r/ukpolitics • u/Lapping24422 • 13h ago
How can we end poverty
The government considers poverty to be
Defined as living in a household with a disposable income below 60% of the contemporary median UK household income.
By that metric if the average person earned 1 billion then someone with 555 mill would be classed as in poverty
So surely whatever we do and no matter how well people live the poverty numbers are always going to be high? 🤷 Even if people live in absolute abundance and luxury
8
u/-Murton- 13h ago
The definition you're describing is for relative poverty, which is fine but it is predicated on the idea that cost of living isn't static and the median represents a certain level comfort. So in your hypothetical where the median is a billion and the poverty line is 555 million you have to factor in that they're losing 150 million to tax, 100 million plus on rent and a that Tesco Meal Deal you had for lunch yesterday probably cost 7 figures or very close to it as well.
It's obviously slightly absurd to think about these numbers the same way we think about the 2k ish that is the current day minimum wage for example, but that's how the logic plays out.
As for ending it, well you can't end relative poverty because it's a measure of inequality, not wealth or lack thereof (well you can, but it it involves basically ending all property rights) but we can end absolute poverty by ensuring everyone regardless of circumstances can live a healthy and dignified life. The only tried and tested method for this is abundant employment opportunities with decent pay and fair conditions, which is a lot easier said than done. The alternative is UBI but that's an argument in itself and one that regularly attacked by both sides of the spectrum, albeit for different reasons.
3
u/Axmeister Traditionalist 12h ago
Great explanation.
Another way to demonstration this is that the current median salary in the UK of around £39,000 can be converted into 9,360,000 (pre-decimal) pence. That doesn't mean everybody on a median salary can live like a millionaire.
17
u/Beginning-Anybody442 13h ago
It really winds me up when politicians cry out about how we need to stop kids in poverty - it's a stupid measurement for the reason you said, and having people in poverty can only be sorted by becoming a society that doesn't allow a discrepancy in pay, at which point if we all ended up with 10k a year, none of us would be in poverty.... which of course would be nonsensical.
They really need to come up with a different way to measure 'poverty'.
5
u/gravy_maker 12h ago
Not necessarily. The median doesn't increase as the bottom end of samples increases unless some of those samples actually surpass the median.
If we had an economy in which the 1st decile earns around 70% of the median household income, the 2nd decile earns 75%, the 3rd 80%, the 4th 90%, and the 5th 100% - and with higher deciles remaining exactly as they are now - then we would have nobody (or virtually nobody - there would inevitably be some outliers) in poverty, according to the government's definition.
Of course, there's still much to be said about relative versus absolute poverty, which metrics are valuable for which purposes, whether 60% of the median was derived from something meaningful or arbitrary, and so on. But mathematically, there's no reason why relative poverty can't be eliminated. What can be achieved economically is another matter entirely, of course.
•
u/xPareshxx 11h ago
That's the thing. You could have all your needs met and still be counted as poor.
By the same metric, if we all got genuinely poorer, we'd be more equal and technically have less poverty.
Its a stupid definition.
10
u/Nimmy_the_Jim 13h ago
Sounds crazy but hear me out, we could get all the best music bands together.
Have them all play in one big gig. Hyde Park or something or Wembley. And have them all sing on one song, they could have a verse each and it will raise money
We call it "Band Aid"
1
u/RoyaleWCheese_OK 13h ago
Nah like the current gen needs to have that insufferable bellend Geldof inflicted on them. Lived off one song and telling everyone to cough up the dough while making himself rich.
9
u/ProjectLeeds 13h ago
Relative poverty is a completely stupid metric that people use to justify crazy levels of taxation on high earners to redistribute and ramp up the minimum wage to damaging levels.
1
0
2
u/Ok-Acanthisitta-823 12h ago
Doesn't the calculation of the metric mean that if some of our top earners (eg. that person who owns bet365?) was to move abroad, that relative poverty would fall?
No dismissal of poverty at all - I just want to note that this calculation seems to be a weird one therefore. I'd prefer something like "earning less than X% of the median sum of necessary bills" (eg. housing, council tax, food, energy, etc). I actually think that could "increase" the number, which might wake up the media & political focus a bit.
•
u/TXMcKay 11h ago edited 10h ago
No. Only if many of the larger UK earners move abroad would the median income drop. Some people who were previously 'in poverty' would magically be lifted out of it, as the qualifying bar moved to exclude them. But nothing in their life has improved.
A better measure would be whether the household has the basics for an acceptable life. Particularly, one that should give a child a fair start in life. Such as a home of a reasonable standard, hot water and heating, food, clothing, healthcare, education, access to books (library) and exercise (park, sport centre).
