The coalition government's response to the economic crisis has been a programme of real and imagined austerity where the responsibility for paying the price of austerity is increasingly being transferred from the rich (whose marginal tax rates have been reduced) to the poor (whose benefits have been reduced in both absolute and real terms).
One of the effects of this has been an increase in the levels of child poverty. Child poverty is particularly bad in Wales where child poverty rates are greater than 30%.
The government is committed to eliminating child poverty by 2020. This was going reasonably well until the financial crisis and austerty but now we're going backwards at a rate of knots. The definition of poverty being used is that family income is less than 60% of the national median which is an artificial but easy to calculate measure. Ian Duncan Smith (IDS) is proposing that the definition is changed to include whether the children have access to education and healthcare (which is pretty much a given in the UK).
Conservative supporters insist that IDS has had a "road to Damascus" epiphany and wants to expand the definition of poverty. Those on the other side of the political divide and those who work with the poor doubt that IDS has changed his spots quite so suddenly.
Personally I feel that the 60% of average earnings was a poor definition of poverty but was at least easy to calculate. Any definition based on individual circumstances is fraught with difficulty to define and calculate. I also feel that this is a political move to distract from the fact that the 2020 date is out of the window and will provide a mechanism where the poor can be stigmatised.
One of the effects of this has been an increase in the levels of child poverty. Child poverty is particularly bad in Wales where child poverty rates are greater than 30%.
The government is committed to eliminating child poverty by 2020. This was going reasonably well until the financial crisis and austerty but now we're going backwards at a rate of knots. The definition of poverty being used is that family income is less than 60% of the national median which is an artificial but easy to calculate measure. Ian Duncan Smith (IDS) is proposing that the definition is changed to include whether the children have access to education and healthcare (which is pretty much a given in the UK).
Conservative supporters insist that IDS has had a "road to Damascus" epiphany and wants to expand the definition of poverty. Those on the other side of the political divide and those who work with the poor doubt that IDS has changed his spots quite so suddenly.
Personally I feel that the 60% of average earnings was a poor definition of poverty but was at least easy to calculate. Any definition based on individual circumstances is fraught with difficulty to define and calculate. I also feel that this is a political move to distract from the fact that the 2020 date is out of the window and will provide a mechanism where the poor can be stigmatised.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1o0Ff0p
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire