Discussion
Is this really meant to read "children living with parents who are in poverty"?
Children have no riches other than their future, their health, and innocence. It's the parents that are in poverty, surely?
I just wonder at the English language at times, we say "come on in" when "come in" would do, yet we contract "poverty parents with children" to child poverty.
I don't want children to go without. I'm just complaining about the terminology that is used, when it's the parents who are poor and unable to look after their children properly.
Anyway, to restate - no children should go without food and shelter and love of good parents and the protection of society.
Children have no riches other than their future, their health, and innocence. It's the parents that are in poverty, surely?
I just wonder at the English language at times, we say "come on in" when "come in" would do, yet we contract "poverty parents with children" to child poverty.
I don't want children to go without. I'm just complaining about the terminology that is used, when it's the parents who are poor and unable to look after their children properly.
Anyway, to restate - no children should go without food and shelter and love of good parents and the protection of society.
How much of this is due to true poverty, or down to lazy feckless parents who would rather spend the money on themselves than food for their children.
We hear about the number of children being sent to school without breakfast, yet a box of supermarket corn flakes is 79 pence. We hear of children only eating nuggets and chips, yet vegetables are cheap.
I do feel sorry for the children, they have no say in who their parents will be.
I notice the people who are constantly on Facebook telling the world what great parents they are, are actually the opposite.
We hear about the number of children being sent to school without breakfast, yet a box of supermarket corn flakes is 79 pence. We hear of children only eating nuggets and chips, yet vegetables are cheap.
I do feel sorry for the children, they have no say in who their parents will be.
I notice the people who are constantly on Facebook telling the world what great parents they are, are actually the opposite.
HertsBiker said:
Is this really meant to read "children living with parents who are in poverty"?
Children have no riches other than their future, their health, and innocence. It's the parents that are in poverty, surely?
I just wonder at the English language at times, we say "come on in" when "come in" would do, yet we contract "poverty parents with children" to child poverty.
I don't want children to go without. I'm just complaining about the terminology that is used, when it's the parents who are poor and unable to look after their children properly.
Anyway, to restate - no children should go without food and shelter and love of good parents and the protection of society.
The ultimate in first world problems, this is definitely the most important part of child poverty to care about. Children have no riches other than their future, their health, and innocence. It's the parents that are in poverty, surely?
I just wonder at the English language at times, we say "come on in" when "come in" would do, yet we contract "poverty parents with children" to child poverty.
I don't want children to go without. I'm just complaining about the terminology that is used, when it's the parents who are poor and unable to look after their children properly.
Anyway, to restate - no children should go without food and shelter and love of good parents and the protection of society.
Maybe one for the lounge even?
Like much of the welfare debate it is all about language. All children are in poverty as they have no means to support themselves.
The adults "responsible" for the children may consider themselves to be in poverty. Just ignore the "free" housing, "free" cash, "free" healthcare and "free" education for the endless offspring, but yes they are in "poverty".
The language then refers to them as "vulnerable". Interesting choice of adjective for Jayden and Chardonnay, but is sounds better when justifying chucking cash at them for no return (and calling that "income")
Strangely Jayden and Chardonnay demand they are treated like adults when they want something but are "vulnerable" when anything is asked of them and it is always someone else's fault.
Add to the mix Ahmed from Syria who arrives illegally on a dinghy after throwing all his documents away. He too is "vulnerable" and needs loads of "free" stuff.
Sadly the truly vulnerable are lost in the sea of Jayden, Chardonnay and Ahmeds.
The UK is mental.
The adults "responsible" for the children may consider themselves to be in poverty. Just ignore the "free" housing, "free" cash, "free" healthcare and "free" education for the endless offspring, but yes they are in "poverty".
The language then refers to them as "vulnerable". Interesting choice of adjective for Jayden and Chardonnay, but is sounds better when justifying chucking cash at them for no return (and calling that "income")
Strangely Jayden and Chardonnay demand they are treated like adults when they want something but are "vulnerable" when anything is asked of them and it is always someone else's fault.
Add to the mix Ahmed from Syria who arrives illegally on a dinghy after throwing all his documents away. He too is "vulnerable" and needs loads of "free" stuff.
Sadly the truly vulnerable are lost in the sea of Jayden, Chardonnay and Ahmeds.
The UK is mental.
What is child poverty?
“The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
“The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
Tom8 said:
Like much of the welfare debate it is all about language. All children are in poverty as they have no means to support themselves.
The adults "responsible" for the children may consider themselves to be in poverty. Just ignore the "free" housing, "free" cash, "free" healthcare and "free" education for the endless offspring, but yes they are in "poverty".
The language then refers to them as "vulnerable". Interesting choice of adjective for Jayden and Chardonnay, but is sounds better when justifying chucking cash at them for no return (and calling that "income")
Strangely Jayden and Chardonnay demand they are treated like adults when they want something but are "vulnerable" when anything is asked of them and it is always someone else's fault.
Add to the mix Ahmed from Syria who arrives illegally on a dinghy after throwing all his documents away. He too is "vulnerable" and needs loads of "free" stuff.
Sadly the truly vulnerable are lost in the sea of Jayden, Chardonnay and Ahmeds.
The UK is mental.
But on planet Labour Jayden and Chardonnay need to give everything to Ahmed.The adults "responsible" for the children may consider themselves to be in poverty. Just ignore the "free" housing, "free" cash, "free" healthcare and "free" education for the endless offspring, but yes they are in "poverty".
The language then refers to them as "vulnerable". Interesting choice of adjective for Jayden and Chardonnay, but is sounds better when justifying chucking cash at them for no return (and calling that "income")
Strangely Jayden and Chardonnay demand they are treated like adults when they want something but are "vulnerable" when anything is asked of them and it is always someone else's fault.
Add to the mix Ahmed from Syria who arrives illegally on a dinghy after throwing all his documents away. He too is "vulnerable" and needs loads of "free" stuff.
Sadly the truly vulnerable are lost in the sea of Jayden, Chardonnay and Ahmeds.
The UK is mental.
Countdown said:
Gordon Hill said:
But on planet Labour Jayden and Chardonnay need to give everything to Ahmed.
ironic - people claiming benefits whinging about other people claiming benefits.M1AGM said:
What is child poverty?
“The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
Relative poverty is a stupid way of measuring it. You could reduce relative poverty by paying some people less money.“The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
M1AGM said:
What is child poverty?
“The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
It’s a screwed up metric, every millionaire / high earner that Labour chases out of the country lifts children out of poverty, if Jeff Bezos relocated to the UK more children would drop into poverty. “The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
otolith said:
You know when people object to money going to person X while person Y is also in need, when in fact they wouldn't normally give person Y the steam off their piss? Ahmed is person X.
I doubt the likes of Gordon give a toss about any of them to honest.Just a hierarchy of dislike with Ahmed at the bottom from the sound of it.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:otolith said:
You know when people object to money going to person X while person Y is also in need, when in fact they wouldn't normally give person Y the steam off their piss? Ahmed is person X.
I doubt the likes of Gordon give a toss about any of them to honest.Just a hierarchy of dislike with Ahmed at the bottom from the sound of it.
Essarell said:
M1AGM said:
What is child poverty?
“The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
It’s a screwed up metric, every millionaire / high earner that Labour chases out of the country lifts children out of poverty, if Jeff Bezos relocated to the UK more children would drop into poverty. “The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income.”
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/what-poverty
Median income last year was approximately £34,000 a year, so 60% of that is £20,400. A household with income of less than that makes the child technically living in poverty. Or is my maths wrong?
HertsBiker said:
Anyway, to restate - no children should go without food and shelter and love of good parents and the protection of society.
I think there realistically in the UK shouldn’t be child poverty, and I have a suspicion that where it happens it’s overwhelming the lack of one thing from the above list: good parents. When you see examples of some poor little kids turning up to school without basic clothes, being fed, unwashed etc what’s the cause of that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff