Stuge Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Is a daily expenditure of Rs 31 enough to sustain a family of five in a city like Delhi and Mumbai? Country's top-most planning body, Planning Commission, says yes. In its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the panel quoting the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations said the urban poverty line is fixed at an expenditure of Rs 4,284 per month while it is Rs 3,905 a month in rural areas. It means that the money is enough for a family of five to incur expenses on health, food and education. A family spending more would fall in the above poverty line (APL) category. Jean Dreze, member of the Sonia Gandhi headed National Advisory Council, while questioning the adequacy of Tendulkar committee report said in the committee's poverty-line basket, the allowance for health expenditure is less than one rupee a day barely enough to buy an aspirin. The panel had filed the affidavit after the Supreme Court asked the commission to revise norms of per capita amount looking to the price index of May 2011 in the Right to Food case. The poverty line is based on expenditure as on June 2011. Another NAC member Aruna Roy said the affidavit was reflective of the government's lack of empathy for the poor. Ūt is obvious that this extremely low estimated expenditure is a threshold aimed only at artificially reducing the number of persons ÅÃelow poverty line so as to reduce government expenditure on the poor, she said in a signed statement. The SC had in July perused the Planning Commission's affidavit and expressed its reservations at the fact that the poverty line at the national level fixed by the body, that is Rs 579 per capita per month consumption expenditure for the urban areas and Rs 447 per capita per month for the rural areas, are fixed at 2004-05 prices. A bench headed by justice Dalveer Bhandari did not appreciate the affidavit as the court had on May 14 specifically directed the Commission to revise the norms of per capita keeping the price index of May 2011 in mind. The direction was given after SC learnt the Tendulkar Committee had fixed daily earning of Rs 20 in urban and R1s 5 in rural to define a BPL family. The committee had determined the poverty line at the 2004-05 prices. The final poverty lines would be available after the completion of 2011-12 survey by the NSSO. According to the Commission, the poverty line would vary from state to state because of price differentials. http://www.hindustantimes.com/Rs-31-day-enough-for-family-of-5-Plan-panel/Article1-748224.aspx
Clarke Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 There's some basic arithmetic problem here. Rs. 31 per day means 900 odd per month while in the same para they're talking of 4284 per month. It must be 31 per person which by itself may not make sense in these times.
nikred Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 There's some basic arithmetic problem here. Rs. 31 per day means 900 odd per month while in the same para they're talking of 4284 per month. It must be 31 per person which by itself may not make sense in these times. They say 31/day for a family of 5 is enough but still the poor on average are spending 142/day. So I think as per the committee the poor are wasting their money. Maybe they are purchasing too many luxury items. :hitler:
akshayxyz Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Spend-Rs-32-a-day-Govt-says-you-cant-be-poor/articleshow/10058373.cms 32 is the figure shown all over TV and above article. OP took out 1 Re tax for posting the article on ICF ;)
rkt.india Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 There's some basic arithmetic problem here. Rs. 31 per day means 900 odd per month while in the same para they're talking of 4284 per month. It must be 31 per person which by itself may not make sense in these times. yes..it is 32 per person per day,. not 32 per family per day, 900 odd per person per month.
rkt.india Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 They say 31/day for a family of 5 is enough but still the poor on average are spending 142/day. So I think as per the committee the poor are wasting their money. Maybe they are purchasing too many luxury items. :hitler: This is 32 per person per day,. not 32 per family per day, 900 odd per person per month. do total 3600 odd per 4 person in the family per month.
Stuge Posted September 21, 2011 Author Posted September 21, 2011 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Spend-Rs-32-a-day-Govt-says-you-cant-be-poor/articleshow/10058373.cms 32 is the figure shown all over TV and above article. OP took out 1 Re tax for posting the article on ICF ;) naah ! if you spend Rs32 you're rich then :P between Rs 31 was posted in HT article ;)
varun Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Hmm.. spending 32 per day per person.. could be doable, if you're living as a family of say 4. That way you get to spend ~130 per day .. which turns out to be ~4000 per month. Assuming the monthly rent (including utilities) for a small shanty is 1500.. They end up spending around 80 per day on groceries which is barely survivable. But I wouldn't call these people under the poverty line. If a family is spending say 4000/month, then I'm assuming they're probably earning 6000/month, which wouldn't classify as poor IMO.
