Improving Rural Poverty And Level Of Income Inequality

measure after tax) which calculates tax from filler data, is Canada’s official poverty line and should be used as a reliable measure for child poverty in Canada. The second article, titled CO2.2 Child Poverty computes the possibility of children living in poverty via two methods. The first is through the child income poverty rate, which examines children from birth up until the age of 17. This method uses the proportion of the children and compares the equvialised post-tax-and-transfer income approximately fifty percent of the annual median. The second method uses rates of poverty in families that have children as well as working and non-working parents. The type of household studied here can be a single adult with minimum one child and two adults with minimum one child. The second method seems to be more beneficial in looking at child poverty as it analyzes and goes into more depth of a household and the types of families involved

Measuring the amount of households currently receiving subsistence allowances and during the second year of an income increase, conduct another measurement of the households receiving government assistance. The reason for my design and method, is because some of the participants may not want to expose themselves to such a research, because they may feel humiliated by their livelihood. The method of the data analysis is to attempt to get at 100 participants from four regions in the country; the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and West Coast. With the collected data from these regions, the questions can be answered though the responses. The responses can contribute to theory by providing evidence that increase in the minimum works or does not

Whether or not one agrees with the economist’s observation on measuring poverty through the income, the analytical problem that is demonstrated is the lack of income can prevent individual from accessing fundamental needs for minimum standard of well being. In areas where individuals have very low wages, inflation causes the area to fall deeper into poverty. Inflation is defined as a general increase in prices, not minimum wages. Therefore, understanding the measurements of poverty can led to exploring sufficient solution to help decline the poverty level in rural areas.

Clearly, we can see from the table that 11% of all households whose total amount of population was 1,837,000 lived in poverty. The proportion of poor single person with no children was 19% (population 54,000), whereas sole parent had 21% people (population 232,000) who lived in poverty. However, couple with no children had a 7% of population (population 211,000) living in poverty, whilst the proportion of poor couple with children who was poor account for 12% (933,000). In addition, there was 6% of single aged person who lived in poverty, whereas only 4% aged people (population 48,000) lived in poverty.

It’s well known that elevated and unrelenting poverty is excessively found in rural areas, with isolated rural areas experiencing the utmost poverty. Mammen and Lawrence (2006) state that time limits enforced by

A common misconception about family poverty is that the parents don’t work. Contrary to this, it is shown that most families living in poverty have at least one working adult. To raise the living standards, of these children, we should first raise the minimum wage to at least $10 per hour in all provinces, to ensure that families will make an income above the poverty line. As well, job stability is essential to the economic well-being of poor working families. This can be insured, by promising parents/guardians below the poverty line a chance to work at a job for 10 months, without being laid off or dismissed.

Table created by Emma Greaves – data sourced from (P. Townsend (1979) ‘Poverty in the United Kingdom’, Penguin, Harmondsworth, p.250 as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

“56 per cent of rural households fall into the two lower income quintiles compared to 36 per cent of capital city households and 45 per cent of other urban households” (Faps, 2011). The cost of food in rural and remote areas is up to 10 per cent higher than those in metropolitan areas (Faps, 2011). “This gives a “double deprivation” effect, resulting from lower levels of income combined with higher basic costs” (Faps, 2011). Poor physical and mental health reflects the lower education levels and higher poverty levels in those living in rural areas (Faps, 2011). This shows that living in remote areas is a huge determinant of health.

There appears to be problems with the Income Support and Working Families Tax Credit (WFTS). This suggests that as many as 1.5 million children in families defined as poor were living beyond the reach of the Government’s main instruments for tackling child poverty.

The Tangible resources are productive income assets (e.g., land, orchards, gardens), housing, livestock fencing and pens, and preventive assets (e.g., water and food storage containers, latrine, water filters, tools for the disposal of animal and human feces, soap). These tangible resources are relevant to children’s vulnerability. First, income is a critical factor that enhances higher capacity of low-frequency households to make investments in living arrangements. However, women in families with low socioeconomic status found themselves in a double-blind, lacking both the land to meet fuelwood and food requirements and the income to improve better housing, family hygiene, sanitation, etc. High-frequency households are families living in impoverished

The growing rates of unemployment correlate with the higher rates of poverty seen in rural America compared to urban areas. The graph below demonstrates the gap between rural and urban poverty rates. In addition, many of the manufacturing jobs that still exist provide low wages. With residents earning less money than their urban counterparts, housing is in some cases less obtainable than in metropolitan areas.

It is argued that this ‘investment poverty’ criterion is a stronger criterion than the conventional focus on ‘welfare poverty’, as households above a welfare-determined poverty line could still be investment poor.

Brady, David, and Linda Burton. The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty., 2016. Print.

As my investigation progressed I found that likewise to Booth’s research into poverty the lowest wages to the working class is 21 shillings which I have concluded to be 14.5% of the population. Along with this, the image acts as evidence to that the statistic since an average middle or upper class person can afford to spend 60% on food and the rest on clothing or leisure items, whereas a family of 4 live off 21 shillings a day.

In this book, it is found that the author manage to give detail explanations on each factors that is believed to cause poverty. The author makes progress and develops the ideas convincingly by providing adequate information based on statistical data and empirical evidences. In chapter four, the author argues that level of education affects the potential earnings of household. Indeed he writes, “The access to education expands the potential for human capital thereby enabling one to qualify for better-paid jobs” (29). To support his argument, the author proves it based on the results of the survey in which it is presented in table 4.1 that show the distribution of household heads based on the level of general education.