Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.
Poverty is a disease that is usually identified with the Third World and developing countries, where the result is usually death from hunger or disease (Whelan, Maitre, 2012, pp.251-272). Despite the fact that this phenomenal type of poverty is found from time to time in the United Kingdom, there is a more cautious level of poverty that flourishes in the United Kingdom; to which you can ascribe less money and give consent to business as always, than others in a comparative society. Child poverty is a direct symptom of poverty among the adult population, in any case, in vain, as an adult, the identification of poverty as a child can have lifelong results. In April 2011, the United Kingdom was home to 13 million people living below the poverty line, including 3.6 million children, and these figures are expected to increase. This type of poverty is not isolated among people, families or people’s meetings. Inadequate resources are cushioned by genuine money, which encompasses the broader problem of the lack of human and social capital (Whelan, Maitre, 2012, pp.251-272).
Child poverty has been portrayed by Peter Townsend, humanist and author of the Action Group against Child Poverty, when people do not have the resources to perform the type of feeding routine, they are interested in the exercises and have living conditions and courtesy which are standard, or if nothing else empowered and supported, in the social orders in which they have a place. Far from the images of poverty in the third world that we find in the media, child poverty in the United Kingdom may be a more enviable subject, but nevertheless of great criticality and expansion in the current economic climate and due to the Government policies. It is normal for child poverty to increase by 300,000 by 2015/16 (Tinson, 2016, pp.3-7). If this ascending pattern is not achieved with the government’s goal of eliminating child poverty by 2020, it will not be achieved. Child poverty can occur through changing causes in the United Kingdom that are identified with family structure and income (Mason, Hood, 2011, pp.490-495).
An intriguing paradox is that children themselves are an important part that contributes to their own poverty. When a child is considered, the family’s income goes much further. At a time when reception is most needed, parents face a risky decision to return to work or stay at home; they have negative results in terms of family costs in terms of higher costs or lower incomes. Several parents will be supported by the social security system, but the current system of increasing the benefits of inflation leads to a relative reduction in the levels of benefits, unlike the typical advantages (Betancourt, Khan, 2008, pp.317-328).
The United Kingdom finds most of its population at a relatively lower income than most other EU countries, and the continuing declaration of a 1% expansion with some advantages will simply exacerbate inequality in the United Kingdom. The 2012 Equal Equals report “Save the Children” proposes that the contrast between rich and poor be huge and that inequality is a significant contribution to relative poverty, in addition to confirming the advice of educator Richard Wilkinson at the University of Nottingham, where the big differential in wealth is associated with unsuccessful results (Betancourt, Khan, 2008, pp.317-328).
Child poverty has a direct and indirect impact on social orders. However, the impact of poverty affects entire networks, however, they increase taxes, negative consequences for the economy and tensions in open administrations. A 2008 report, distributed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, found that a child who has been exposed to child poverty is likely to experience the bad consequences of birth and health problems as they mature. In a similar report, Griggs and Walker associate low income with health problems caused by poor housing and less protected places for the game. In any case, maternal health also affects the health of children; it blooms when it rises above the centuries like bacteria, breaking flat from mother to child. The longer-term effect of child poverty can be found as a greater risk of physical and emotional health problems in adulthood and a shorter future (Cluver, 2011, pp.336-343).
In addition, the disease can cause poverty; relationships that are progressing to become bi-directional, because poverty is also harmful to health. Results are also observed in educational results, which, in addition, affect employment prospects. From the educational level, the explicit point of view is obvious from the age of 2, and the hole spreads through compulsory education, so that children with poverty are six times more likely to leave school without the skills that generate a lower labour force, leading to lifelong gain. In fact, even those who work are likely to have a profession without talent and will be paid ineffectively in adulthood (Betancourt, Khan, 2008, pp.317-328).
Bearing in mind the ultimate goal of combating poverty, we must break this cycle. Until now, Barnado’s intervention has helped people who are easier to help. In April 2004, the government developed a policy that provides for the management of child poverty by addressing problems with low levels of achievement, aspirations and discoveries in any case, clarifying the adoption of Carter-Wall and Whitfield in 2012 did not reveal a connection between the wishes of the parents and the educational results. It is known that in social orders, where the contrast between the richest and the richest is the most remarkable (Cluver, 2011, pp.336-343), future problems are reduced, more health problems, educational results and more social problems, indistinguishable results associated with poverty are reduced. It is assumed that families with one parent are twice as likely to live in poverty as families of two family parents. The goals behind this are mainly related to the lack of work and inadequate benefits. The fact that parents cannot work can be caused by the fact that they face problems of physical or emotional well-being and need more help to overcome the obstacles that remain in their direction. In addition, because of the increase in spending on the child’s mind, the father simply cannot go to work (Betancourt, Khan, 2008, pp.317-328).
According to the Contract for Daily Care in 2009, 42% of single parents looking for work said that the mental costs of children prevented them from getting a job. A single-family family with two children requires £ 258 after spending on housing, every week, keeping in mind that the ultimate goal is to overcome the poverty line. However, with the current benefits, borrowing a family will receive £ 219 in benefits, and in this sense, the family will never have the opportunity to escape poverty (Betancourt, Khan, 2008, pp.317-328). From those parents of low-income families who can look for any type of employment, they are looking for some poorly paid work, without prospects of movement or work, which provides frequent sporadic hours and eccentric income. Another explanation for families in poverty is dependence on the big intrigue, here and now, of wage credits. Of $ 7,000 million. High costs of intrigue, advances were given in 2008, 900 million pounds sterling, consisting of salary loans (Crivello, 2009, pp.51-72). A family that does not start from one pay check to the next will receive one of these high up-front advances, pay it when the payday comes, and eventually take another loan to the next pay check, ending with a continuing meandering commitment (Crivello, 2009, pp.51-72).
Child poverty in the United Kingdom has its results and hurts. Poverty can overflow into the life of the child from the very beginning. A child naturally recognised in poverty will weigh 200 grams more generally than a child who was not naturally put into poverty, which will affect the child’s health in the early stages and, possibly, in the future. This bad start to life harms the child and can cause the child to have an ongoing illness or even have a disability. It also reduces a person’s future. Poverty also exerts extreme pressure on the UK economy. It has been estimated that poverty costs the UK economy at 25 billion pounds every year. Estimate the costs of children’s poverty (Ridge, 2011, pp.73-84).
Be that as it may, from the point of view of adjusting wealth, the very possibility of employment will not provide a way out of poverty; Low salaries and high expenses for caring for a child for parents mean that they are not regularly happier. 66% of children experience childhood in a home where at least one of the parent’s works in this way, any mediation must ensure that the work provides an opportunity to improve the conditions of overall family wealth. It is expected that the growth of child poverty will continue, except when the obstacles are divided to gain additional wealth through employment. In the case of its fruitfulness, it can very well guarantee that poverty will not advance to another age (Ridge, 2011, pp.73-84). Therefore, any mediation to fight poverty must take into account the redistribution of wealth, but the system of taxes and benefits.
Generally, it is considered that the United Kingdom stands out among the most outstanding indicators of child poverty in the industrialized world. The findings of the UNICEF report for 2007, an ambitious assessment of the lives and prosperity of children and young people in economically developed countries, sparked this idea, which found that in 21 countries the United Kingdom sported childish poverty and, moreover, worried. The report “Ending Child Poverty”, conducted in 2008, found that about four million children live in poverty in the United Kingdom. (Qvortrup, 2015, pp. 74-93) suggests that there are some key factors that can make children especially weak, despite poverty (Field, 2010).
Almost three million children live in families with one parent and are especially at risk of falling into poverty as children. Children raised in such circumstances are probably part of the system of proven benefits of methods. This creates the likelihood that the child will be exposed to poverty for a long time. The administrator (Qvortrup, 2015, pp. 74-93) indicates that the truth that most single parents are women in low-paid jobs is reasonable in relation to fraud in the sexual introduction of marriage and work. (Cluver, 2011, pp.336-343) confirm this statement, stating that children in single-parent families demonstrate a higher level of poverty than children who are members of the families of the two parents.