Relative poverty is a very clumsy measure. It seems to be used/exploited to justify taking more and more from those on full-time PAYE to fund a rapidly growing benefits bill.
[Edit. The starting 'Yes' should have been 'No'. Apologies.]
•
u/polite_alternative 11h ago
If many of the larger UK earners move abroad the median income would drop
only if THE richest one left
median is not average it is the halfway mark
•
u/TXMcKay 10h ago edited 10h ago
Yes. Median is not the average (aka medium).
The average (or medium) is the sum total of all the data numbers, divided by the count of the numbers. The average is very sensitive to the addition of one disproportionately huge number. Elon Musk, say, would lift the sum total hugely, but only add one to the count.
The median is the middle number, when all the numbers are placed lowest to highest in order. So adding (or losing) a few enormous ones at the extreme, will have little impact. The loss of a significant number paying higher rates of income tax will change the median. Elon Musk coming or going wouldn't.
Data: 21, 24, 26, 29, 1000
Median is 26, it's the the middle number of the five Medium/Average is 220, as (21+24+26+29+1000)/5 =1,100/5 =220
2
2
u/Tech_AllBodies 12h ago
Switch to Absolute Poverty, not Relative Poverty. You have already identified the issue with Relative Poverty
Grow the economy. You can never eliminate Absolute Poverty if the pie isn't big enough, no matter how it is sliced
The end.
There seems to be a significant movement against economic growth in this country, but it's the fundamental reason we're not all peasant farmers still.
•
-2
u/Charlton33 13h ago
Poverty is actually defined as an individual earning less than $3 a day. This was solved in the UK. However, western communists have since moved the goalposts to try to redefine it to one of inequality.
•
u/TheHess Renfrewshire 11h ago
"communists" yeah I'm not going to take you seriously, but even so, you've ignored the effects of relative purchasing power. $3 a day would not be enough to survive on in the UK.
•
u/Charlton33 10h ago
Found a wild communist. The $3 a day takes into account purchasing power parity. You just don’t care that poverty is a solved problem in the UK. This is why the UK welfare bill is higher than the entire GDP of Portugal. You’re literally arguing that the UN is wrong. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/poverty/
0
u/potatosquire 13h ago
It would obviously be redefined if resources were more abundant. Poverty is when someone has insufficient income to adequately meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. Right now they consider the line to be 60% of average income, if average income went up this percentage would go down, but it would always be in line with how much is necessary for a basic standard of living.
0
u/ArtistEngineer 12h ago
You've mixed up average and median.
Let's take 2 simple examples
- 3 people, they earn £10K, £100K, £1,000,000.
- Average is £370K. 2 out of 3 are in poverty
- Median is £100K, 1 out of 3 are in poverty
- 3 people, they earn £10K, £10K, £1,000,000.
- Average is £340K, 2 out of 3 are in poverty
- Median is £10K, no-one is in poverty, even if the top person was a billionaire.
Mathematically, you can have zero poverty if equality is widespread. Adding an extremely wealthy person won't change that.
-5
u/HistoricalCamera6697 13h ago
UBI payments. It would lift everyone out of poverty, and allow those who don't want to work to do their own thing. Not sure how it can be funded.
5
u/Draggenn 12h ago edited 12h ago
The problem with providing a UBI (other than the eye watering cost) is that if you can achieve a perfectly adequate standard of life by not working why would anyone choose to work?
And if to get around this those who do still work are rewarded extremely well to make it worth their while then they would have a better standard of living.
Then, exactly as it is now, the jealousy, envy and resentment would come from the UBIs who would want that better standard of life and demand UBI was raised to compensate.
So workers would need even more...
And repeat ad-infinitum
Edited for formatting
0
u/QuantumR4ge Geo-Libertarian 12h ago
Most people dont want that though, you are no different from the people who say the same of universal credit right now, then when you ask then if they will live off it… its “umm lol no but other people ya know, not me”
•
u/Draggenn 11h ago
Universal credit alone though isn't remotely close to enough to live on.
A universal basic income should be enough to achieve a perfectly adequate life.
They are not remotely close to being the same thing.
2
u/Tech_AllBodies 12h ago
UBI may be in our future, but you can't hand out enough money to have a basic life if the fundamental economy can't support it, as money is just a proxy to good/services.
i.e. heavily simplified example:
Assume people only need 500g of rice a day, and nothing else
500g of rice costs £1
You print £365 per person and give it to them
But the economy produces 300g of rice a day per person
The price of rice goes up, as there isn't enough to go around, and now the UBI of £365 isn't enough and people starve
Ultimately if we wan't UBI we need to grow the economy significantly from where it is now to support it.
59
u/Nostalgic_Liberal 13h ago
You have identified the core problem with this definition of poverty - it actually describes inequality, not poverty.