There were 2.9 million children who lived in families where the household income was just £236 a week – or £12,300 a year – considered as the poverty line in Britain.

wow - that poverty line it quite high up!

No matter how hard up the family is, I am sure on that income they can spare a quick for a pack of biscuits to entertain other kids with...

I am not trying top judge - and I know that especially if there is more than one kid, that money would never be enough. The same case applies if the family has a mortgage or other loan or expenditure. Maybe even having a car would go over budget.

But while it may not be fun, I do think that £236 is survivable off in cases where there are not multiple kids (and they are also not too young - baby goods can be expensive I think).

The reason I am chipper at it all is because I had thought the poverty line would have been the same or similar to what it is used for third world countries - $2 a day per person. But then again I guess with lower prices, those $2 would go a lot further in those places...

I can live of under $2 a day in Syria!

I don't think its easy to compare the two cases. Actually, it IS easy to compare, but its not the same thing.

While what MP's claim may be loads and loads to our eyes, you have to temper that by the fact that if they were not MP's, most would earn a hell of a lot more.

The current expenses thing is like a witch hunt.

As for the monetary side, if even a hundred MPs claimed a ludicrous amount of money (let's say £200,000 EACH extra in expenses - which is way beyond what they do I think.), that same amount would have to be much diluted if split over the poor - they would get like 7 quid each. per year.

You wrote:

As for the monetary side, if even a hundred MPs claimed a ludicrous amount of money (let's say £200,000 EACH extra in expenses - which is way beyond what they do I think.), that same amount would have to be much diluted if split over the poor - they would get like 7 quid each. per year.

erm, why, how? :S

They (probaby) wouldn't, but I was just using that as an example to debunk redistribution.

you did look at the username when u replied right? u should know i need a more detailed explanation how did u come up with that example? what do u meab debunk redistribution

Reidstribution in this case = giving the money from MP's expenses to the 3 million poor people instead.

Debunked - in this case meaning ineffective as that is only pennies that they will get even if you exaggerate how much the MP's expenses are.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

You wrote:

As for the monetary side, if even a hundred MPs claimed a ludicrous amount of money (let's say £200,000 EACH extra in expenses - which is way beyond what they do I think.), that same amount would have to be much diluted if split over the poor - they would get like 7 quid each. per year.

erm, why, how? :S

£200,000 * 659 MPs approx = £100 million

£100 million / 3 million children in poverty approx = £33 per child per year

If we assume that there are 2.4 children per household, that's approx = £80 per household per year whose children live below the poverty line.

£80 / 52 weeks approx = £1.60 per household per week. Which is even less than You's estimate of £7.

there have been times where i have lived on about 200 pounds a week, and i don't think it's poverty. It is possible to survive, and you can afford to have biscuits. As for big family dinner invites that is possible but not on a regular basis.I didn't use my child tax credits and other benefits which are given when to top up income for families struggling. I prefer to save it for a rainy day when there is a real need to use it. But most families use this money also so i really don't see how they are "poor",if i was not poor without it? I think it comes down to poor money management. i.e if you're skint a TV and satellite is a luxury, cut out the licence fee, box fee makes a huge difference. Also games consoles are not a need especially since each game can cost around what from 10 quid and up? no kid will be happy with the same old games. Even though the internet is more affordable even that can save on bills if cut out.

Many ppl on poverty line prefer to spend money on frozen ready made meals, cut that out save by cooking your own. If you cook at home that same dish will last 2 meals maybe leftovers for a snack. Or if it's an asian curry that will easily last 2 meals or even next day. Goes a long way compared to a frozen meal.

It's all down to making good choices, and i don't think some individuals/couples are well equipped with knowledge to do this. But some are equipped but just refuse to.

P.S not being able to celebrate special occasion like b'day is not a sign of poverty, even that is a luxury. If kids are in poverty it's because the adults are mismanaging the money knowingly or unknowingly. I know many adults who do it knowingly so they can go out clubbing, or send money back home to relatives, yet their own kids are sitting at home in torn clothing it's disgusting what these parents are doing.

Poverty does not have to be to the extent of where your bones are sticking out like the drought they once had in ethiopia.

Even is lesser amounts it can still be restricting.

wednesday wrote:

I honestly do not think that poverty exists in UK, at all. You could be considered working class, but that's still not poor (especially if you are a UK national) :neutral:

There are two types of poverty; Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty. Absolute poverty is when you are living without basic needs, shelter, food etc. Relative poverty is when you are earning less then the minimum income. You cant afford to buy certain luxuries or things others consider to be needed/normal to have/expected to have, e.g fones, pc's, TV, games or maybe even new clothes bought often etc, like everyone else but have got the necessities you need. People in the UK would be in relative poverty.

Dawud wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

You wrote:

As for the monetary side, if even a hundred MPs claimed a ludicrous amount of money (let's say £200,000 EACH extra in expenses - which is way beyond what they do I think.), that same amount would have to be much diluted if split over the poor - they would get like 7 quid each. per year.

erm, why, how? :S

£200,000 * 659 MPs approx = £100 million

£100 million / 3 million children in poverty approx = £33 per child per year

If we assume that there are 2.4 children per household, that's approx = £80 per household per year whose children live below the poverty line.

£80 / 52 weeks approx = £1.60 per household per week. Which is even less than You's estimate of £7.

ok thnx

No problem. BTW I'm a moron, You actually, said £7 a year, I was assuming he meant per week.

Dawud wrote:

No problem. BTW I'm a moron, You actually, said £7 a year, I was assuming he meant per week.

and I have no idea how I got to that figure (of £7) either...

I too am quite surprised at what amount is classed as 'poverty'. It is not really low low.

I think a lot of it comes down to money management and priorities. Of course money is very important and you can't do much without it, and some people do genuinely struggle. But then you also get some parents who dress their kid in the latest labels or buy a massive plasma screen TV for their living room, instead of buying essentials and that is really sad. And not fair on the child.

A lot of people working will tell you that if they had a couple of kids they would be living better off on benefits. Something in the system right now is very wrong. I've had people tell me themselves that they are better off on income support than actually working. I have heard quite bitter remarks from people with full time jobs who are struggling to keep their heads up, yet their neighbours who don't work seem to be enjoying life a lot more.

As for not having enough money to throw a small party for your kids birthday - well these days that is not actually surprising - a lot of people can't afford to have birthday parties because the amount of money that is spent on such stuff is just ridiculous. My friend didn't throw her son a party because she said there was absolutely no way she could do anything remotely similar to the parties of his friends. Some of my colleagues who earn a lot of money say the same. They'll do something with a couple of their childs close friends than throw a party for about 30 kids where every kid leaves with a goody bag with a lot more than a few sweets and a fairy cake in it.

How many times do we hear 'can't afford to get married'. It's all about expectations and priorities. And the same thing happens at Christmas - loads of families just get themselves in so much debt.

I think something, or group of people, that a lot of people forget about is the elderly. There are a lot of elderly in the UK living on much less than that amount. And they really do struggle. So many elderly people die every year in the winter because they couldn't afford to have the heating on. That is just so terrible.

afzana_javed wrote:

More than half a million children do not celebrate their birthday or special occasion

Colette Marshall, director at the charity Save the Children, said: "It is outrageous that so many children continue to miss out on the basic necessities most children take for granted.

HAHAHAHAHAHA :LOL: