Third fall below poverty line in UK

I have asked before about the definition of 'poverty'.
When I googled it I came up with a household whose income (after housing expenses) is less than 60% of the average UK income, which is around £27,000.

So any household bringing in less than £16,200 after housing costs is officially in poverty.

No wonder there are so many. It doesn't seem a particularly low amount to me, especially as if the family has children they'll get other benefits.

"When I googled it I came up with a household whose income (after housing expenses) is less than 60% of the average UK income, which is around £27,000."

No, the definition of poverty that the government uses is 60% of median income, not the mean. In 2012/13 the median was £21,000, so poverty is below £12,600. There were 32.7% of the population below £12,000 that year.

Thank you crun, that makes more sense.

That must mean that all single pensioners who are only entitled to the basic state pension are in poverty.

ana if a single pensioner has less than £145 per week they get pension credit to top up the basic state pension - and full council tax benefit and housing benefit.
the crunch comes for those like myself and many others who have the basic state pension and serps and a small private pension who get more than £145 per week but have income near the £12,600 pa income - but pay tax on the amount above £10,600 as well as some council tax.
I have always felt (not just because I am one) that single people generally get the sharp end of the stick (young and old) but then we do not fit in the couple/family stereotype even if in the past we have been 'hard-working'.

I appreciate that, mollie. My point, which wasn't clear I'll admit, was that saying that x number of people fall below the poverty line doesn't mean much to most people if the definition of poverty isn't given.

Persistent poverty is another one - what does that actually mean?

Quote from the article referenced by Gracesgran

"Persistent poverty is defined as being in poverty in the current year and at least two of the three preceding years."

Quote from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

"Definition of poverty

Poverty can be defined and measured in various ways. The most commonly used approach for defining poverty is relative income poverty. Each household's income, adjusted for family size, is compared to median income. (The median is the 'middle' income: half the population have more than the median and half have less.) Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor. This 'poverty line' is the agreed international measure used throughout the European Union."

www.jrf.org.uk/reporting-poverty/facts-figures

Yes, I read all of that information myself after crun pointed out my misconception.

Not quite sure what the OP is expecting us to say, apart from how unfair life is!

fullfact.org/economy/whats_happened_to_poverty_parliament-39908

Just wondered what everyone's reaction was really Ana.

The reason pensioners are most likely to be among the persistently poor (does that sound as if it's their fault - it does to me but I may be being oversensitive) is because the vast majority are on fixed incomes.

I know we can all live on the amounts we have. The Pension Guarantee - currently £151.20 a week as it went up in April - gives you an annual income of £7862.40.

I suppose I just don't think that says good things about a country that is, I believe, the fourth richest in the world.

Gracesgran There is a National Pensioners Convention although I don't know much about it.

The figures you quote seem really low to me, and I think that sort of income must be very difficult to live on.

Ana If life isn't fair, surely people should campaign to make it more fair? If they hadn't done that in the past, people would still be living as was shown in that recent programme on the TV with Ann Widdecombe et al. Every bit of progress that has been made for "ordinary" people in this and other countries has been hard fought for - not willingly conceded.

It is comparative poverty. Even the poorest pensioners are a lot (yes, I do mean a lot) better off than they would have been a hundred years ago. While improvements can always be made, and should be, I do think it's worth looking at the long picture when pondering these things, if only to give oneself a sense of proportion and a feeling of hope.

So what am I saying? Well... in answer to the OP's wondering how the poverty level of pensioners can ever change: things have changed for the better and with the political will of people like us in a democratic society will continue to change for the better. I'm not being complacent to think like this, just hopeful.

I agree Eloethan, that making life fairer does seem something I personally feel worth working towards. I looked at the National Pensioners Convention but wasn't convinced, however, it is probably worth another look now we have five years until the next election.

I am not sure that knowing my poverty is only comparative would make me feel any better about being poor because of the amount the state designate as the pension thatbags but I do agree that things have got better and can get better still. I do feel they only will if we push hard at this though.

Where pensions are concerned there will always be people who earn so little in their lives that they have to rely on the state pension so I do feel it should be a living pension. This would be around the £10,000 mark and would absorb lots of the silly stuff - £10 at Christmas, WFA, etc., and all benefits except the housing benefit. People currently on Pension Credit would not be much better off but could pay their own Council Tax, etc. which has to be better than all the hoops to get the benefits and all the admin costs.

WFA is not 'silly stuff' - I use it to pay about a quarter of my utility bills and is one of the few 'perks' which is beneficial to those who live alone.
the fact that it is trotted out that the 'rich boomers' get £200 and spend it on bottles of wine does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater as it were.
do the rich pensioners need bus passes, freedom cards, WFA, Christmas box, free TV licence after 75 - no they don't - but you do realise that if the state pension was £10k - they (The rich couple pensioners) would get that (x2) as well as their generous company pensions
BTW WFA and bus passes are also given to the disabled and other groups (nothing to do with the state pension)

apologies - I was incorrect - and I was confusing warm home payments and cold weather payments which is not dependent on age and is paid to toher benefit claimants based on income.

In talking about WFA, etc., mollie65 I probably should have said that making them universal benefits was "silly" and that they should be rolled into the basic pension. I made no suggestion that it should be done away with.

in that case - gg - we are in agreement given the amounts are so small - but singletons would get an extra £100 in their pension whereas they have 'lost' £200.
how would you quantify the bus pass/freedom pass though - in big cities this would be worth thousands - but where I live probably a few tens of pounds per year as the buses are practically non-existent

If add-ons like WFA were rolled up into the state pension, they would be taxed whereas at present, I don't think they are.

I live on that figure quoted above of £7862.40, and it's not easy.... but I feel rich when compared to my childhood and early adult years when we were really poor. Not just my family, but others around us. I think real
poverty, which involves frequent hunger and not knowing if your one pair of shoes will last the winter, etc, is quite rare these days in this country, compared with the past.

Just have a look at food banks and you will see there is a lot of real poverty now.
The fullfacts link shows how poverty is designated, and the JRF link shows it is very real.

DJ - the facts don't bear you point out - wot no links?
it is not the same million people using food banks (and ergo the same one million people not having enough to eat all the time) - food banks are used as a short term safety net as they should be

I grew up where there was reall 'rural poverty' where children went to school with inadequate outer clothing and holes in their shoes and did not have enough to eat (this was the 50s) - that was real poverty not the 'relative poverty' definition that is now used.

In order to come up with a sensible definition of poverty you need to consider the psychological processes by which it causes stress and ill health.

Poor people are not interested that they have clothes to wear and a house to live in rather than animal skins and a cave, and they're not interested that they wash the laundry with a washing machine rather than a peggy stool and a rubbing board. What causes the damage is when they can't afford to repair the washing machine but their neighbours can, that they can't drive a car like their peers do, or that they can't afford to go to a wedding with the rest of the family.

That the health consequences of low status are not the result of absolute poverty is evident from Prof Marmot's research: he found that morbidity and mortality are higher in low ranking civil servants by comparison with their superiors, even though civil servants are fairly well off relative to society as a whole.

The links are higher up the page, mollie, but obviously it's too difficult for you to find them.
Here's another one that you do not need to scroll up for.

policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/poverty-in-the-uk/food-poverty

From a jobcentre adviser, who has written a play about her experiences.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/04/jobcentre-adviser-play-benefit-sanctions-angela-neville

Good to know there are some responsible people working in jobcentres.