ChatterBank3 mins ago
Child Poverty In Britain Report
http://
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission has now said that we will fail to meet our targets in this area by 2020. The report warns that it meant that the UK was at risk of being "permanently divided" with the poorest left behind.
As this is a non-party political issue, what do we think needs to be done ?
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission has now said that we will fail to meet our targets in this area by 2020. The report warns that it meant that the UK was at risk of being "permanently divided" with the poorest left behind.
As this is a non-party political issue, what do we think needs to be done ?
Answers
I too agree with much of what youngmafbog has written...up to a point. The idea of removing children from families is basically appalling. This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the...
13:13 Mon 20th Oct 2014
dunnitall
And what of those families who are easily able to afford child number two, three or four, whose circumstances change?
How about this conundrum...
Lucy and her husband Steve are expecting their fourth child. They've got three girls and are excited because Lucy is expecting a boy.
Steve is stationed in Afghanistan, and sadly news comes through that his unit came under fire from insurgents and he was killed.
Lucy and the girls have a limited amount of time to move out of their army accommodation, and because the girls are young, Lucy applies for family assistance.
So...seeing as Lucy is dependent on the state, which of her kids should go into care? The youngest?
You see the can of worms this opens?
It's a great big family can of worms. The kind of can that's on special offer this week - three for the price of two.
And what of those families who are easily able to afford child number two, three or four, whose circumstances change?
How about this conundrum...
Lucy and her husband Steve are expecting their fourth child. They've got three girls and are excited because Lucy is expecting a boy.
Steve is stationed in Afghanistan, and sadly news comes through that his unit came under fire from insurgents and he was killed.
Lucy and the girls have a limited amount of time to move out of their army accommodation, and because the girls are young, Lucy applies for family assistance.
So...seeing as Lucy is dependent on the state, which of her kids should go into care? The youngest?
You see the can of worms this opens?
It's a great big family can of worms. The kind of can that's on special offer this week - three for the price of two.
Tower Hamlets London, 49% of children live in poverty.
http://
http://
dunnitall
If common sense came into it, then people would stop and think about the actual end points of this suggestion.
Kids in care fare worse (statistically) than kids out of care. Not all kids in care do badly - and there are a hell of a lot who would do better in care than at home (because they have parents who are unable/unwilling to care or who are abusive).
But placing a kid in care simply because the parents are broke is too simplistic. It ignores some very basic questions about what happens after the care order is given.
And let's not pretend that these kids will be adopted. The majority won't. They will remain in the care system.
Do you know the number of kids who go from being in care, directly into a life of crime?
I don't, but I'll look it up. I have an nasty feeling that it won't be encouraging.
Again - I think the way that benefits are distributed in the UK is a) stupid and b) open to abuse and c) need reform - but this 'take the kids' idea is dumber than a box of hair.
If common sense came into it, then people would stop and think about the actual end points of this suggestion.
Kids in care fare worse (statistically) than kids out of care. Not all kids in care do badly - and there are a hell of a lot who would do better in care than at home (because they have parents who are unable/unwilling to care or who are abusive).
But placing a kid in care simply because the parents are broke is too simplistic. It ignores some very basic questions about what happens after the care order is given.
And let's not pretend that these kids will be adopted. The majority won't. They will remain in the care system.
Do you know the number of kids who go from being in care, directly into a life of crime?
I don't, but I'll look it up. I have an nasty feeling that it won't be encouraging.
Again - I think the way that benefits are distributed in the UK is a) stupid and b) open to abuse and c) need reform - but this 'take the kids' idea is dumber than a box of hair.
I'm not suggesting that children should be placed into care simply because their parents are broke, sp. I thought I made that clear earlier and of course the example you cite of Lucy and Steve is clearly not one where I would advocate any of the children being taken. The sort of cases I am thinking of are those where people churn out child after child without any notion of responsibility for their care, expecting the taxpayer to pick up the bill for their ever increasing irresponsibility. Something needs to be done about them. The taxpayer cannot and should not pick up the bills for this fecklessness. It is no use successive governments wringing their hands and saying nothing can be done. Something has to be done. In the absence of any other ideas it's either my notion or compulsory sterilisation.
Yes, it's a complex problem. But the government has already done a lot of the spadework by identifying a number (I can't remember how many) of "troubled" families who are costing the taxpayer shed loads of cash because of their fecklessness. Have they done anything about preventing their broods expanding? I very much doubt it.
I don't think there's a lot I can add.
But back to the question "Average income and the cost of living index are very useful benchmarks...". Useful they may be, Zeuhl, but not when it comes to defining poverty. Average income has nothing to do with poverty which, as I have said, is an absolute state not one of comparison with earnings or with anything else. It is not complicated or difficult to define poverty in absolute terms.
Yes, it's a complex problem. But the government has already done a lot of the spadework by identifying a number (I can't remember how many) of "troubled" families who are costing the taxpayer shed loads of cash because of their fecklessness. Have they done anything about preventing their broods expanding? I very much doubt it.
I don't think there's a lot I can add.
But back to the question "Average income and the cost of living index are very useful benchmarks...". Useful they may be, Zeuhl, but not when it comes to defining poverty. Average income has nothing to do with poverty which, as I have said, is an absolute state not one of comparison with earnings or with anything else. It is not complicated or difficult to define poverty in absolute terms.
New Judge
I agree with you that the calculation to determine 'poverty' doesn't quite make sense.
Mathematically speaking, if the average income is, say, £25,000 and 60% is deemed the level at which poverty begins, then that's £15,000 of income (from whatever source). That's too simplistic for a gauge of poverty. A family with one earner, and one child might be able to make do with that income.
A family with four kids will not.
It doesn't mean that both families are living in poverty.
FYI - I have to get a calculator out to work out what 60% of £25,000 is...
...quite shameful really.
I agree with you that the calculation to determine 'poverty' doesn't quite make sense.
Mathematically speaking, if the average income is, say, £25,000 and 60% is deemed the level at which poverty begins, then that's £15,000 of income (from whatever source). That's too simplistic for a gauge of poverty. A family with one earner, and one child might be able to make do with that income.
A family with four kids will not.
It doesn't mean that both families are living in poverty.
FYI - I have to get a calculator out to work out what 60% of £25,000 is...
...quite shameful really.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.