have to pay all their expenses out of that one jobseekers allowance.

I am not saying that people on benefits are comfortable and are certainly not able to live with all the positive things in life that wealthier, working class people enjoy, but neither are they not in a position to feed and clothe their children properly and heat their homes.

If poverty is defined by how much a person or family can do in comparison to a richer person, then all of us can say we are in poverty. I can't afford a lot of stuff and sometimes I feel guilty that, for example, I can't help my kids with driving lessons let alone a car; I can't subsidise university life, I have to live within fairly straitened means - but that doesn't mean I'm in poverty.

I get worried when we define poverty like this in a world where poverty means no access to food, water, medicine or education. Even a family with unemployment benefit has sufficient - if they live within their means.

Again, I have experience of this and my own eldest son is on JSA, having been out of work since May.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Well of course the world is unjust and the imbalance between rich and poor nations needs to be addressed just as much as poor individuals in the West. That needs political will which will not be directed by any of our elected politicians because they know they won't get re-elected for doing unpopular things.

It's bound to be an imprecise science, defining poverty in our society. But I'd rather live on a bowl of rice a day in an Indian village where everyone was in the same boat, than live on the same diet as a virtual prisoner in a leaky flat on a sink estate surrounded by shopping malls and glitzy signs of wealth.

If nobody has a computer people will use other ways to maintain community. If 90% of the population keep in touch online and through emails, the 10% without access to that will be even more isolated and deprived. That then counts as poverty in our society.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those on jobseeker's allowance will also get hosing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free school meals and other stuff. They will not have to pay all their expenses out of that one jobseekers allowance.

I am not saying that people on benefits are comfortable and are certainly not able to live with all the positive things in life that wealthier, working class people enjoy, but neither are they not in a position to feed and clothe their children properly and heat their homes.

Mudfrog, as I understand it the figures quoted are for income after housing costs and council tax. For a single person a disposable income of £119 a week is 60% of the median rate. Anything below this is defined as poverty. A single person on JSA will have considerably less than 60% of the median.

Arethosemyfeet listed what the disposable income must cover:

quote:
To put that in perspective, heating and power for a modest, well insulated terraced house will set you back £25 a week (but bear in mind that the very poor are likely to be on expensive prepayment meters and live in poorly insulated housing). Food, to eat reasonably healthily, is likely to be £40 per person per week. A monthly bus ticket works out around £15 a week, depending on where you are. Despite what others seem to think a telephone is an essential item, realistically £5 a week. That leaves just over £30 for a single person to cover clothing, prescription charges, dental check ups, optician, glasses, furniture, appliances, and, at the wrath of the Scrooges, some form of entertainment. A TV licence at £3 a week would not be considered an extravagance by most.

A single person on £71 a week JSA will get free prescriptions etc but will have to pay for electicity/gas, telephone, water rates, transport, food, toiletries, cleaning supplies, and TV license. The long-term unemployed will also have to make provision for clothing and for replacing electrical items and furniture.

I've seen varying estimations of the number of households living in poverty in the UK ranging from 20% to 28%. There is real poverty in this country. There are people who are cold and hungry, not because they're feckless but because they haven't enough money to feed themselves adquately or to keep warm.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

And I don't disagree. I have met and worked with some people in desperate poverty and I would never want to minimise the need.

One of the issues the Salvation Army is working on in the UK is the problem with the administration of benefits. I can tell you from personal experience and from TSA's own figures that a significant number of people who come to us for food and other help - 55% in fact - are in need because of a delay in benefits or a cancellation of benefits. I cannot understand why a computerised system cannot release immediate payments but when forms are filled out due to new claims or changes in circumstances, clients are told to wait for weeks on end until their money comes through.

This is not acceptable and I have had to help people with emergency aid simply because the system does not deal with people on an individual needs basis but insists they fit into the admin process regardless of the hardship caused.

Here's an example of poverty that I encountered and the needless circumstance that caused it.

A family here has 9 children, the oldest being 17. The father suddenly died in March and all his benefits were cancelled on the spot - housing benefit and income support. That money simply disappeared from the family budget for the ten remaining people - when they were also at their most vulnerable. I was called on to help them by the headmistress of the school who had noticed the kids were hungry. Get this: this was 2 months after the woman's husband had died and the benefits were stopped. They were living on her child allowance - rent, food, clothes, everything.

