![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
Don't think it's my sense of humour that's failed.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-01-10 04:50 pm (UTC)(link)I'm still not going to get a skivejournal though, robinbloke. Why, it would waste far too much time.
H
no subject