Nearly 1 million children faced destitution in the UK in 2022..

Mibbs is right, the increases in domestic oil were huge and we got no government help whatsoever. Then factor in lack of public transport, no infrastructure and you live in rural poverty. It has been something that seems to be getting worse again.

I want to write something without it seeming personal but where are all these negative stereotypes of people that you witness? I work with people on low pay, live near them, shop with them. I take no judgement on them as from what I see, everyone is trying to do their best. I also have the imagination to understand how having children limits your choice of paid employment and sometimes leads to unemployment, especially in an environment where low paid work can mean a 'fast paced, flexible work environment' which means you are at someones beck and call, on terrible wages, often poor working environments and believe me, you are worked like a dog to meet targets. How is all this sustainable for good outcomes for children and families? and there are single people and couples too who are struggling just as much.

A slight exaggeration Maizie?

I am quite staggered to find that people seem to think that feckless parenting accounts for 1 million children living in destitution. That's one hell of a lot of feckless parents. And what about the remainder of the 2.8 adults living in destitution? Are they feckless, too?

Do we have any stories of layabout single wastrels to tell which prove that destitution is all their own fault?

MibbsXX, my heart goes out to you and your family, terribly stressful way to live. Please do contact Step Change, Christians Against Poverty and/or any community group. You will get the help and support which is needed now and hopefully find a way through this. All the best x

The family’s circumstances didn’t change westendgirl, apart from the fact that they had so many children.

Self-employed status enables a wider range of deductions before tax than ordinary employment

Self employed people dont have the safety net of a salary coming in at the end of every month or a nice little employer contributed pension adding up in the pot. They have to go out and hustle for business. And they dont get holiday or sickness pay and have to make their own provision for retirement. All that is taken care of for you as an employee.

Working in education, I saw different sides of poverty; Mothers who tried to go to work but were completely floored by school holidays, and losing free school meals and benefits because they were working. They managed, in spite of these changing difficulties, to look after their children well, and yet others with clearly a much larger income seemed to care little for the comfort and care of their children. One boy, an only child, had for his lunch every day a greasy puff pastry case with a sliver of grey, mechanically recovered meat. His parents took expensive holidays and had smart clothing - we suspected he went to bed in his school clothes, and he wore each outfit for a week. Not actually neglected, not a boy that Social Services would take any interest in, but he was living in his own version of poverty. Big families don't equate with neglect either - there are many who do a sterling job, as my Grandmother did with her twelve children.

I think we expect some posters to come out with the I remember a family down the road who had a big telly ( try buying a small screen now ) and a car and the children had no shoes etc. Come on acknowledge that while this is happening it should not be, and dont be so quick to blame. As other posters have said circumstances change. You are fortunate to go through life with the everything working for you.

It was a very large tv by the standards of the day. Have you been researching average tv sizes? Nothing ‘nasty’ about my memory. I assume nothing about the parents’ bedroom practices. Do you like to see neglected children? I don’t and will always remember those thin children with their torn clothing in a pretty affluent village where they really stood out, and must have known they did. The family lived in two council houses knocked into one.

Germanshepherdsmum

My son went to primary school with a little boy who was one of eight - and his mother didn’t stop there. The father was a farm labourer so not well paid. Huge tv and expensive sound system, children thin and wearing torn clothes. The parents smoked and drank and certainly didn’t display any interest in the children. That was 35-odd years ago. Things haven’t changed.

Hmmm… a 'huge' TV, eh? The average size of TV screen in 1997 was 22”. Nasty case of wishful memory, I fear. And what is this “and his mother didn't stop there”? Are we to assume she took advantage of her husband when he was drunk and therefore unable to stop her?

Thanks for the link, maiz. I’ll read it later.

I wonder how much of the increase was caused by lockdowns.

It's certainly the case that people with very large incomes can pay accountants and lawyers to find ways of minimizing tax, a process not open to most of the working population. I recall one City firm paying bonuses in gold bars (which were not taxable at the time) and eminent members of the Bar contracting with commercial clients to defer their fees until they were retired to minimise tax exposure. Self-employed status enables a wider range of deductions before tax than ordinary employment and I recall a Director General of the BBC being paid via his company to reduce tax: no doubt others use the same wheeze. And of course we have non-dom status as the PM knows.

Baggs

The phrasing "faced destitution" is interesting because it suggests, as a media headline device I think, that they did not in fact become destitute.