That was poverty - caused, not by the amount that was normally paid being too low, but caused by the system that could not quickly deal with a change in circumstances and using computer systems quickly transfer the benefit entitlement from the husband to the wife.

We were able to provide money for the woman to go shopping for her kids for at least one week.
Poverty doesn't need to exist - and would be reduced if people were not let down by needless administrative delays.

I could give other examples.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Never mind examples. Will you answer my question?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Never mind examples. Will you answer my question?

What? Have I pointed out to people who smoke that instead of wasting their money and ruining their health they should be feeding their children? No, I wouldn't be so patronising. Neither would I refuse them help if they came to me for help.

That doesn't stop me from believing they are making poor spending choices that are detrimental to their children.

If I was asked for financial advice however, I would suggest they quit smoking in order to save money.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Mudfrog, in some cases benefits are too low. I gave the example of a single unemployed person of 25 or over who would have just £71 a week. Under 25 it would be £56. On this level of income over many months I doubt if it would be possible to maintain essential utilities and a basic healthy diet. Your example of inadequate administrative support for a widow and her children doesn't alter anything. The cost of food and utilities has risen sharply but the poorest have no more money to pay the increased costs.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

On the question of utility costs there is an unfairness that I would like to see addressed - the fact that gas/electricity paid for by pre-paid key or card is more expensive per unit than whewn it is paid for by monthly direct debit.

It is the low paid who generally pay by these keys and therefore they are paying more than I am for the same product.

As far as the level of benefits is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not right that someone should get more in benefits than someone in work should get on the minimum wage.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

It's easy to point to examples of poor people who are struggling because of their own poor choices-- addiction, gambling, sloth, whatever. It's easy because, as we have seen, "the poor" is a large, diverse group made up of all sorts of people who are in their circumstances for all sorts of reasons. Just like the middle class, or the rich. Just like everyone else, some are there for poor choices, some are there because of bad luck, most are there due to a complex chain of causal factors, some within their control and some not. In the aforementioned conference I attended, one speaker helpfully said, "homelessness is a failure of community"-- pointing out that we are all subject to the exact same factors that lead to homelessness, the only difference being that the housed had someone they could fall back on (returning home to parents, crashing on a friend's couch, whatever) when they screwed up/ hit a run of bad luck, and the homeless, for a variety of reasons, did not.

But the one thing we do know is that, regardless of the causes, the one large group of poor/homeless who are there through no fault of their own are children. Our church's small homeless shelter (which houses only a fraction of the city's homeless) hosts at least 15 families with children each night. No matter what stupid choices their parents may have made, the children are not a fault, yet they are paying the costs. And failing to address that leads to precisely the dreaded "generational cycle" that conservatives like to blather about. If you want to break that cycle, you do it by intervening to insure that, regardless of whether their parents meet your standard of "worthiness", children don't grow up on the streets.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the level of benefits is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not right that someone should get more in benefits than someone in work should get on the minimum wage.

Sure. But is the solution to lower benefits or to raise minimum wage?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the level of benefits is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not right that someone should get more in benefits than someone in work should get on the minimum wage.
Sure. But is the solution to lower benefits or to raise minimum wage?

No, the answer is to create jobs and get people off benefits. For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice. We need to have an economy where there is ample employment so that people can choose to work and live properly. To deliberately remain on benefits through choice should be the inferior option.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the level of benefits is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not right that someone should get more in benefits than someone in work should get on the minimum wage.
Sure. But is the solution to lower benefits or to raise minimum wage?
No, the answer is to create jobs and get people off benefits. For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice. We need to have an economy where there is ample employment so that people can choose to work and live properly. To deliberately remain on benefits through choice should be the inferior option.

When one loses benefits at a faster rate than one's income increases, because different benefits are reduced as if other benefits do not exist, what incentive is there for people on benefits to get a job? They are incentivised to a lesser extent than those on the 'high' tax rate of 50%, who at least retain half of what they have been paid, while the working poor can well end up poorer than they would be if they remained out of work and have at least the expense of getting to work in addition.

As for the 'no benefit recipients to recieve more than the minimum wage' I think we also need to look at the cut off for Tax Credits, which are paid to top up low incomes but these, in combination with other benefits, can also result in marginal effective tax rates of more than 100%.

Ian Duncan Smith undertook to reform the benefits system to end this fiasco, but the Treasury wouldn't hear of it. They rely on the fragmented
nature of benefits to keep many people poor but the effect it has is that once people get their benefits sorted out, they are inclined to sit tight for fear of losing entitlements, as Mudfrog described with the widow plus nine children.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice.

Right-wing politicians and newspapers keep on telling us this but is there any research to back up this assertion?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What? Have I pointed out to people who smoke that instead of wasting their money and ruining their health they should be feeding their children? No, I wouldn't be so patronising. ... That doesn't stop me from believing they are making poor spending choices that are detrimental to their children. ...

So if it's patronizing to say this TO someone, why isn't it patronizing to say it ABOUT them?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice.

Damn few. I suppose you could say that even one is too many, but the vast majority of people on benefits wish they weren't.

Though personally I don't really care if a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of scroungers get money they don't really need. Its nothing compared with the millions who can't work, or can't find work.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
Right-wing politicians and newspapers keep on telling us this but is there any research to back up this assertion?

Yes, lots of people have said they get more on benefits than if they went to find a job.

[ 04. September 2012, 16:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What? Have I pointed out to people who smoke that instead of wasting their money and ruining their health they should be feeding their children? No, I wouldn't be so patronising. ... That doesn't stop me from believing they are making poor spending choices that are detrimental to their children. ...
So if it's patronizing to say this TO someone, why isn't it patronizing to say it ABOUT them?

Because if someone came asking for food I would not means test them or ask for their weekly budget - unless it became a regular thing; then, if there was a budgetting problem and they wanted help I would suggest it to them as a way of budgetting their income.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
Right-wing politicians and newspapers keep on telling us this but is there any research to back up this assertion?

Especially in this era when I can, off the top of my head, name dozens of well-educated, motivated, skilled workers who have been diligently seeking any and all work for 18 months or more. And that just within my own sphere of acquaintance. (My husband completed over 300 job applications last year from menial to skilled, got 2 interviews and no offers).

The original post went on to address the root issue of no jobs. That's where we need to focus. But to keep repeating this old, ridiculous canard that probably never was true but certainly isn't the case today only muddies the waters

And suggesting that the way to "create" jobs is by cutting budgets is nonsensical. Cutting budgets = cutting jobs. End of story. Don't give me the old saw about cutting budgets means cutting taxes equals more private sector jobs. We've been trying that for 3 years now with 0 results. Corporations are sitting on record profits but somehow that isn't motivating them to rush to any hiring spree.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
Right-wing politicians and newspapers keep on telling us this but is there any research to back up this assertion?
Yes, lots of people have said they get more on benefits than if they went to find a job.

With a minimum wage of 6.08 per hour and full-time job of, say 40 hours (£243.20 per week) - if you can get one - I'm not surprised. That says much more about low pay and the lack of jobs than it does about an unduly generous benefits system.

Still, you'll be pleased to hear than a 'Benefit Cap' is to be introduced from April 2013. It won't take any notice of what people need to live on, but it will be a sop to you, other mean moralisers and the redtop tabloids who hold shirkers more responsible for our woes than the bankers.

You and your kind make me sick.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

From personal experience, living on benefits is only a lifestyle choice if you want to live with constant low-level anxiety.
There aren't any jobs.
If there are jobs, then they're part-time, or zero-hour contracts, or short-term, and the hassle of getting off benefits and then getting on them again - and not getting anything to live on between stopping a job and re-starting the benefits - means that it is not a rational choice to take the short-term job if it's available.
Anyone who thinks that people on benefits are living in idle comfort are deluding themselves.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You and your kind make me sick.

SS, this is way out of line. Engage the argument, not the man.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You and your kind make me sick.
SS, this is way out of line. Engage the argument, not the man.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Mudfrog, I've gone way too far here. Please accept my apologies for what was a personal insult. Heat of the moment doesn't come into it, I was wrong.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I suspect both Sioni Sais and Mudfrog are right, based on their experience and the people they see. I think it is highly likely that the local situation you experience will colour your impression of the benefits system.

