Again both are too far to walk and carry shopping, especially with children, and would require at least one if not two bus journeys. This is apparently the area with the highest average income per head in Norfolk ... we have a Waitrose in walking distance ... the prices in our chippy would be beyond some families' pockets ... we're a leafy suburb near the uni and the big hospital ....... but I'm aware of pockets of real deprivation among the tall beech-lined avenues ... most of them with two parents working on minimum wage, juggling shifts and paying a fortune in rent or mortgage.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
There are a number of different types of poverty that are measured by the Government and reported - child poverty is just one of a group of targets which all relate to the '60% of the average' line - the poverty line. The relative measure is important - in a wealthy country, living standards may be comparatively high but living costs - especially housing, fuel and transport costs - are also high. Our household income has frequently been well below the poverty line in the last 10 years since we were both self employed, but we own our own home. Were we renting, we'd be finding the low income very much harder to cope with. And in homes where there are children to provide for, the problem becomes more acute because economies can be harder to make - for myself, I can manage not to buy new clothes or shoes for years at a time.
Fuel poverty is measured slightly differently but it's a case in point. If you have a nice, well insulated house and a smart meter, you can actually get paid to use power. If you're on a prepayment meter in a damp draughty house, the outgoing is much higher than for the people who could afford to pay more.
To say " our household income is £17k so we must be in poverty" when one might have no mortgage or rent to pay, no kids to feed and clothe, free bus pass and prescriptions is hardly comparable to those on £17k who DO have these extra costs to cover.
I don't earn enough to pay income tax and Husband doesn't work at all .We get no benefits , or pension but we're most certainly NOT in poverty and I consider myself much better off than those with extortionate rents / mortgages and child care costs, even when both parent go to work.
I agree with @Liriodendron in a way - pop CHILD in front of Poverty, Abuse, Malnutrition or WHY and it tends to make any debate more emotive. Many ( but not all ) charities tend to use pictures of children, puppies, kittens in their visual appeals simply because it is more likely to tug heart strings and increase donations. Not all charities spend that money wisely. Much depends on how people actually define poverty and the definition would appear to differ greatly - even within the UK. As someone mentioned previously, money usually goes to money and the difference in life style of those at the top and those at the bottom of society is obvious. Nothing new really - you don't even have to go back that far to grasp the issue. That surely was one of the reasons why the basic ideals of Communism was so popular in the 60's and 70's in the UK - the idea that every member of society was entitled to equality. It didn't have much chance here and it would appear not to be working elsewhere. There's always going to be a Top and Bottom - that's "Society " and we don't differ much from the animal kingdom in this respect. Perhaps the education establishments should concentrate more on teaching their students how to survive with greater emphasis on feeding themselves properly , budgeting and generally learning how to survive in society as we currently experience it. Agree too with @Hostafan1 - to base a Poverty rating simply on an income is pretty ridiculous to say the least. So much else comes into the equation.
I totally agree Philippa. Not wishing to be overly flippant, a sure way to win any argument and silence the other side is to play the trump card “think of the little kiddies.”
"Children" of any species tug at heartstrings. Just look at reed warblers stuffing food endlessly into the huge gaping beak of the cuckoo in their nest... there's a reason for it; it's survival of the species. Any country would do well to ensure that its children are well cared for, because they're that country's future.
Since 2019 I've lived in east Clare, in the west of Ireland.
The valuations office have finally agreed to undertake a review of my council tax banding. It doesn't mean it will be changed but they only do reviews if there's enough evidence that it could be incorrect so fingers crossed. It'll save me just over £460 a year if they find in my favour. I'm not holding my breath though.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Fuel poverty is measured slightly differently but it's a case in point. If you have a nice, well insulated house and a smart meter, you can actually get paid to use power. If you're on a prepayment meter in a damp draughty house, the outgoing is much higher than for the people who could afford to pay more.
Money goes to money.
@B3 - Sir Terry Pratchett's version:
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I don't earn enough to pay income tax and Husband doesn't work at all .We get no benefits , or pension but we're most certainly NOT in poverty and I consider myself much better off than those with extortionate rents / mortgages and child care costs, even when both parent go to work.
Many ( but not all ) charities tend to use pictures of children, puppies, kittens in their visual appeals simply because it is more likely to tug heart strings and increase donations. Not all charities spend that money wisely.
Much depends on how people actually define poverty and the definition would appear to differ greatly - even within the UK.
As someone mentioned previously, money usually goes to money and the difference in life style of those at the top and those at the bottom of society is obvious. Nothing new really - you don't even have to go back that far to grasp the issue. That surely was one of the reasons why the basic ideals of Communism was so popular in the 60's and 70's in the UK - the idea that every member of society was entitled to equality. It didn't have much chance here and it would appear not to be working elsewhere. There's always going to be a Top and Bottom - that's "Society " and we don't differ much from the animal kingdom in this respect. Perhaps the education establishments should concentrate more on teaching their students how to survive with greater emphasis on feeding themselves properly , budgeting and generally learning how to survive in society as we currently experience it.
Agree too with @Hostafan1 - to base a Poverty rating simply on an income is pretty ridiculous to say the least. So much else comes into the equation.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.