More on this

[davywavy]

Amongst the comments to my earlier post, several people have raised questions about the definitions of poverty and their validity; especially that covered by Oxfam, which defines poverty as less than 60 of the national median disposable income.

According to the national office of statistics, after rent, bills and necessities are paid, this figure is £194 per week per household. If you're living on less than that, Oxfam says you're living in poverty; they don't appear to differentiate between households of people living alone and households with a dozen squalling children crammed into the front room because, as we all know, there's no difference in living costs between the two.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That would be whatever's left after one has paid out for the weekly essentials of life, such as Orangettes, single malt, Emma Peel DVD's and suchlike.

H

[borusa.livejournal.com]

That would be whatever's left after one has paid out for the weekly essentials of life, such as Orangettes, single malt, Emma Peel DVD's and suchlike.

And you fail basic economics, with an additional failure in elementary web page reading, subcategorised as "the small writing at the bottom".

Disposable income is gross income minus taxes, NI contributions and pensions contributions, plus interest from savings, plus or minus some other, comparatively insignificant and uncommon things.

It _does not_ include rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing or transport.

I quote (from the page davywavy linked to :-


The income data in the distribution of income chart are adjusted to 2002/03 prices using the Retail Prices Index less local taxes and are before the deduction of housing costs.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, well, I'd rather my Basic Economics failed than my sense of humour.

H

[borusa.livejournal.com]

Eh? I grinned at the Emma Peel comments, posted what I was going to post anyway when someone replied that, with what I thought was a fairly jocular comment, and then you insult me?

Don't think it's my sense of humour that's failed.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Obvoiusly just a case of the internet removing intent from words.
Your comment did come across as being rather snappy, especially within the context of the ongoing debate.

No harm done on either side, I'm sure.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, sorry. I'm probably not on one of David's special hidden 'friends only' exchanges. What appears on my screen here is the Emma Peel quote (in italics) followed on directly in the text by "and you fail basic economics" which I thought was a dig at me. Misunderstandings all round.

I'm still not going to get a skivejournal though, robinbloke. Why, it would waste far too much time.

H

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Probably a good plan; there's loads of other things to waste time on instead...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

But you must concede that most people covered by the study will be on housing benefit, which is mostly paid direct to the landlord. I'm not sure that this could be counted as household income, as it never enters the household accounts at all.
I can't find anywhere which indicates either way, so I'd like to know - from experience I know it makes an enourmous difference to accounts at that sort of level.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

colin_boyle just pointed out to me something I'd missed on the Oxfam website: These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed.

I.e. Whislt the NAO doesn't take into account housing costs, Oxfam does when defining poverty. The whole thing just gets deeper.