In some areas, perhaps those where Mudfrog operates, there are clearly structural problems which means that people have essentially given up and expect a life on the dole. And then it is only a few steps to becoming someone who thinks that the world owes you something. And that is hardly surprising when every part-time job at Tescos receives hundreds of applications.

On the other hand, there are those who are really struggling to survive, those who are being mistreated because they happen to be ill/sick/disabled by a system that doesn't seem to give a fuck about them.

I don't think it is an either-or situation.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I suspect both Sioni Sais and Mudfrog are right, based on their experience and the people they see. I think it is highly likely that the local situation you experience will colour your impression of the benefits system.

In some areas, perhaps those where Mudfrog operates, there are clearly structural problems which means that people have essentially given up and expect a life on the dole. And then it is only a few steps to becoming someone who thinks that the world owes you something. And that is hardly surprising when every part-time job at Tescos receives hundreds of applications.

On the other hand, there are those who are really struggling to survive, those who are being mistreated because they happen to be ill/sick/disabled by a system that doesn't seem to give a fuck about them.

I don't think it is an either-or situation.

I think it must be our political outlooks as South Wales and the North-East are all too similar and we've both lived on benefits for periods! The old industries have all but gone (especially coal) and these areas lead the country for teen pregnancy, among other unfavourable social indicators. The bigger cities aren't so bad, the secondary towns at best dull, but when you get into the hinterland (eg, the South East Wales valleys) it's pretty grim.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Because if someone came asking for food I would not means test them or ask for their weekly budget - unless it became a regular thing; then, if there was a budgetting problem and they wanted help I would suggest it to them as a way of budgetting their income.

So in other words, without knowing anything about their personal situation or finances or lifestyle, you know exactly what they have to do to balance their household budget? Why on earth would you withhold such valuable information when it could make such a difference to their children's lives?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The structural problem is that free market economies rely on keeping a proportion of the population unemployed so that they can supress pay and conditions by pointing to those who are out of work. When we have economic capacity for full employment as there was for much of the post-war period, then we can talk about those still unemployed as having made a "lifestyle choice". Until then such accusations are absurd.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The structural problem is that free market economies rely on keeping a proportion of the population unemployed so that they can supress pay and conditions by pointing to those who are out of work. When we have economic capacity for full employment as there was for much of the post-war period, then we can talk about those still unemployed as having made a "lifestyle choice". Until then such accusations are absurd.

I don't know. It is at some level a lifestyle choice to live in an area of underemployment if you could move elsewhere.

I honestly do not think the economic situation is the same in all areas. Some people might actually be better off moving or commuting for work than waiting for non-existent jobs in their local area.

I accept that moving is difficult, but without going into personal details, some of us have to move regularly. It isn't easy, but in another sense it is a 'lifestyle choice'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For too many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
Right-wing politicians and newspapers keep on telling us this but is there any research to back up this assertion?
Yes, lots of people have said they get more on benefits than if they went to find a job.

That is anecdote, not research.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You and your kind make me sick.
SS, this is way out of line. Engage the argument, not the man.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Mudfrog, I've gone way too far here. Please accept my apologies for what was a personal insult. Heat of the moment doesn't come into it, I was wrong.

No offence taken - it's OK [Smile]

We just have very different approaches and experiences.

I'm not saying that there isn't poverty and I'm not saying that all benefit levels are equal to the task of giving people a sustainable lifestyle; what I am saying is that from observation and experience, much poverty - especially child poverty is caused by poor spending choices and personal habits or by inhumane, inflexible administration systems.

One of the reasons for high unemployment, deficit economy and poverty is that so much is spent on benefits rather than putting people into work so thery can contribute to the economy rather than merely receiving from it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If I was asked for financial advice however, I would suggest they quit smoking in order to save money.

People who work have lots to occupy their mind and their hands with.

If you have nothing to do, the smoking passes the time - each time a fag is put out, the brain starts to think about the next one. it punctuates what would otherwise seem like endless, useless time.

That's why some people say that smoking is 'the only pleasure I've got.' or 'What else is there to look forward to? (To which the answer might be 'drink.')

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I don't know. Let me be candid.

