41% of children in Redcar now in poverty
- Thread starter Paintolerance
- Start date
Redwurzel
Well-known member
There are rising rates of all types of poverty. Child poverty is particularly distressing.
Redcar is obviously a major centre of poverty (even before these figures were announced) with 7 foodbanks unfortunately for a number of years now.
The freezing of many welfare benefits was morally criminal under Osbourne and Cameron, the same for some of the cuts in housing benefit, disability benefit, council tax benefits, cuts when people who are working are moved onto universal benefits, reduction in subsidised housing.
Will Child benefit be going up by 10% (as per State pensions for a significant number of very comfortable off pensioners) ?
To me helping families on low incomes and increasing economic activity in left behind areas are not mutually exclusive in any way. Both should be happening together. People in low income households want the opportunity to improve all their income streams.
Redcar is obviously a major centre of poverty (even before these figures were announced) with 7 foodbanks unfortunately for a number of years now.
The freezing of many welfare benefits was morally criminal under Osbourne and Cameron, the same for some of the cuts in housing benefit, disability benefit, council tax benefits, cuts when people who are working are moved onto universal benefits, reduction in subsidised housing.
Will Child benefit be going up by 10% (as per State pensions for a significant number of very comfortable off pensioners) ?
To me helping families on low incomes and increasing economic activity in left behind areas are not mutually exclusive in any way. Both should be happening together. People in low income households want the opportunity to improve all their income streams.
Last edited:
And local Tories brag about the 'success' of foodbanks in their area in handing out hundreds of thousands of parcels as if it's somthing theyre proud of. And nobody bats an eyelid
Again, just shocking.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Complete hypocrites if they voted for the welfare cuts in basic level payments, particularly the vicious Osbourne ones which are now really hitting home.
The article is using relative poverty. There's a drop down box in the article '
"How is child poverty defined in the UK?"
"A child is considered to be growing up in poverty if they live in a household whose income is 60% below the average (median) income for that year, after housing costs are into account."
This is much the same point I'm making in #18
According to the article they're using the following definition
"How is child poverty defined in the UK?
A child is considered to be growing up in poverty if they live in a household whose income is 60% below the average (median) income for that year, after housing costs are into account. "
So it's a definition of relative poverty
Moving the percentage doesn't change my point, which was that mathematically we don't have to have someone in relative poverty.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Osbourne objective was to balance the Government budget by 2019 by primarily cutting welfare payments (except State Pension) and public expenditure, opposed to say increasing taxes and cutting tax subsidies. He didn't seem concerned with the stresses caused and some of his comments implied his strategy was to squeeze the poor who were unable to financially support themselves.
Not only was Osboune not concerned neither was the majority of the public.
A combination of their apathy towards their fellow human beings and their dislike of Corbyn (fuelled in the part by the media) has given us more of the same.
Scrote
Well-known member
And that just reinforces the point I was making. Is Bill Gates impoverished becuse Jeff Bezos has a few more $Billion in the bank? The notion is absurd.
Having to pull out the fact that some kid in sub-Saharan Africa is digging up diamonds with his bare hands for less than a dollar a day just to show that kids in the UK could be worse off is diversionary tactic.
Poverty is poverty.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
You'll also see youngsters driving expensive cars and motor bikes, jetting off on holiday and following the Boro round country. They're not the ones living in poverty.
Laughing
Well-known member
Not sure I said any of those things. I was pointing out, correctly that there is a difference between relative and absolute poverty. The distinction is important.
Corco65
Well-known member
A report by the IFS.
https://www.facebook.com/InstituteforFiscalStudies
Not a complete success by Labour, but some good success and a desire to want to do something reducing poverty.
Home Publications Labour's record on poverty and inequality
Observation
06 Jun 2013
Share
Today, the Oxford Review of Economic Policy publishes a special issue on Labour's economic record when in government between 1997 and 2010. As part of this, IFS researchers assess Labour’s record on income inequality and poverty. Here, we show how income inequality changed little but child and pensioner poverty fell significantly. We suggest, though, that these falls in poverty might prove fragile given that they were mostly based on very large increases in spending on benefits and tax credits. We also reflect on the main lessons for today’s policymakers. One such lesson is that how you spend money is more important than how much you spend. Governments need effective means to establish what works and what doesn't, and patience to see whether policies bear fruit in the long-run.
