Child Poverty

I remember when my mum was turned down for mobility allowance (she could only walk around her own house by dragging herself along the furniture by this stage)
She cried as she was so ashamed that they'd thought she was after something she wasn't entitled to.
She was so embarrassed.

Oh, and I forgot the point I was coming to!
My mum forbade me to reapply for mobility allowance, so for a good few years more, she missed out on so much.

Yet someone else may have awarded her that allowance without further ado.
It all seems so arbitrary.

My daughter only found out by chance that she had been underpaid part of her benefit, even though the whole application was filled in, on the phone with a benefits agency advisor.

One thing for sure and I really don't expect too much opposition, our generation 60 to 80 are comparatively much better off than younger age groups. Housing costs are much higher than we had to cope with plus they are starting work later and in many cases longer education is not improving wages.
I would be interested to see what Age Concerns definition of "poverty" is because my impression is pensioners are quite well looked after.

Davidhs
one in six pensioners (around 1.9 million) now living in poverty, not including the many thousands more who are just above this threshold

This later report states 14% are living in poverty:
www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/money-matters/rb_apr18_poverty_in_later_life
&^ However, the most commonly used definition is to say that someone living in the UK is in poverty if they live in a household with an income below 60 per cent of the current median (or typical) household income, taking into account the number of people living in the household and, for children, their age. This can be measured before and after housing costs. We generally use the after housing costs figures because this is what people are left to live on after meeting their essential accommodation costs.^

I think if you don't realise pensioner poverty exists, you must be living in a comfortable, affluent bubble.

Davidhs what about the sky high interest rates we had to pay on mortgages, or us WASPI ladies who have had to wait 7 years 8 months longer for our State Pensions?

Surely poverty is relative to each generation you cannot compare 2018 with the the early 1918/30’s

I think that the proportion of our monthly salary our generation paid for our housing was probably no less than that paid by first time buyers today. Mortgage lenders have a fixed view of the proportion of a household income that should be swallowed by housing costs and that has not varied much over the years.

The difference is that 50 years ago the lenders only took one income into account because most women had no option as to whether they stopped work when their first child arrived because of the absence of maternity leave, flexible working etc. Now they take household income, from all sources. And interest rates were much higher. I can certainly remember that at one point in the 1980s, mortgage payments accounted for nearly half our monthly income.

If interest rates now, shot up to the rates we paid and each household only had the income of one person taken into account for mortgage purposes, house prices would plummet, to figures we remember paying.

Yes, everyone, including pensioners is on average much better off than we were 20, 30, 50 years ago. But averages include both those in poverty and those in clover and there still remain a significant number of retired people who struggle to manage on very small incomes.

If lenders only took one wage into consideration these days I suspect very few young people would have a roof over their heads .

Also the percentage of earnings paid out in mortgages and rents is far higher than it was when my parents were young parents .

gillybob, house prices rise, or fall until the number able to buy and the number selling is roughly equal. If more people are actively seeking to buy than are selling, prices go up until those that can afford to buy equals those who want to sell. If there are lots of houses for sale and not enough people able to afford them then prices drop until they are in balance again.

If lenders went to only considering one wage (it would be for second and so on buyers as well as first timers), prices would fall because unless they did there would be many more people trying to sell their houses than buyers able to buy them.

The other thing is that in the past about a third of all housing was in the public sector, the misguided decision to sell hundreds of thousands of council houses at heavily discounted prices, has given people misguided hopes of buying their own home on smaller incomes relatively than in the past. Many people would be much better off with a secure tenancy of a decent public sector home than struggling under the burden of purchasing a home.

I cannot compare the situation with my parents, my father was in the army and for most of my childhood we lived in rented property. But I can remember what a struggle it was for us in an era of constantly rising interest rates and the very high proportion of our income that was spent just servicing our mortgage.

House prices are stagnant in my area and Have been for quite some time . We have never seen the rise that many others areas have. My house is worth less now than when I bought it over 7 years ago . Young people with insecure jobs struggling to get mortgages so it’s a lose lose situation . Of course the private landlords are rubbing their grubby little hands together. Such a shame for youngsters who end up paying inflated rents for substandard accommodation .

What sweetiew222 is peddling is just wanton propaganda, no hard facts just ignorance- vile!

Housing costs can be huge now. Private rentals mean that many families are spending a larger proporton of their income on rents than they would in proper social housing. The idea that there isn't a real problem with poverty for some families (and not only single parents) is ridiculous.