How is being on benefits (social assistance is the term usually used here) different than tax deferral plans for wealthy people, or the fact that my tax rate was 14% overall for my company, and that I'm allowed to leave money in the company until I can withdraw it, so as to avoid the 29% federal rate and the additional 11-21% provincial rate depending on where I live in Canada. My savings in taxes each year is more than most people's income actually. In percent terms, almost 30% of tax savings. Thanks for the benefits I guess.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The structural problem is that free market economies rely on keeping a proportion of the population unemployed so that they can supress pay and conditions by pointing to those who are out of work. When we have economic capacity for full employment as there was for much of the post-war period, then we can talk about those still unemployed as having made a "lifestyle choice". Until then such accusations are absurd.
I don't know. It is at some level a lifestyle choice to live in an area of underemployment if you could move elsewhere.

I honestly do not think the economic situation is the same in all areas. Some people might actually be better off moving or commuting for work than waiting for non-existent jobs in their local area.

I accept that moving is difficult, but without going into personal details, some of us have to move regularly. It isn't easy, but in another sense it is a 'lifestyle choice'.

All very true, but there are some complicating factors:

1. Often (as in my own case) one spouse is employed & another is not. The family may be struggling to make ends meet on one (possibly part-time) salary, but one is better than none. Risking the one salary on only the possibility of work somewhere else is a bit of a gamble.

2. Many of the newly poor are underwater in a mortgage. They can't move because they can't unload their house without incurring additional debt.

3. Moving removes you from resources that might be helping you get through hard times-- particularly family connections. Perhaps you can crash on mom's couch if you can't meet rent. Or ask grandma to watch the kids while you stand in line with 300 other hopeful job applicants. You won't have those resources somewhere else. As I mentioned earlier, many housing advocates are citing this precise problem as a key component of homelessness. People move for work, then if the job falls through or they become ill or disabled, they have no resources to fall back on. (The pattern in many cities of dealing w/ homelessness by buying them a bus ticket to Somewhere Else exasperates this).

4. As noted above, many of the jobs becoming available are part-time and temporary. Moving for such a job is a huge risk given the factors listed above.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You and your kind make me sick.
SS, this is way out of line. Engage the argument, not the man.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Mudfrog, I've gone way too far here. Please accept my apologies for what was a personal insult. Heat of the moment doesn't come into it, I was wrong.
No offence taken - it's OK
We just have very different approaches and experiences.

Thanks. Glad we're back on the level.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@cliffdweller, I am not arguing against any of your points. However, there is an apparently some level of inertia within some people who could move but do not. I'm not claiming that is the situation for everyone.

And actually I think this is a fairly modern concept. In many previous eras, people were forced to move to find work - because there was no social security.

Many in my area appear to be unwilling to move even though there are few local jobs. At some point either a) someone has to think of a way to bring back mass forms of employment to our locality or b) the local unemployed have to get so sick of their situation that moving is a risk worth taking.

The bad lifestyle choices that Mudfrog experiences are certainly in evidence here. Not everyone, certainly, but a sizable minority of people on benefit.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by The Long Ranger:

quote:
the local unemployed have to get so sick of their situation that moving is a risk worth taking

I think they're called economic migrants...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@cliffdweller, I am not arguing against any of your points. However, there is an apparently some level of inertia within some people who could move but do not. I'm not claiming that is the situation for everyone.

And actually I think this is a fairly modern concept. In many previous eras, people were forced to move to find work - because there was no social security.

Actually, I think it is fairly well established that we are a much more mobile society than in previous generations. Again, I think what you're calling "inertia" is more likely reasonable caution.

otoh, in our work with the homeless, one thing we have discovered is that it makes a difference whether our client has an "internal" or "external" locus of control. If they have an internal locus of control they believe (sometimes despite all evidence to the contrary) that they have some control over their destiny, that despite the unforeseen events beyond their control, their choices do matter. These are the "worthy poor" everyone loves, who will use their wits to think strategically about how to change their circumstances. They would be likely to move for work if the circumstances warranted it.

People with an external locus of control have been so beaten down by life that they no longer (or most likely never) believe their choices matter. Fate, God, luck, whatever controls their circumstances. Things happen-- good or bad-- and there's nothing they can do to change that. These clients are very grateful for our help, and tend not to grumble or complain when bad luck befalls. But they are less likely to think long term-- because they have come to believe (often with good reason) that such strategic thinking doesn't change anything. They enjoy the good fortune when it comes, but don't think about how to capitalize on those opportunities.

We have found it very, very hard to move someone with an external locus of control out of long-term poverty. And we've found it very, very difficult to change someone's locus of control.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
or b) the local unemployed have to get so sick of their situation that moving is a risk worth taking.

Again, the housing advocates I'm working with are cautioning against this, as it tends to compound homelessness. It also tends to increase the generational effects of poverty by either uprooting children (interrupting education) or disrupting families.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know. It is at some level a lifestyle choice to live in an area of underemployment if you could move elsewhere.

I honestly do not think the economic situation is the same in all areas. Some people might actually be better off moving or commuting for work than waiting for non-existent jobs in their local area.

I accept that moving is difficult, but without going into personal details, some of us have to move regularly. It isn't easy, but in another sense it is a 'lifestyle choice'.

For the poor, moving may be nearly impossible.

One of the issues that tags along with poverty is bad credit. I live in an area with a vacancy rate of less than 1%; landlords swamped with applications are in no hurry to rent to someone with crap credit, when they've got scores of great-credit applicants.

Moving is expensive; how/where do the poor manage a truck for moving heavy / bulky items like a bed, or even that used washing machine you can't afford to replace? What do they do about the deposits they'll need to get the lights or heat or phone turned on?

I can't speak to others' experience, but whenever I have moved, I've been faced with a boatload of unexpected expenses ranging from a hefty sum to get the gas turned on or the oil tank filled down to the trivial fact that -- no matter what you had for shades or blinds or curtains in the old place(s), none of what you've got fits the windows in the new place.

I have a client on my case load who must be moved frequently as a result of a court order requiring that he not live near a certain category of people. One moves into his neighborhood, and bam! Client has to move.

After several years of averaging 3-4 moves a year, about all this guy has left is a suitcase with clothes and a Coliseum-size case of depression.

I suspect "no money" is behind the so-called "inertia."

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

And more simply, in the UK at least, the places with most jobs have the scarcest/most expensive housing and vice versa. That's why when some London councils talked about deporting their homeless to the Potteries they were rightly shot down.

There are whole swathes of boarded-up housing in the Northwest, Northeast and South Wales, but no jobs, while in London people doing menial cleaning work and other drudgery have to travel miles from the nearest affordable housing.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by Mudfrog:
I am not saying that people on benefits are comfortable and are certainly not able to live with all the positive things in life that wealthier, working class people enjoy, but neither are they not in a position to feed and clothe their children properly and heat their homes.

Would you desire that it be otherwise?

It's an interesting point that if the state pays for your heating, etc. it's not really yours. I think that changes the situation somewhat. For instance, all it takes is a politician's whimsy to put you out on the street.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And more simply, in the UK at least, the places with most jobs have the scarcest/most expensive housing and vice versa. That's why when some London councils talked about deporting their homeless to the Potteries they were rightly shot down.

There are whole swathes of boarded-up housing in the Northwest, Northeast and South Wales, but no jobs, while in London people doing menial cleaning work and other drudgery have to travel miles from the nearest affordable housing.

Empty homes are not restricted to depressed areas. There are about 75,000 of them in the London area alone! What's missing is the political will to repair these where necessary or simply lean on the landlords to rent them out. Far too many homes are empty: why, you'd almost think it was a conspiracy designed to keep the cost of housing artificially high!

nb: The recent changes to make 'squatting' a criminal offence will only make this worse: it removes from landlaords andd their agents an imperative to getting legitimate tenants in quickly.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And more simply, in the UK at least, the places with most jobs have the scarcest/most expensive housing and vice versa. That's why when some London councils talked about deporting their homeless to the Potteries they were rightly shot down.

