A child is considered to be in relative poverty if he or she lives in a household whose income is below 60% of the average in that year, and in absolute poverty if he or she lives in a household whose real-terms income is below 60% of the 2010/11 average – a period set as a benchmark in this year's Child Poverty Act.

Yes, that's right, 'absolute poverty' is defined by reference to other people's incomes, not by reference to what they might need to live on.

This isn't unnecessary quibbling about definitions. We need to understand both relative poverty (aka 'equality') as well as absolute poverty if we're to design a sensible, proportionate response to it. When you start with stupid definitions, you're clearly going to end up with a stupid debate and a stupid policy.

People who read this post also read:

• Why tell lies about the benefit cap?
• Toynbee’s idea of fairness
• Sometimes Ritchie shoots himself in the foot
• That David Cameron family tax haven non-story in full
• Charity questions for Polly

Filed under: Economics, Politics with tags guardian, idiots, poverty, welfare benefits