>> Definitions of poverty in the UK seem to be used selectively to demonstrate only the
>> argument that is being made, not a reality.
Definitions should IMO and in that of Rowntree Trust reflect the need for a basic standard of living (heat, light, clothing, food) including social participation.
>>
>> Households with an income 60% below median income,
is a definition of relative income poverty. I don't know about you, relative or not we'd struggle to survive on £250 a week even with housing cost covered and I certainly couldn't contemplate a tolerable existence.
JRT defines absolute income poverty as income 60% below the median in 2010/2011.
>> Fuel poverty could be defined at 15% or 20% of income. It is the rapidity
>> of price change that creates the "shock". It means changing expectations for holidays, meals out,
>> new cars, bathrooms etc etc. More than 10% does not define absolute poverty.
Do you think that many people with household incomes below the median can cover it from cutting back on holidays, eating out, and new cars? They are the people who are driving all the 15 year old ones you see every day.
>>
>> There is a "green" argument that increasing energy costs will ultimately prove positive.
For whom? And in the meantime?
>>For too
>> long we have been profligate with cheap energy in heating homes, over-sized cars, air travel
>> etc etc. This may be the stimulus to radically change behaviours for the better,
And the most profligate have been the ones with the most money. The people who are going to really suffer here are those who have been scrimping to start with, and there are plenty of those.
The projected costs without significant mitigation will mean widespread destitution, not just poverty.
Can I summarise your post as "they should just eat cake"?
|
