Poverty And Deprivation In Australia

Whilst these percentages had changed significantly it was also found that the types of people who were living under the poverty line were still the same. In this report it was found that 75 percent of those living below the poverty line were not in the workforce, and that the aged made up 41 per cent of all Australians that were living in poverty. (Williams, Lawrey 2000) Therefore it is clear that although the poverty line had risen significantly from 1975 to 1987, there has not been an improvement in the percentage of Australians living under the poverty line, but instead this percentage has increased.

In the 21st century the unemployed or sole parent households become reliant on income support and non wage benefits L. Kirkwood et al: 2006). In 2002, 8.6 per cent of GDP was spent on social assistance benefits in cash to Australian residents L. Kirkwood et al: 2006). Total welfare expenditure in 2005-06 was $90.2 billion, of which $61.3 billion (68%) was cash benefits and $28.9 billion (32%) benefits-in-kind (welfare services). Spending on welfare services in 2005-06 was 3.0% of GDP or $1,404 per person (Welfare, 2011).

Class divisions can result in tensions between people and different regions. Wage disputes between workers and employers in which workers try to improve their income levels are a common cause of dispute. These divisions can sometimes lead to social and economic instability. As shown earlier, inequality leads to poverty problems but the facts have not been explored. Australia has a very high level of relative poverty with 12.2% of Australians living below the poverty line, defined as receiving an income below 50% of the median income level. Poverty tends to trap families into a vicious cycle of low incomes and limited economic opportunities. High poverty levels also tend to be associated with increased levels of crime, suicide, disease and reduced life expectancy.

Changes within the welfare system as a result of policy shifts and by new thinking, more generally in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have had many methods, but the one that seemed most important, was that welfare recipients were required to do much more to justify their income support payments than before. The foundation of this new idea is that income support programs should allow individuals to maximise their participation in work. Due to the general shift in welfare administration, the number of activity test requirements an individual in Australia must meet in order to receive unemployment benefits, has expanded significantly since the early 1990s. This complex, overly bureaucratic process means that disadvantaged individuals cannot access the income support payments they require.

The disparities accounted for in the distribution of wealth and income tends to reflect wealth that is accumulated during a person’s working life and utilised during retirement. Whilst this sources the foundation of inequality, the distribution of income in Australia is influenced by socio-economic factors such as gender, age, occupation and ethnicity. Gender is a common inconsistency in various economies, during 2013 average weekly earnings for males were $1516 while females earned $1250, this is still coherent for males and females in the same occupational categories, and is augmented for opposite genders in different occupational categories. In terms of ethnicity, it has been recorded that persons born overseas earn more than persons born in Australia, that non-English speaking backgrounds earn less than English speaking backgrounds and the period of residence in Australia is proportional to the income earned. However, the lowest income earners in the Australian community are Indigenous Australians and being heavily reliant on government welfare, earn a substantial loss in income compared to that

According to the National Council of Welfare, The majority of those who rely on social assistance in Canada tend to be women, children and people with disabilities, it is noted that government policy focus on getting them into the paid workforce without adequate supports such as childcare, housing, and money for basic expenses, these policies are considered to be unrealistic and create much misery for the Canadians that are forced to live under these policies (Women, 2007). According to Census 2000, the average annual pre-tax income of women from all sources including government transfers was $22,885 or 62% that of what men receive. In Canada, female lone parent families have by far the lowest average total incomes among families. Although women continue to be among the poorest of the poor in Canada, they make up a disproportionate share of the population with low income 2.4 million women in 2001 compared to 1.9 million men (Work, 2004).

Proportionally, more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups live in poverty than any other group in Australia. Indigenous Australians have moderate access to economic and educational resources with a significant high level of social isolation, particularly in rural and remote locations. In Australia over one million people live in chronic deprivation. Indigenous Australians are among the population; they are more likely to experience severe disadvantages in comparison to non-indigenous Australians. In communities, there are clear disparities encompassing indigenous health, education, housing and employment levels. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people obtain the lowest employment rates in the county. 52.2 per cent of Indigenous Australians between the age of 15 and 64 years were unemployed in 2012-2013, compared with 24.4

