As we know, poverty in this country is normally measured in relative terms, not absolute. As the Guardian points out:
Using the most commonly accepted definition of relative poverty – based on household income after payment of housing costs –
……
poverty is having a household income below 60% of the national average.
Yes, we all know that, I just like to keep pointing it out. When we talk of child poverty, poverty in general, this is what is meant, not that people have insufficient money, but that they have less than others. If incomes for the rich rise faster than those for the low paid, then we can have an increase in poverty by our measurements, despite the fact that low incomes are rising in real terms. It’s an argument about equality, not one about actual levels of income.
But what really gets me is this line:
About 1.9 million
pensioners have been lifted out of absolute poverty since 1997, thanks
to an £11bn investment in higher pensions and a pension credit.
An absurd debasement of the word investment. This is current spending, not even Gordon Brown or Len Crook would try to claim this as investment. It just sounds so much better though, doesn’t it?
Leave a Reply