There are whole swathes of boarded-up housing in the Northwest, Northeast and South Wales, but no jobs, while in London people doing menial cleaning work and other drudgery have to travel miles from the nearest affordable housing.
Empty homes are not restricted to depressed areas. There are about 75,000 of them in the London area alone! What's missing is the political will to repair these where necessary or simply lean on the landlords to rent them out. Far too many homes are empty: why, you'd almost think it was a conspiracy designed to keep the cost of housing artificially high!

nb: The recent changes to make 'squatting' a criminal offence will only make this worse: it removes from landlaords andd their agents an imperative to getting legitimate tenants in quickly.

Which, of course, shows how complex and nuanced the whole issue is. Depressed housing prices is what leads to so many of the newly poor being underwater in mortgages (a huge issue here in Calif.), which can keep them from downsizing (since when you're underwater a "cheaper" house will lead to greater debt) or moving to where the jobs are. Yet keeping home prices artificially high leads to higher rents, squeezing out the rest of the poor.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

I was at the local town council meeting this week (I've started to report it for my blog) and our county councillor said a few worrying things in his report. The first is that from next year housing benefit will be paid directly to the tenant to pass on to the landlord, rather than directly to the landlord as at present. Gareth (the councillor) is expecting an increased rate of rent arrears as a result of that, as families choose to use the money on things they consider more urgent than the rent - like getting a car through its MOT, for instance.
He also reported that people with spare rooms will have to pay a charge for them. When a person gets housing benefit, it has been the case for years that, if you are living in a house deemed bigger than you need, the total rent for the house will not be paid by the benefit system and you have to top up the payment yourself. One of the town councillors asked for clarification - was this new charge for people on benefits or for everybody? - and Gareth said it was for everybody. I don't know any more than that at the moment, but if this is true, then it's very worrying.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
from next year housing benefit will be paid directly to the tenant to pass on to the landlord, rather than directly to the landlord as at present. Gareth (the councillor) is expecting an increased rate of rent arrears as a result of that, as families choose to use the money on things they consider more urgent than the rent - like getting a car through its MOT, for instance.

That is already what happens in England and, yes, tenants get into arrears as they use the money goes on other things.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
from next year housing benefit will be paid directly to the tenant to pass on to the landlord, rather than directly to the landlord as at present. Gareth (the councillor) is expecting an increased rate of rent arrears as a result of that, as families choose to use the money on things they consider more urgent than the rent - like getting a car through its MOT, for instance.
That is already what happens in England and, yes, tenants get into arrears as they use the money goes on other things.

But is the purpose of the housing benefit to serve the families or to serve the landlord? Honest question.

If it's to serve the families (i.e. a form of welfare) they may, in fact, be right-- there may be a more urgent priority. If it's to serve the landlords (e.g. to provide stability in a struggling community) then obviously the change is problematic.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But is the purpose of the housing benefit to serve the families or to serve the landlord? Honest question.

If it's to serve the families (i.e. a form of welfare) they may, in fact, be right-- there may be a more urgent priority. If it's to serve the landlords (e.g. to provide stability in a struggling community) then obviously the change is problematic.

If the landlord does not receive enough money to pay for repairs, taxes, etc., the property may eventually be abandoned.

Moo

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
from next year housing benefit will be paid directly to the tenant to pass on to the landlord, rather than directly to the landlord as at present. Gareth (the councillor) is expecting an increased rate of rent arrears as a result of that, as families choose to use the money on things they consider more urgent than the rent - like getting a car through its MOT, for instance.
That is already what happens in England and, yes, tenants get into arrears as they use the money goes on other things.

It can work both ways. When I was last unemployed, just over ten years ago, there was a cap on housing benefit, and I believe there still is one. We rent privately (hence our HB was paid to us) so over a third of the rent had to paid out of other benefits, as if there is some slack built into them.

I don't think that means that our rent was unreasonable, merely a reflection of the housing market.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]But is the purpose of the housing benefit to serve the families or to serve the landlord? Honest question.

If it's to serve the families (i.e. a form of welfare) they may, in fact, be right-- there may be a more urgent priority. If it's to serve the landlords (e.g. to provide stability in a struggling community) then obviously the change is problematic.

The issue is that tenants on housing benefit are already unattractive to landlords, and many landlords already refuse to accept such tenants. The first problem is that housing benefit is paid a month in arrears, so if tenants decide to do a runner you're already a month down. Second is that, if tenants claim fraudulently the council can recover the rent from the landlord, even if it was originally paid to the tenant. Thirdly, LHA rates used for housing benefit are pegged at the 30th percentile, lowering rents.

