Don’t worry, your charity money’s safe.

At the risk of becoming the bloke who moans about charities, here’s another one.

 

The BBC, that bastion of unbiased broadcast news, gives us a report that child poverty figures are falling in the UK. You may know my opinoin on poverty, that it doesn’t exist in the UK in any real sense. We will look at that shortly.

The number of children living in poverty in the UK fell during the last year of the Labour government, official figures have revealed.

In 2009-10, 20% of children (2.6m) lived in households classed as below the poverty line, a two per cent decrease on the previous year.

 

Considering the vast quantities of taxpayers cash the Labour Government threw at the illusion of poverty, it seems to ba a small consolation that they acheived a two percent drop in the final year of thirteen.

 

The percentage drop is irrelevant, however. What matters is the method used to calculate the figures.

 

The Households Below Average Income statistics, which also cover working-age adults and pensioners, define poverty as children living in homes with 60% less than the median UK income before housing costs. The median is the middle figure in a set of numbers.

 

I’m glad they explained the term ‘median’ for those with a New Labour education.

So poverty is defined as having an income 60% less than the median average. Hence, if the lower earners stay the same but the higher earners increase their income, poverty rises.

 

If income tax were to be cut by 10% for everyone, we would all be better off yet poverty may still increase if calculated by these means as higher earners would have a bigger tax break than lower earners.

 

This methon of calculation does not give us any idea at all about poverty, it only shows us the gap between high earners and low earners. Junk stats.

 

Iain Duncan Smith understands…

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said: “These figures lay bare the growth of income inequality in the UK which is now the highest it has ever been.

 

…although he says it as though income inequality is a bad thing. It isn’t.

 

Those who contribute the most to society, those who create goods and services that people want, strive to do so because of the huge rewards they can reap from sucess.

 

Not everyone can be rich, so if you want equality of income, the only real way to acheive this is to have everyone poor. This was attempted in Soviet Russia. You wouldn’t want to be operated on by a USSR surgeon who earned the same as a factory worker. They had no desire or ambition and most of them were pissed.

 

You get what you pay for.

 

And then there’s the charities. As we have discussed before, charities often exist to service their own ends. They work like a business, and businesses strive to grow through supplying a need to customers.

 

Charities need customers, (have you noticed how they have taken to calling the people they help ‘clients’ or ‘service users’?) and they need their customer base to grow just like any business.

 

Children’s charities offered a cautious welcome to the statistics but warned the future looked bleaker.

 

Cautious because if the decline continues for any length of time they will be out of work.

 

Barnardo’s said it feared the “good news” was only a “temporary reprieve in the battle against child poverty”.

 

Fear is correct. There is nothing the charities fear more than their good work actually doing good.

 

Chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said: “We remain concerned that numbers may well rise again due to cuts and the economic downturn.”

 

The Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation echoed concerns that spending cuts could prompt a reverse in the fall in child poverty.

 

Unicef and Save the Children pointed out that millions of children were still struggling.

 

The cuts. Those damn cuts! I reckon they have got it wrong. I think the cuts will help child poverty. What’s the best way to get out of poverty?

 

Iain Duncan Smith: “The only way to achieve a sustainable drop in poverty was through work,”

 

Quite. Rather than handing people money on a plate through the various means at a parents disposal to ‘make children pay’, lets make some cuts. And let’s not give them the option to quit work and go on benefits as an easy option, claiming they have been ‘priced out of work’.

 

And let’s stop using this median average rubbish to calculate poverty.

 

But don’t worry charities, with this lot in charge, your money is safe. And if not, you can always change the way you calculate poverty.

10 comments for “Don’t worry, your charity money’s safe.

  1. PT
    May 13, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Possibly apocryphal, but didn’t a TUC boss once say “We will not be content until every British worker earns more than the average wage?”

    • May 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm

      That sounds like something that would make sense to a TUC boss.
      (I had to Google ‘apocryphal’)
      :mrgreen:

      • John
        May 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm

        Well, if you mean British as in British citizens rather than workers in Britain… it makes perfect sense!

  2. May 13, 2011 at 10:14 am

    I agree with you on poverty. The definition is perverse. If everyone has zero or £1000 or £5000 income per year then there is no poverty.

    However as we raise the median income we suddenly make people poorer. So if we convert low paid jobs into high paid jobs then we are creating poverty because we raise the average income. Conversely if we increase unemployment and thereby reduce the average income we reduce poverty. Unemployment reduces poverty. That’s a slogan I should try at the Rally Against Debt.

    • May 13, 2011 at 12:35 pm

      All they are doing is using the gap between high and low wages to pretend more poverty exists when the gap is wider.
      It’s bollocks and it’s just to make people resent high earners in the true lefty fasion.

  3. May 13, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Indeed…terms which make poverty (if it existed in the UK) IMPOSSIBLE to eradicate even if the poorest were multi millionaires.

    • May 13, 2011 at 12:36 pm

      ….making sure the charities will always be needed.

  4. May 13, 2011 at 10:42 am

    P.S. This problem with Blogger will probably hit the “rallying cries” for the Rally Against Debt from a multitude of blogs.

  5. May 13, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Poverty should be measured in terms of what you need to survive, and not on some random arbitrary jealousy statistic.

    A quick search on a rental site showed 18 properties in the southampton area of at least one bedroom, for £300 per month or less, so let’s allow £300 for rent, £200 for food, £250 for bills (council tax, heating, electric, etc). That’s £750 per month to live on.

    Wouldn’t be a great life, but I bet at least 95% of those households with kids in poverty have well over £9k per year income…

    • May 13, 2011 at 12:37 pm

      If we used sensible terms like those to measure poverty, all these childrens charities would suddenly be without a customer base. They would have to turn to smoking or something.

Comments are closed.