Contributions on this debate clearly show that members have differing views on the definition of poverty and rightly so. Hopefully however, the following will bring some clarity regarding the findings of the respected IFS. Their report, from which I quoted, uses the technical term of "absolute" poverty, which is not about what people can or cannot afford but a measure in relation to other earnings - in this case defined as being below 60% of the median income, adjusted for inflation.
I think it’s important to note that all the children from the predicted households living on 60% below the average wage will be in that position through no fault of their own and a significant number will have parent(s) who are in work.
I believe these predicted figures are alarming and we cannot afford to ignore them. Successive governments set targets to reduce child poverty because they are only too aware of the cost to society and I’m not just talking in financial terms. Let’s not forget that we have entered uncharted waters in terms of the highest youth unemployment since records begun. I just don’t accept the mail and sun editorials that the 2.6 million unemployed (another 100000 announced today) are work-shy.