Poverty is growing rapidly in our community, more and more people are becoming homeless due to the lack of employment. More than 2.5 million Australians are living below the poverty line, including 603,000 children. It is unsettling to know that the people of our community are experiencing hardship. We want to confront poverty and make it a thing of the past. The Australian Government is sending money abroad, helping other countries when there are people right in front of our door steps that are in need. Our approach is to stop wasting millions and millions of dollars on events, such as the 100 year Anzac commemoration (Costing over 300 million) and instead, use that money to lower the rate of uneployment and to reduce the number of people

An article by Hamilton (2012) highlights that because of the stigma associated with being poor and the fear of judgement, some people will spend money on things that are not considered to be essential. For example, several people came forward and described that they did not want their children to be teased or bullied for being different, so they made sure to buy them fashionable clothing items so they would not feel ostracized by their peers. This makes budgeting difficult, and as a result makes it harder to get out of poverty, but a popular reaction to this problem is to blame the parents for wasting money instead of budgeting ‘correctly’. However, families that did attempt to budget and save money were not automatically on their way out of poverty, and depending on their situation, some households still had to choose between paying rent or buying food. This further highlights that households are incredibly varied, so it is unfair to assume that what works for one household works for all of them. Furthermore, research has also found that people are often ashamed of claiming benefits or asking for support, to the point where they try to cope without it for as long as possible (Shildrick et al, 2010). For example, in a documentary called ‘Breadline Kids’ (True Vision, 2014), one woman and her granddaughter had gotten to the point where they could not afford food, but going to the foodbank felt like they were ‘giving up’. This does not fit with May’s claim that “too many people” preferred being dependent on benefits, and shows that the social connotations associated with poverty and needing benefits also affect how different households cope with their

In October 2014, access released a report revealing that poverty is growing in Australia with an estimate 2.5 million people or 13.9% of all people living below the internationally accepted poverty line. Australian bureau of statist’s income and expenditure surveys for 2011-12 and previous years found that 603,000 or 11.7% of all children were living in poverty in Australia. Poverty line 50% of median income for a single adult was $400 per week, for a couple with 2 children’s is $841 per week. Poverty rate has 2,548,496 people or 13.9% of all people living below the poverty line after taking account for housing costs. Child poverty is 602,804 or 17.7% of all children.

Poverty is “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor” (Dictionary.com, 2017). Based off this definition poverty is a condition that can cause a cascade of cause and effect actions that is detrimental to families and individuals both physically and mentally. Haan, Kaplan, & Camacho (2017) completed a study on the correlation between social and economic status and health in adults in Oakland, CA. They found that the lower the socioeconomic class the higher incidents of diseases and deaths related to chronic diseases (p.1161-1162). Just being without money or little money was not the only indication of health indication, a person living in an area with higher poverty issues

We need to take into consideration that income will not always reflect the extent to which a family can afford necessities. So when measuring and accessing whether someone lives in poverty we need to take into account both low income and material deprivation. This is because an individual may not fall below the poverty line, but lacks the basic necessities for everyday life and this needs to be acknowledged as it is an important factor contributing to a good quality of life. But as we know in this context, household income is measured after the effect of taxes and benefits (i.e., disposable income) and is equalized to adjust for differences in household size and composition, (McGuiness, 2017). We know this is a good concept as it is intended to account for the fact that a large household will need a higher level of income to have the same standard of living as a smaller household. Income can be measured before or after housing costs are deducted (BHC or AHC). Its suggested that poverty levels tend to be higher based on income measured after housing costs, because poorer households tend to spend higher proportion of their income on housing.

Income has a powerful effect on the health of young Australians as it decides how much money we are able to spend on health related products and also determines the quality of food we are able to buy, if we are able to afford private health insurance and alternate health services. People with a higher income are able afford a range of health options, and have the ability to provide themselves what is needed to obtain good health. While on the other hand, someone with a lower income must stay within budget, and may have to opt for the less healthy, cheaper options. Having a lower income, or being in poverty also increases one’s exposure to risk behaviors that harms their health. People with a lower income are also less likely to be able to afford a safe, secure

Poverty in Britain When the Liberal government came to power in 1906 they had no stated intention of government intervention of social policy. Between the years 1906 and 1914, the Liberals took steps to improve the health, living and working conditions of the groups of individuals their policies were designed for. The victory for the Liberals was a surprising landslide which left the Liberals with 401 seats and Labour with 53 seats.

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.