national poverty line

[mycats]

National poverty line - I hear politicians/newsreaders talking about people in the UK living "below the poverty line" Does anyone know what they are classing as the poverty line just now?

[WoWo]

"Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the �poverty line� which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed.

These figures don�t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don�t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it."

As I understand it this is actually a pretty crap way to measure poverty in that as people move out of poverty that automatically moves the boundry up because it is worked out on a median figure.

[kempie]

I presume the text quoted by WoWo is five-or-so years old (i.e. after 2000/01) since contemporary figures would relate to the fiscal period that is being analysed e.g. the current poverty line (officially known as "low income") refers to those below 60% of the 2006/7 median income.

"Absolute poverty" seems to be set at "below 60% of the 1996/7 median income".

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressrelease s/2006/mar/cphs015-090306.asp

[mycats]

Thanks folks, but what I meant was, what is the actual figure (at the moment) that they would say "If your income is below this �X, you are living in poverty"

[kempie]

The latest figures I can find from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) relate to 2001/2 and set the median household disposable income at �311.08 per week.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdatase t.asp?vlnk=7438

Thus the 60% threshold for that period would be �186.65 and I would expect that the current figure is now in excess of �200.00 pw.

(BTW from the ONS figures it appears that "absolute poverty" is anything below �163.00 pw.)

[Booldawg]

surely this doesnt take into account people who are on fairly good wages but have huge mortgages or whatever to pay off. The system should be based upon how much money you have left at the end of each month after you've paid your direct debits. Being on a lower wage doesnt neccessarily mean your 'borassic'

[Goodsoulette]

i think thats what is meant by disposable income, isnt it?

[mycats]

Below �163 is absolute poverty?? LMAO God they have no idea do they?
I live on just under �100 a week and I have been on as little as �60 odd

[Pippa68]

I agree, Booldawg.

I find it interesting that after tax, NI and mortgage is taken out of our salaries, Mr Pippa and I are bringing home less than my brother in law who receives top ups from the government. We often wonder why we did our utmost to get a decent education and career when we could have done what he did and worked 4 hours a day as a window cleaner..thus watching the dosh roll in.

it is worth noting that if a family has more than �30,000 coming in (gross) they are considered well off. Cloud cuckoo land, definately.

[NJOK]

Not sure I follow your argument there, Pippa.

You have a mortgage - essentially a loan that has given you a massive sum of money. With it, you have now got yourself an extremely valuable asset.

Yes, you're making repayments every month but you own a house!

It's the same as someone else taking out a loan for the same amount and keeping their money in the bank. You wouldn't consider someone with 100k sloshing around in their current account to be struggling would you? You just happen to have invested your money in property, rather than leaving it as cash.

[Pippa68]

My brother in law owns his house too ~ with a decent discount from the council. Because of this he has far more equity in his property than I do..plus the fact he can afford a repayment mortgage while we are on interest only. We won't be owning our house outright at the end of the term unless we put money in other investments (which we have).

There may well be equity in our property, but it isn't there to spend is it? if we sold the house we would have nowhere to live ~ and have to use the money to buy/rent somewhere else.

However, on the face of it my brother in law looks financially worse off than us. Which isn't the case at all. We may earn more, but after deductions we have less. That was my point.