Labour had very clear objectives to reduce poverty amongst families with children and pensioners, and accorded these objectives high priority. Tony Blair made a famous commitment to end child poverty within a generation, and Gordon Brown promised to ‘to end pensioner poverty in our country”. However, it is much less clear that Labour took a strong view on the appropriate level of inequality within the top half of the income distribution, as indicated for example by Peter Mandelson’s famous statement that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes.'
What happened to poverty and inequality under Labour?
If our summary of Labour's distributional objectives is accurate, then outcomes reflected those objectives quite closely. Turning first to poverty, both absolute and relative measures of income poverty fell markedly among children and pensioners - although the scale of the changes did not always match the considerable ambition, as set out explicitly in the case of the government’s child poverty targets.
By contrast, the incomes of poorer working-age adults without dependent children - the major demographic group not emphasised by Labour as a priority - changed very little over the period. As a result they fell behind the rest of the population and relative poverty levels rose. Since childless working-age people started the period with low levels of poverty compared with other demographic groups, one consequence of these trends was that the risks of poverty across the major demographic groups converged under Labour. This is illustrated in the Figure below.
Figure: Relative poverty rates since 1996-97
Notes: Years refer to financial years. Poverty line is 60% of median income. Incomes measured before deducting housing costs.
Source: Family Resources Survey.
With falls in income poverty, one might expect to have seen a fall in income inequality. Indeed inequality did fall across much of the distribution. Those on relatively low incomes did a little better than those with incomes just above the average. However, those right at the top saw their incomes increase very substantially with the result that, on most measures, overall inequality nudged up slightly.
What drove these changes?
The substantial falls in pensioner and child poverty were largely driven by very significant additional spending on benefits and tax credits. Reforms since 1997-98 resulted in an £18 billion annual increase in spending on benefits for families with children and an £11 billion annual increase on benefits for pensioners by 2010-11 (see here). Our modelling suggests that child and pensioner poverty would either have stayed the same or risen, rather than fall substantially, had there not been these big spending increases. Meanwhile, Labour’s tax and benefit changes had relatively little net impact on the top half of the income distribution, or on low-income adults without dependent children – the group whose poverty rate did not fall. However, there is evidence to suggest that these reforms prevented a larger rise in inequality than actually occurred under Labour.
There were also increases in employment which had a small but detectable effect on income poverty. For example, reductions in the proportion of children living in workless families acted to reduce relative child poverty by about 2 percentage points.
There were many other Labour initiatives that could be considered anti-poverty policies. These include the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, Sure Start, increased financial support for childcare, significant increases in education spending and an expansion of the number of young people going on to higher education. Any payoffs from most of these measures will be long run, rather than immediate. It is of course very difficult to predict precisely what effects they will ultimately have on overall levels of poverty and inequality - and we will never know for sure, as their effects will inevitably happen alongside many other factors which continue to affect the income distribution. The verdict on the effects of Labour’s period in power on poverty and inequality is necessarily incomplete.
https://www.facebook.com/InstituteforFiscalStudies
Not a complete success by Labour, but some good success and a desire to want to do something reducing poverty.
Home Publications Labour's record on poverty and inequality
Labour's record on poverty and inequality
Robert Joyce and Luke SibietaObservation
06 Jun 2013
Share
Today, the Oxford Review of Economic Policy publishes a special issue on Labour's economic record when in government between 1997 and 2010. As part of this, IFS researchers assess Labour’s record on income inequality and poverty. Here, we show how income inequality changed little but child and pensioner poverty fell significantly. We suggest, though, that these falls in poverty might prove fragile given that they were mostly based on very large increases in spending on benefits and tax credits. We also reflect on the main lessons for today’s policymakers. One such lesson is that how you spend money is more important than how much you spend. Governments need effective means to establish what works and what doesn't, and patience to see whether policies bear fruit in the long-run.
Labour had very clear objectives to reduce poverty amongst families with children and pensioners, and accorded these objectives high priority. Tony Blair made a famous commitment to end child poverty within a generation, and Gordon Brown promised to ‘to end pensioner poverty in our country”. However, it is much less clear that Labour took a strong view on the appropriate level of inequality within the top half of the income distribution, as indicated for example by Peter Mandelson’s famous statement that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes.'
What happened to poverty and inequality under Labour?
If our summary of Labour's distributional objectives is accurate, then outcomes reflected those objectives quite closely. Turning first to poverty, both absolute and relative measures of income poverty fell markedly among children and pensioners - although the scale of the changes did not always match the considerable ambition, as set out explicitly in the case of the government’s child poverty targets.
By contrast, the incomes of poorer working-age adults without dependent children - the major demographic group not emphasised by Labour as a priority - changed very little over the period. As a result they fell behind the rest of the population and relative poverty levels rose. Since childless working-age people started the period with low levels of poverty compared with other demographic groups, one consequence of these trends was that the risks of poverty across the major demographic groups converged under Labour. This is illustrated in the Figure below.
Figure: Relative poverty rates since 1996-97
Notes: Years refer to financial years. Poverty line is 60% of median income. Incomes measured before deducting housing costs.
Source: Family Resources Survey.
With falls in income poverty, one might expect to have seen a fall in income inequality. Indeed inequality did fall across much of the distribution. Those on relatively low incomes did a little better than those with incomes just above the average. However, those right at the top saw their incomes increase very substantially with the result that, on most measures, overall inequality nudged up slightly.
What drove these changes?
The substantial falls in pensioner and child poverty were largely driven by very significant additional spending on benefits and tax credits. Reforms since 1997-98 resulted in an £18 billion annual increase in spending on benefits for families with children and an £11 billion annual increase on benefits for pensioners by 2010-11 (see here). Our modelling suggests that child and pensioner poverty would either have stayed the same or risen, rather than fall substantially, had there not been these big spending increases. Meanwhile, Labour’s tax and benefit changes had relatively little net impact on the top half of the income distribution, or on low-income adults without dependent children – the group whose poverty rate did not fall. However, there is evidence to suggest that these reforms prevented a larger rise in inequality than actually occurred under Labour.
There were also increases in employment which had a small but detectable effect on income poverty. For example, reductions in the proportion of children living in workless families acted to reduce relative child poverty by about 2 percentage points.
There were many other Labour initiatives that could be considered anti-poverty policies. These include the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, Sure Start, increased financial support for childcare, significant increases in education spending and an expansion of the number of young people going on to higher education. Any payoffs from most of these measures will be long run, rather than immediate. It is of course very difficult to predict precisely what effects they will ultimately have on overall levels of poverty and inequality - and we will never know for sure, as their effects will inevitably happen alongside many other factors which continue to affect the income distribution. The verdict on the effects of Labour’s period in power on poverty and inequality is necessarily incomplete.
These figures are not directly comparable with those quoted by Action for Children in the earlier linked article. The IFS figures are for relative poverty before deducting housing costs; the AfC figures were after deducting housing costs. This is not to deny that Labour's figures were very impressive.A report by the IFS.
https://www.facebook.com/InstituteforFiscalStudies
Not a complete success by Labour, but some good success and a desire to want to do something reducing poverty.
Home Publications Labour's record on poverty and inequality
Labour's record on poverty and inequality
Robert Joyce and Luke Sibieta
Observation
06 Jun 2013
Share
Today, the Oxford Review of Economic Policy publishes a special issue on Labour's economic record when in government between 1997 and 2010. As part of this, IFS researchers assess Labour’s record on income inequality and poverty. Here, we show how income inequality changed little but child and pensioner poverty fell significantly. We suggest, though, that these falls in poverty might prove fragile given that they were mostly based on very large increases in spending on benefits and tax credits. We also reflect on the main lessons for today’s policymakers. One such lesson is that how you spend money is more important than how much you spend. Governments need effective means to establish what works and what doesn't, and patience to see whether policies bear fruit in the long-run.