People who have never been poor or 'just managing' can have no conception of the pressures on families who are living on the edge, on benefits or minimum or erratic wages, with no savings or wider family who can help out.

This government is peopled with those who have never gone short because no one in poverty can aspire to stand for political office.

This may explain why they are oblivious to the impact of the roll out of Universal Credit and are comfortable with the notion that families will manage somehow while they wait the 6 to 12 weeks with no income whatsoever until their first payment of UC arrives.

I am making excuses for them here although I am tempted to think that the decision to roll out UC in Glasgow from 1st December was made with malice 'afore thought' given that there will be thousands of Glaswegians left penniless throughout December and into the New Year. Leaving aside the children's expectations of Christmas treats, gifts and party frocks, and the fact that benefits are geared towards providing for every day essentials, with no extra to save, I cannot think of a worst time of year to be without a weekly income.

How are people expected to heat and light their homes in midwinter? How are they to feed their Children, when the schools and thereby free school dinners are closed for a fortnight? How will they be able to seek emergency welfare when the benefits offices will be closed for Xmas and New Year holidays. People on longterm benefits are unlikely to have been granted a credit card, but will be easy prey for unscrupulous loan sharks. I am aware that the Charities, including Food Banks, are gearing up for a major crisis because this will be a blanket changeover when all claimants will be in the same position at the same time and therefore unable to help out their relatives, friends, neighbours.

If anyone has answers for this dilemma, please send them to Glasgow City Council or any of the churches or charities operating in Glasgow - preferably enclosing folding money or food hampers.

I agree with much of what you have said Granny23 except the bit about the possibility of malice towards the people if Glasgow. The poor of much of Newcastle have UC inflicted on them since February and March 2017 ! ( look at the “turn to us” website ) .

It’s the damned wait to be paid that is inexcusable . Do they think these poor people have a cash stash to fall back on ? Idiots !

This government is peopled with those who have never gone short because no one in poverty can aspire to stand for political office.
I don't think that is strictly true Granny23 - I'm not sure about any at the moment but certainly there have been politicians who have had a deprived start to life yet have succeeded and achieved high office.
Alan Johnson is one who immediately comes to mind and there may well be others.

Is it any wonder that children and adults have mental health issues ??
I note yet another building which deals with such problems is closing its doors ? It's very worrying.

I have a book on Alan Johnson's life which I confess to not having read yet but I do know that he was in care at the start of his life.
It does depend on a person's mindset as to whether or not they want to succeed or not in life.

Alan Johnson's book is very readable. he didn't actually go into care, his sister looked after him after their mother died.
The family were very poor.

I think the issue about pensioner poverty is an interesting one and it highlights the way in which the benefit system treats pensioners differently from those of working age.

A single pensioner is entitled to a minimum income of circa £163 per week under pension credit plus full council and housing benefit if applicable.

A single working age adult over 25 is entitled to JSA of £73.10 and from that has to pay a contribution towards council tax (variable according to which council area they live in) and is subject to housing benefit age and bedroom tax rules.

Younger adults get £57.90.

How many of us could live long term on that?

"Surely poverty is relative to each generation you cannot compare 2018 with the the early 1918/30’s"
Good point, GrannyGravy.
I find it hard to understand the current view of poverty having seen it pre welfare state. When support only came from friends family or church etc.

www.jrf.org.uk/our-work/what-is-poverty

There are plenty of places where poverty is every bit as cruel as it was in the 1918/30's.

Children stealing food from bird tables for example?

The reality is that child maintenence for low wage earners is entirely voluntary it is very easy to avoid paying and nobody is going to waste time chasing you. However if you are a high earner (over £30k) it is worth chasing defaulters, most will be made to pay, if, they are in the UK.
Single mums with a couple of kids manage OK but it is very basic, if they work a few hours a week they can buy nice extras, there is no reason that children are not clothed and fed properly. If they are there is some other problem or they are not getting the benefits.

In my experience many single mothers with "a "couple of kids", don't mange OK. They works hours a week just to survive.
If something like a cooker breaks, they then have to borrow money or take on high interest credit and their debt spirals.
In my school we did a lot of work on financial education, raising awareness of high interest rates with some firms selling household goods and encouraging parents and pupils to join the credit union, even if it was only £1 a week. This then allowed them to borrow money, and TRY to manage their debt.
They can buy nice treats Can you please elaborate on nice treats?