Are more people in poverty or not? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) publishes a report today saying that the numbers at risk of poverty have risen from nine million in 2008/09 to 11 million in 2014/15, which suggests the numbers “at risk of poverty” have increased from 15 per cent of the population to 17 per cent in six years. Yet figures from the independent Office for National Statistics suggest that there were 13.5 million living below the poverty line in 2014/15, unchanged from six years before. Allow me to explain.

The ONS figures are for those living in households with income below 60 per cent of the median after housing costs. That has been called the poverty line in Britain for most of postwar history. It was accepted by the Labour government, in particular in defining Tony Blair’s 1999 pledge to abolish child poverty by 2020. But it was disowned by Iain Duncan Smith, who as Work and Pensions Secretary tried to meet the target by redefining it.

But almost all social research still uses this definition of poverty, which is why the question about whether poverty has increased is usually the same as whether inequality has increased or not. The poverty line is a measure of relative poverty, because it is tied to average incomes. That means people who are defined as poor today enjoy a better material life than most people in the 1930s, but they are excluded from the kind of life enjoyed by most of their fellow citizens now. And it means that an increase in inequality is likely to mean more people in poverty, because at the bottom end of the income scale there will be more people further away from the average.

On these figures, overall levels of relative poverty and overall income inequality have not changed since about 1990, after a sharp increase during Margaret Thatcher’s time. So why do people feel that poverty and inequality have become worse?

The top 12 poorest cities in UK Show all 12 1 /12 The top 12 poorest cities in UK The top 12 poorest cities in UK 12. Wigan The study analysed the fortunes of 74 towns and cities. The index is based on changes in employment rates, levels of highly qualified workers, the numbers and types of full-time jobs, net migration rates, population changes and change in rank The top 12 poorest cities in UK 11. Stoke-on-Trent OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA The top 12 poorest cities in UK 10. Blackpool The top 12 poorest cities in UK 9. Bradford The top 12 poorest cities in UK 8. Middlesbrough The top 12 poorest cities in UK 7. Dundee The top 12 poorest cities in UK 6. Grimsby The top 12 poorest cities in UK 5. Kingston upon Hull The top 12 poorest cities in UK 4. Blackburn OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA The top 12 poorest cities in UK 3. Bolton The top 12 poorest cities in UK 2. Burnley The top 12 poorest cities in UK 1. Rochdale

Part of the explanation was provided by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last month. It found that men’s earnings had become more unequal, as more men are in part-time, low-paid work. Conversely, women’s earnings are more equal as their employment trends are the opposite. But incomes overall have become more equal because fewer people are unemployed and because pensioners have become better off. Finally, the IFS found that, despite overall greater equality, the incomes of the best-off 1 per cent have increased by about a quarter since the mid-1990s.

For many people, therefore, society feels more unequal, even if the overall numbers say (slightly) the opposite. But there is something else going on too, which is where the JRF research comes in. It uses a different way of defining poverty, called the Minimum Income Standard. This uses surveys of public opinion to define what most people think they need for an “acceptable” standard of living.

This is a way of thinking about poverty that goes back to a research project called Breadline Britain in 1983, written up by Joanna Mack and Stewart Lansley in Poor Britain. At the time, when unemployment was high, their work defined 8.5 million people as in poverty – in that they lacked “socially perceived necessities”.

This approach to measuring poverty has since been taken up by Loughborough University and the JRF. The definitions are not quite the same, but the numbers in poverty using a similar method seem to have increased.

Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Show all 10 1 /10 Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Bill Gates - $75 bn The creator of Microsoft is worth $78 billion. He has topped the list for 17 out of the past 22 years - though his net worth shrank by $4.2bn (£3bn) to $75bn (£53.7bn). Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Amancio Ortega - $67 bn The Spanish business who set up the Zara chain of high-street shops is worth $67 billion. REUTERS/ AP Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Warren Buffet - $60.8 bn Warren buffet is the world's most successful investor. Forbes rates him as being worth $60.8 billion. Getty Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Carlos Slim Helu - $50 bn Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate, is this year’s biggest loser with a fortune of $50 billion, down from $77.1 billion last year. Getty Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Jeff Bezos - $45.2 bn Amazon’s Jeff Bezos moved up to the fifth from the fifteenth spot last year; his net worth increased to $45.2 billion. Getty Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Mark Zuckerberg - $44.6 bn The biggest gainer on the 2016 list is Mark Zuckerberg , whose fortune is up $11.2 billion for a total net worth of $44.6 billion. He is the sixth richest in the world. Getty Images Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Larry Ellison - $43.6 bn The American entrepreneur has a fortune of $43.6 billion Bloomberg Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Michael Bloomberg - $40 bn Michael Bloomberg, whose media and financial empire has created a personal fortune of $40 bn, is said to be willing to spend up to $1bn on a presidential campaign AP Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Charles Koch and David Koch - $39.6 bn Charles Koch, along with brother David Koch of Koch Industries are joint sixth and are valued at $39.6 billion. Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world Liliane Bettencourt - $36.1 bn Liliane Bettencourt is the heir to the L’Oreal empire Getty Images

It would seem that the income most people think is needed for an acceptable life has risen faster than incomes generally. So we would now think of someone as “poor” if they cannot afford, say, a dishwasher, when we wouldn’t have thought that was necessary in the 1980s.

So the solution to the puzzle is that, objectively, poverty hasn’t increased, but that people feel it has, which means that, in a way, it has.

The paradox of this paradox, though, is that objective poverty and inequality are likely to rise in the next few years. The planned cuts in tax credits will take away more from low-paid workers than they are gaining from the National Living Wage. Then everyone will be able to agree that poverty is getting worse.