No, the Report actually says this:

This study, the fourth in the Destitution in the UK series, reveals approximately 3.8 million people experienced destitution in 2022, including around one million children. This is almost two-and-a-half times the number of people in 2017, and nearly triple the number of children. There is an urgent need for action to tackle destitution in the UK.

www.jrf.org.uk/report/destitution-uk-2023

GrannyGravy13

It is never the child’s fault.

Absolutely!

We all know the family that wastes money and neglects children, however the majority that struggle are genuine, the one cost that causes that is housing, unless you are in social housing it’s tough even if you are fit and able. Those that have poor health or disability are especially vulnerable and more help should be available.

I see no reason for a cap on bonuses bankers are high earners and will be paying half the bonus in tax, as long as they pay that in the UK that’s fine by me.

It is never the child’s fault.

pinkquartz

middle class grans don't like UK poor people
they like to help the poor in other countries

not sure why but it gives them a warm glow helping British children to have a better childhood doesn't do it for them

and they don't see the wrong in voting tory either

Oh dear.

The phrasing "faced destitution" is interesting because it suggests, as a media headline device I think, that they did not in fact become destitute.

My son went to primary school with a little boy who was one of eight - and his mother didn’t stop there. The father was a farm labourer so not well paid. Huge tv and expensive sound system, children thin and wearing torn clothes. The parents smoked and drank and certainly didn’t display any interest in the children. That was 35-odd years ago. Things haven’t changed.

Germanshepherdsmum

JenniferEccles

Parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s well-being., don’t they? If everyone only had the children their finances allowed, all would be well.The problem arises when they continue to produce more children, but then of course the welfare state is obliged to step in, as it does if people fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

GSM is correct. The bankers bonuses won’t take money from the ‘poor’.

I entirely agree. And if they prioritised their children’s wellbeing fewer children would be living in poverty.

I grew up next door to a family with 8 children. The mother always found money to go to the pub or bingo and always looked clean and tidy but the kids were left to fend for themselves and I was shocked to discover they slept under old coats. Neither parent took any interest in their education either.

JenniferEccles

Parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s well-being., don’t they? If everyone only had the children their finances allowed, all would be well.The problem arises when they continue to produce more children, but then of course the welfare state is obliged to step in, as it does if people fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

GSM is correct. The bankers bonuses won’t take money from the ‘poor’.

Completely agree JenniferEccles. That plus prioritising spending and learning how to cook healthy food on a budget.

It so annoys me to see young Mums buying 3 or 4 kids ready made sandwiches at £3 each when they only live up the road and she buys the same for herself plus a takeout coffee.

I could hardly boil an egg when I got married but had to very quickly learn to feed us on a small budget.

Mibs, help won’t come to you, you have to seek it out. Go to Citizens Advice and find out what help you’re entitled to, as well as how to cope with the loan. You have a school child to whom you have a responsibility, and I trust they are getting breakfast, a free lunch and a hot meal in the evening. Please don’t rely on someone noticing - they won’t if they don’t know about your situation. This is up to you to resolve, for the sake of your child.

pinkquartz it’s beyond any gran of any social class to do the work of a fair government. Grans are old people who are tired, often ill and becoming increasingly frail. Not fairy queens.

JenniferEccles

Parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s well-being., don’t they? If everyone only had the children their finances allowed, all would be well.The problem arises when they continue to produce more children, but then of course the welfare state is obliged to step in, as it does if people fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

GSM is correct. The bankers bonuses won’t take money from the ‘poor’.

Oh dear, what a Victorian outlook. Have you never heard of people whose circumstances changed for the worse?

Hard-working men and women in good jobs who had children at a time when they envisaged retaining their well-paid jobs until retirement age, then became redundant, or found that their good jobs were no longer well-paid enough due to circumstances beyond their control, or who suffered ill-health and had to give up a job and live on an invalidity pension?

Some married couples divorce, and one partner no longer contributes to the children's upkeep, some people die before their children are adults and earning, and the surviving parent is left to provide for the entire family on her or his own.

Another point is that we are constantly being told that we are an ageing society, and that unproductive retirees should not expect a good standard of living for much longer, as there are not enough people in the wage-earning sector of society for the welfare state to continue to exist in tis present form,

So you could regard those who actually have had children as public benefactors.

An even more valid point is, that no child, as far as we know at least, asked to be born and they do have a right to three good meals a day, a bed to sleep in, schooling and warm clothes, as well as a home, however poor, that is warm and dry.

What sweeping, and untrue, statements pinkquartz,