Anything done to make renting to those on housing benefit less attractive is likely to result simply in fewer people willing to do it. Unless the government is going to step in and build or buy sufficient affordable housing, the outcome is an even worse housing crisis.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Empty homes are not restricted to depressed areas. There are about 75,000 of them in the London area alone! What's missing is the political will to repair these where necessary or simply lean on the landlords to rent them out. Far too many homes are empty: why, you'd almost think it was a conspiracy designed to keep the cost of housing artificially high!

I don't understand why the landlords are willing to leave the houses empty. What do they gain by it? They still have to pay taxes, don't they?

Moo

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Empty homes are not restricted to depressed areas. There are about 75,000 of them in the London area alone! What's missing is the political will to repair these where necessary or simply lean on the landlords to rent them out. Far too many homes are empty: why, you'd almost think it was a conspiracy designed to keep the cost of housing artificially high!
I don't understand why the landlords are willing to leave the houses empty. What do they gain by it? They still have to pay taxes, don't they?

Moo

Some landlords are simply waiting for them to fall down, some are afraid of losing control once tenants are in, some are empty 'between lets' but mostly it's money. Then there are 'second homes'. [Mad]

A lot of these empty homes are in poor order and a lot of money is needed to bring them back into use. Many landlords are short of the funds needed and can't get the credit, even with a property that could be worth hundreds of thousands to back it up.

Renovations and repairs, unlike new builds, often incur VAT (20%) which is another discouragement while a lot of housing stock is owned by councils or housing associations, which can't move quickly with a bomb underneath them, and they have a tougher time getting funds than private individuals or firms do.

Here's a relatively recent piece from The Guardian.

Meanwhile, we have enough empty homes to house most of those on housing lists.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't understand why the landlords are willing to leave the houses empty. What do they gain by it? They still have to pay taxes, don't they?

Moo

This may vary by where one lives, but if I owned a rental property, I could write off all its operating expenses (and hence any losses) against my personal income taxes. Depending on my income and the property values, the tax break may be worth more than the hassle of actually renting the property. And if you think that's screwy, you're right, but it's all in the name of property rights and helping entrepeneurs. (Sometimes indistinguishable from robbing from the poor to give to the rich.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]But is the purpose of the housing benefit to serve the families or to serve the landlord? Honest question.

If it's to serve the families (i.e. a form of welfare) they may, in fact, be right-- there may be a more urgent priority. If it's to serve the landlords (e.g. to provide stability in a struggling community) then obviously the change is problematic.
The issue is that tenants on housing benefit are already unattractive to landlords, and many landlords already refuse to accept such tenants. The first problem is that housing benefit is paid a month in arrears, so if tenants decide to do a runner you're already a month down. Second is that, if tenants claim fraudulently the council can recover the rent from the landlord, even if it was originally paid to the tenant. Thirdly, LHA rates used for housing benefit are pegged at the 30th percentile, lowering rents.

Anything done to make renting to those on housing benefit less attractive is likely to result simply in fewer people willing to do it. Unless the government is going to step in and build or buy sufficient affordable housing, the outcome is an even worse housing crisis.

OK, that answers my question. The housing benefit is for the landlords. Which is fine-- sometimes you need that bump. Sometimes it is the only way to get affordable housing in place. But just realize, then, that it is that-- a benefit for the landowner.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

There was a piece on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning about affordable housing, and how the government is giving an amount of money to build more with one hand, and cutting another fund with the other, with the net result that there will be less affordable housing built.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
This may vary by where one lives, but if I owned a rental property, I could write off all its operating expenses (and hence any losses) against my personal income taxes. Depending on my income and the property values, the tax break may be worth more than the hassle of actually renting the property.

It strikes me as very odd that one is entitled to deductions for a rental property which in fact is not rented.

Moo

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
There was a piece on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning about affordable housing, and how the government is giving an amount of money to build more with one hand, and cutting another fund with the other, with the net result that there will be less affordable housing built.

By an "affordable housing programme" the government means that the programme is affordable, not the housing. It's like the Official Secrets Act, which exists to protect officials.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0