Concentrates in children of ethnic minorities and poverty are not adequate. (Vigilando, 2009, p.377) explains that racial exclusion also effectively contributes to child poverty among ethnic gatherings. A slope in working conditions leads to the fact that ethnic minorities are out of control of low wages and unemployment; The threat of unemployment for people of ethnic systems is three to four times more visible than the danger of white people. Clear links between child poverty and disability. As stated (Betancourt, Khan, 2008, p. 317-328), families with children with a cripple are among the “poorest of the poor”. Poverty also affects children who live in families where there are adults with disabilities and a problem that is being separated for a long time. A survey conducted by the Department of Labor and Pensions in 2002 showed that 76% of children in families with a disease or disability received a key key position (regardless of whether disability benefits, substantial disability or income increase) (Cluver, 2011, p. .336-343) for at least two years. The state of family employment has also become the central theme of poverty, which affects children. In 1995/96, 54 per cent of all children living in poverty lived in families without work. Unemployment in families brings economic damage and has negative results for the desires and social development of the child (Manning, 2009, p.377). In general, through careful observation of the above elements, it is clear that these are not disconnected dangers, but rather opportunities that are naturally related and that are maintained most of the time. Any policy proposed to combat child poverty should manage these risk factors, focusing on the environment and the conditions in which children affected by poverty (Mason, Hood, 2011, pp.490-495).
Government Measures To Alleviate Child Poverty
In 1997, the Labour government won, they achieved the policy of the movement in order to combat child poverty. In 1999, Tony Blair promised to kill child poverty for 20 years. Subsequently, the levels of movement of the policy have expanded considerably, and an extensive system of changes in well-being was known, along with the control of child poverty. According to Ridge (2004), this policy is divided into three broad area (Manning, 2009, p.377)s:
In order to keep abreast of this policy, the government has affirmed the annual poverty control called “The Open Door for All”. These reports outline the actions that need to be taken to accelerate poverty reduction, especially those that were designed to increase opportunities and mathematical abilities, while they reduced the lack of school appearance, school evasion and early pregnancy. Plans were introduced, for example, “No doubt begin” in England and Wales. This action was designed to give children a better start in everyday life. Gordon Brown (2000) announced that the main task is to currently hold about 250 companies in 2002. This figure is satisfied, and today there are more than 500 ways to combat this action. Between 16 and 18 years of 2004, donations for educational assistance were strengthened, taking into account the ultimate goal of giving children from poor families the opportunity to stay in school before the school period. As of 2008, children whose families did not earn exactly $ 20,817 per year were examined £ 30 per week to pay the cost of the training (Whelan, Maitre, 2012, pp. 251-272).
Another strategy used by the government to reduce child poverty is the introduction in 2003 of a labor tax credit (WTC) and a child tax credit (CTC). In any case, the WTC was for low-income families, as well as for women, for example, single mothers in the workplace. At a basic level, this is an opportunity to increase the incomes of low-paid workers, including people who do not have children. In most cases, the organization pays you a salary or an adjacent fee, and the amount you receive depends on your income (“Poverty, 2014”). In 2006, low-wage workers may claim up to £ 1,410 for the left-over power with 25 years of development and up to £ 300 for a couple who did not acquire exactly £ 8,000 a year. The CTC offers support for families who have little respect for their employment status. It is also paid, despite the WTC, and any provision for children finances the family. The amount in which the family has the same privilege depends on their income. In 2006, the measure for children was 545 pounds per year for older workers, up to 2,420 pounds for professionals with low incomes, with additional money for children and disabled children (Tinson, 2016, pp.3-7).
As noted by (Whelan, Maitre, 2012, pp.251-272)in addition to orienting support for the poorest families, both WTC and CTC plan to improve motivation for work by reducing the poverty trap. Simply put, families are never more severely punished with the benefits and taxes lost while working. In general, the Government of Labour has tried to fulfil its guarantee to address the problem of child poverty in the United Kingdom. This is further reinforced by the assessment of(Whelan, Maitre, 2012, pp.251-272)) that children and young people, when everything is said to have ended, turned out to be much more unmistakable in the political process under the leadership of the Labourites, and this in itself is a remarkable event.
Addressing Child Poverty
During the last decade, the Labor government passed numerous legislators who expected a decline in child poverty. Economy and paid work was the goal of combining philosophy, aimed at solving this problem. Away from the network, the benefits and research on the role of continuous progress of work, is mainly convinced that families can raise their children because of the poverty line and use the peak of economic recovery in countries. The discussion changed: in-kind for child support and credit system taxes, the introduction of “Begin Start” and changes in the education system, now candidates for the benefit of paying an additional fee for how the state works (Davidson, 2013).
Perhaps the most important achievement of the last decade is how they are concerned about child poverty and today are generally divided. This caused three meetings of strikers in the political system in the UK, who see the problem and thus embrace to watch it. In any case, under the surface there is doubt about the regrettable weight between child poverty and