Majority of British children to soon grow up in near poverty

From the Independent

Quote:

---

The majority of British children will soon be growing up in families which are struggling “below the breadline” because of welfare cuts, tax rises and wage freezes, the Government is warned today.

Within two years, almost 7.1m of the nation’s 13m youngsters will be in homes with incomes judged to be less than the minimum necessary for a decent standard of living, according to a new report.

The figures, which emerged a week ahead of George Osborne’s Budget, suggest that an unwanted legacy of the Coalition’s squeeze on spending will be to leave more children living close to poverty.

They coincide with a new survey for the Resolution Foundation think-tank, which found that almost seven in ten of people believe the Government does not understand the financial strains they face.

The impact on children of the economic downturn and austerity measures was underlined by an analysis that concluded that the number of under-18s living in households below minimum income standards would increase by 690,000 between 2010 and 2015. The definitions of acceptable living standards are drawn up by the respected charity, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Today’s report said 460,000 children would be pushed below those levels by the increase in VAT and cuts to tax credits, 170,000 by sluggish wage growth and 80,000 by the curbs on public sector pay. Just 20,000 would be raised above the minimum level by the new Universal Credit system, which begins to come into force in October.

The TUC, which commissioned the research by the economist Howard Reed, said the figures should “shame” any civilised society and challenged Mr Osborne to cut VAT to ease the pressures on the lowest income families.

By 2015, a lone parent with one child is calculated to require an annual income of £19,226 to have a decent standard of living, rising to £23,992 for a lone parent with two children, £24,643 for a couple with one child and £29,093 if they have two children. But Mr Reed calculated that 54 per cent of youngsters will be living in households with income below those levels in two years’ time.

His report concluded that 90 per cent of families will be worse off in 2015 than in 2010.

---

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8531584.html

In my views the government are cutting spending in the wrong places and aren't cutting enough in the right places.

What's your thoughts?

I dispute this absolutely. The notion of 'poverty' coupled with 'children' is always pushed before us as a political method of opposing any sort of restraint on public spending - the recent small changes in the benefits system (where a perfectly sensible cap was proposed for child benefit) was rejected under these sorts of calls. We do not have poverty in this country, although I will admit some people do struggle - thats a fact.

You then go on to say that public spending isn't being cut in the right places, well thats partly true for some unique cases (mainly at local government level) but for the whole picture its simply untrue. All social spending such as the NHS budget, Pensions, Social Security & Welfare and Education - it's all increasing, and increasing above inflation.

http://www.iaza.com/work/130314C/iaza11174672704400.gif

If this is the kind of nonsense we're fed from the likes of the Guardian, BBC and left-wing 'Independent' (but also the Mail and most other papers) when spending isn't even being cut, then I think people are going to be in for one hell of a surprise when the credit rating is lost and we default. A blunt knife needs to be taken to most government spending, especially welfare and social security - which is a massive part of government spending - but for the moment, people are still too attached to the teet of the state to wean themselves off it.

I know one party that wants to eventually cut 1 to 2 million public sector jobs (so back to the levels of 1997) over time and replace them with private sector jobs. But can you imagine if this (even though it is what is needed at the least) were broadcast out? people aren't taking it seriously.

For example, we still have the main 'opposition' party - the Labour Party - calling the cuts (which simply don't exist in most areas) 'too hard, too fast' - and on top of that, we've got a party in government who pretend that their cutting despite doing the opposite - which means that when the default does come and the economy tanks, 'austerity' is going to be blamed even though we haven't had austerity.. and then we'll be back to the kind of politics where people believe you can spend more and thus grow. It's beyond belief and its all the height of stupidity.

The real reason that more children will be growing up in "near poverty" is that for some reason low-income uneducated persons are drastically more likely to have lots of kids - it's been proven over and over that the lower classes breed far more numerously than those who can actually afford it, and of course the poverties and inabilities of the parents will more often than not be passed on to the children, who then have their own litter to multiply the problem further. The only plausible government intervention on this matter would be a China-style regulation of birth, which I sincerely doubt would be very popular