rkt.india Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Hmm.. spending 32 per day per person.. could be doable, if you're living as a family of say 4. That way you get to spend ~130 per day .. which turns out to be ~4000 per month. Assuming the monthly rent (including utilities) for a small shanty is 1500.. They end up spending around 80 per day on groceries which is barely survivable. But I wouldn't call these people under the poverty line. If a family is spending say 4000/month, then I'm assuming they're probably earning 6000/month, which wouldn't classify as poor IMO. but people have other things as well on which they need to spend that money like education, clothing, etc. They are certainly poor.
varun Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 but people have other things as well on which they need to spend that money like education' date=' clothing, etc. They are certainly poor.[/quote'] Well government programs are supposed to provide free education for the less privileged, so that should be taken care of. I might've been harsh in calling them not poor, but in the indian context poverty is way way below this line. Maybe we should have multiple levels of poverty in the Indian context (extremely poor, poor, lower middle class, etc). In India the salaries increase so dramatically as we move from one class to the other. To us looking at the poor from the comforts of our middle, and upper middle class living rooms, it might seem that this money is miniscule, but in fact it is enough to survive. Having said that, is this log-scale exponential increase in salaries a good thing ? Absolutely not. This is one of the ills of our society that the foundation is so underpaid (i.e. the people who are actually building modern india -- construction workers, cleaners, food stall workers, etc). In order for a society to be healthy, the maximum amount of money that a salaried person at the top of our social pyramid can earn should be in the context of the minimum wage that a person at the bottom of the social pyramid earns.
rkt.india Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Well government programs are supposed to provide free education for the less privileged, so that should be taken care of. I might've been harsh in calling them not poor, but in the indian context poverty is way way below this line. . yes,...In India we have poorer people than those who earn 6000 rs per month. Distribution of money is a problem as well.
1983-2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 definition of poverty varies according to different nations
Ram Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Oh boy.. the contrast couldnt be more starker.. Fox news recently made a huge fuss about how most families classified as being 'poor' in the United States have Television sets, DVD players, air-conditioners, dish-washers etc. And here we have, our own govt. saying that all you need to do to be classified as not being poor is to simply survive and not die. Inflation in India is simply going through the roof. To say that a family of 5 can sustain on 150 rupees a day seems laughable.
Stuge Posted September 22, 2011 Author Posted September 22, 2011 ^ ram can you post US classification of being poor ? with source :)
Ram Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 ^ ram can you post US classification of being poor ? with source :) Pretty sure if you do a basic google search you can find the criterion. But i think any individual making less than $20,000/year or a family making less than $40,000/year as classifed as poor here.
punjabi_khota Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Pretty sure if you do a basic google search you can find the criterion. But i think any individual making less than $20,000/year or a family making less than $40,000/year as classifed as poor here. Nope. It is around 20k for a family of 4. 20k for a single person cannot be poor man, wtf you smoking.
Ram Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Nope. It is around 20k for a family of 4. 20k for a single person cannot be poor man, wtf you smoking. Yes, you're correct. The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure (developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration). They are updated each year by the Census Bureau. The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposesÃÇor instance, preparing the estimates of the number of Americans in poverty for each year's report. Values of the poverty thresholds for the years 1980?010 for families of different sizes are available on the Census Bureau's Web site. For example, for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2010 poverty threshold is $22.113. For one- or two-person family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2010 threshold for one individual under age 65 is $11,344, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $10,458. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm#whatis The figure of $10,500/year (or $900/month) for an individual is actually pretty decent. It is certainly possible that, with that money, someone can rent a modest room in an in-expensive neighborhood, pay their bills, eat a reasonable diet and possibly afford amenities like cell-phone, car etc. I know this, coz I have done all of this as a student living on a tight budget. But our govt. is saying that anyone who can barely eat 3 meals a day should not be classiifed as poor, which i think is ridiculous.
Recommended Posts