Читать книгу From Here to Prosperity - Thomas Burgess - Страница 13

What is considered the poverty line or threshold varies from country to country depending on the social context. For instance in the USA, the government’s definition of poverty is based on total income received; in 2014 it was set at $23,850 (total yearly income) for a family of four. It is estimated that most Americans will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.

In November 2012, the US Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty, including almost 20% of American children, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. Starting in the 1980s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations. Even in California, the so-called Golden State (from where I have been writing most of this book), after declining to a 20-year low of 12% in 2006, the official poverty rate in California spiked upward in the wake of the Great Recession: as of 2011, it was 16.9%. This amounts to more than six million Californians living in households with incomes below the federal poverty level (about $23,000 for a family of four). The Census ‘Supplemental Poverty Measure’, which incorporates California’s high cost of living and the effect of safety net programs such as food stamps, suggests that California’s poverty rate was even higher at 23.5% during 2009–2011. One third of America’s welfare recipients live in the state, which only comprises 12% (39m) of the USA population (319m): a reality completely out of line with perception.

In the UK, the most common measure of poverty as used in the UK Child Poverty Act 2010, is ‘household income below 60% of median income’. The median income is where half the households earn above the median and half the households earn below the median income level. Though in 2015 the government announced that it would change the definition, which critics say this would show less in poverty whereas many felt that there were in fact more.

In fact governments are pushing working people below the poverty line by taking away hard earned cash through income related taxes, significantly reducing disposable income, then replacing it with tax credits and other welfare benefits, a bizarre merry go round. Employment doesn’t guarantee a life above the poverty line; according to census data, more than one in 10 Americans who work full-time are still poor. In 2013, for the first time, there are more working households living in poverty in the UK than non-working ones, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the social policy research and development charity. It adds that low pay and part-time work had prompted an unprecedented fall in living standards. This means just over half of the 13 million people in poverty, surviving on less than 60% of the national median (middle) income, were from working families. The Poverty and Social Exclusion project in the UK (PSE), funded by Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that, over the last 30 years, the percentage of households living below society’s minimum standard of living has increased from 14% to 33% – despite the fact that the UK economy has doubled in size over the same period.

We need to solve the causes of economic inequality and poverty; this is not just about getting rid of poverty because unless we reduce economic inequality, poverty will always be there. Nor is it just about redistributing the pot. If wealth were to be used more effectively and not hoarded by the few, this would significantly increase economic growth and it would improve the financial status of a huge number of people. The redistribution of wealth and narrowing of income disparity through the old tax system is not the answer. The solution is more fundamental, a system is needed that does not allow these inequalities to get so vast in the first place; structural and radical changes are required to the capitalist system.