Labour had very clear objectives to reduce poverty amongst families with children and pensioners, and accorded these objectives high priority. Tony Blair made a famous commitment to end child poverty within a generation, and Gordon Brown promised to ‘to end pensioner poverty in our country”. However, it is much less clear that Labour took a strong view on the appropriate level of inequality within the top half of the income distribution, as indicated for example by Peter Mandelson’s famous statement that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes.'
What happened to poverty and inequality under Labour?
If our summary of Labour's distributional objectives is accurate, then outcomes reflected those objectives quite closely. Turning first to poverty, both absolute and relative measures of income poverty fell markedly among children and pensioners - although the scale of the changes did not always match the considerable ambition, as set out explicitly in the case of the government’s child poverty targets.
By contrast, the incomes of poorer working-age adults without dependent children - the major demographic group not emphasised by Labour as a priority - changed very little over the period. As a result they fell behind the rest of the population and relative poverty levels rose. Since childless working-age people started the period with low levels of poverty compared with other demographic groups, one consequence of these trends was that the risks of poverty across the major demographic groups converged under Labour. This is illustrated in the Figure below.
Figure: Relative poverty rates since 1996-97
Notes: Years refer to financial years. Poverty line is 60% of median income. Incomes measured before deducting housing costs.
Source: Family Resources Survey.
With falls in income poverty, one might expect to have seen a fall in income inequality. Indeed inequality did fall across much of the distribution. Those on relatively low incomes did a little better than those with incomes just above the average. However, those right at the top saw their incomes increase very substantially with the result that, on most measures, overall inequality nudged up slightly.
What drove these changes?
The substantial falls in pensioner and child poverty were largely driven by very significant additional spending on benefits and tax credits. Reforms since 1997-98 resulted in an £18 billion annual increase in spending on benefits for families with children and an £11 billion annual increase on benefits for pensioners by 2010-11 (see here). Our modelling suggests that child and pensioner poverty would either have stayed the same or risen, rather than fall substantially, had there not been these big spending increases. Meanwhile, Labour’s tax and benefit changes had relatively little net impact on the top half of the income distribution, or on low-income adults without dependent children – the group whose poverty rate did not fall. However, there is evidence to suggest that these reforms prevented a larger rise in inequality than actually occurred under Labour.
There were also increases in employment which had a small but detectable effect on income poverty. For example, reductions in the proportion of children living in workless families acted to reduce relative child poverty by about 2 percentage points.
There were many other Labour initiatives that could be considered anti-poverty policies. These include the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, Sure Start, increased financial support for childcare, significant increases in education spending and an expansion of the number of young people going on to higher education. Any payoffs from most of these measures will be long run, rather than immediate. It is of course very difficult to predict precisely what effects they will ultimately have on overall levels of poverty and inequality - and we will never know for sure, as their effects will inevitably happen alongside many other factors which continue to affect the income distribution. The verdict on the effects of Labour’s period in power on poverty and inequality is necessarily incomplete.
Scrote
Well-known member
And the only reason we have a distinction between relative and absolute is to somehow show that a child not getting three meals a day is better than a child getting one meal a day.
It's heading into gaslighting territory. Assuming all else is equal, a millionaire is not in poverty even if he is relatively poorer than a billionaire.
Poverty has it's own definition that precludes any subset of wealthy.
Laughing
Well-known member
Maybe so, but again I didn't say what you are suggesting I said. In the article poverty is a dimensionless term. It matters when understanding the context. If 2 definitions are in use, for whatever reasons, the one being referred to is important for understanding.
If its 30 degrees is it hot or cold
Glovers Elbow
I agree mate- I think the key differences between the Labour Govt 97 onwards and the preceding 3 terms of Thatcher were that Labour tried to bring long term fairness and equality of opportunity as well as some short term fiscal economic interventions reversing years of neglect. Eg
- National Minimum Wage
- more police
- more doctors
- more nurses
- more teachers and teaching assistants
- crime down
- child benefit up
- sure start
- education levels up
- employment up
- paid paternity leave
- devolution
- winter fuel payments
- child tax credit
- free tv licences
- peace in Northern Ireland
- universal right to 24 days paid holiday
- million pensioners out of poverty
- 600,000 children out of poverty
- civil partnerships
- free local bus travel for OAPs
- Inpatient waiting lists down half a million
- Cleaner rivers, beaches, drinking water and air
- Free breast cancer screening
- 3 million child trust funds
- free eye test for over 60s
- doubled apprenticeships
- free entry to museums and galleries
- Overseas aid doubled
- heart disease deaths down by 150,000
- cancer deaths down by 50,000
- long-term youth unemployment down 75 per cent
- free nursery places for three and four-year-olds
- free fruit for four to six-year-olds
- free swimming
- stopped school playing fields sell offs
Redwurzel
Well-known member
I agree Labour stopped the rot and was happy with most of the list produced by MarkBurke , but were introducing cuts backs in 2009 and 2010 with the effects seen several years later. The Blair governments did benefit from higher global economic growth up to mid 2008.
With hindsight I would have liked to have seen a higher post 21 minimum wage. £3.50/hour in 1997 (min rate then) was about £6.40 today. It was so low to begin with to be very effective. People were still paying income tax on incomes of around £4,100 (about £7,500 in today's money). To me people on low incomes should not be paying income tax. I certainly consider anything under £14k low.
There seemed to be lower levels of new housebuilding in the Blair years and low levels of new houses has contributed to higher rents. To me there should have been re introduction of some new public housing to replace council house sales. A major reason for in work poverty is high rents - Newsnight quoted £1300/month rent for a modest house in Dorset - that's a lot of Living Wage hours to be worked just to cover the rent. (175 per month? basically all month!)
The imbalance in the UK economy seemed to become greater which to me is a foundation stone of inequality. One example was the building of HS1 but little equivalent investment in the North.
With hindsight I would have liked to have seen a higher post 21 minimum wage. £3.50/hour in 1997 (min rate then) was about £6.40 today. It was so low to begin with to be very effective. People were still paying income tax on incomes of around £4,100 (about £7,500 in today's money). To me people on low incomes should not be paying income tax. I certainly consider anything under £14k low.
There seemed to be lower levels of new housebuilding in the Blair years and low levels of new houses has contributed to higher rents. To me there should have been re introduction of some new public housing to replace council house sales. A major reason for in work poverty is high rents - Newsnight quoted £1300/month rent for a modest house in Dorset - that's a lot of Living Wage hours to be worked just to cover the rent. (175 per month? basically all month!)
The imbalance in the UK economy seemed to become greater which to me is a foundation stone of inequality. One example was the building of HS1 but little equivalent investment in the North.
Last edited:
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
And in the last 12 years we've reversed most of that but spent more doing so. How?
Redwurzel
Well-known member
CC
Interesting question - a lot more has been spent on state pensions, more on the NHS, seems to be more wasted e.g NHS Covid App, unusable PPE supplies, alot more is spent on servicing government debt i.e paying the interest on it all.
I have seen tens of thousands spent on expensive tribunals to try and squeeze effectively £30 per week off a disabled person.
I can't get the NHS to take back an expensive wheeelchair (nearly new) that a relative used to return home from hospital. That's £600? wasted if they buy another new one.
Interesting question - a lot more has been spent on state pensions, more on the NHS, seems to be more wasted e.g NHS Covid App, unusable PPE supplies, alot more is spent on servicing government debt i.e paying the interest on it all.
I have seen tens of thousands spent on expensive tribunals to try and squeeze effectively £30 per week off a disabled person.
I can't get the NHS to take back an expensive wheeelchair (nearly new) that a relative used to return home from hospital. That's £600? wasted if they buy another new one.