[oligotroph]

Life on the breadline: welcome to the world of Britain's working poor

http://www.guardian....in-working-poor

The Rowleys are a hard-working married couple with two children. They do not earn enough to be in the 'squeezed middle' – the group that has attracted so much media coverage. They only just manage to put food on the table. In the first part of an occasional series, Yvonne Roberts takes Conservative MP Dan Poulter to Essex to see what life is like for this hidden demographic...

[cashinmattress]

A wannabe, non-apprenticeshipped carpenter and a vet receptionist?

I suppose its fair to say that the banks have preyed upon their tiny intellects, and that their politicians have failed them in regulating said banks.

Fvcking morons though. Chav numpties.

This IS Britain folks.

[long time lurking]

With a 10x joint earnings mortgage

The elephant in the room that all politicians refuse to acknowledge

This post has been edited by long time lurking: 18 March 2012 - 02:51 PM

[winkie]

 long time lurking, on 18 March 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

With a 10x joint earnings mortgage

The elephant in the room that all politicians refuse to acknowledge

Everybody has been allowed to borrow money, unfortunately not everyone is able to pay it back....put it on the slate of the future, so seeing to it the future will have to be borrowing more.

[wonderpup]

Quote

Their interest-only mortgage payments are £416 a month.

So even if they hang on long enough to pay that interest there's a brick wall coming down the track- unless there's a repayment vehicle hidden away somewhere they forgot to mention.

[The Generation Game]

Are there only 4 weeks in a month now? Time for the mail to run a story on innumeracy?

I've just found over another hundred quid a month income for them down the back of the sofa (and probably another 90 quid of expenses)

[winkie]

 wonderpup, on 18 March 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

So even if they hang on long enough to pay that interest there's a brick wall coming down the track- unless there's a repayment vehicle hidden away somewhere they forgot to mention.

Very few on IO have a repayment vehicle or one that would repay anything near what will be required......They have no intention of repaying, they will borrow as much as they can lay their hands on...it is only the interest costs they are concerned with, ask the government they know.

[Secure Tenant]

 long time lurking, on 18 March 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

With a 10x joint earnings mortgage

The elephant in the room that all politicians refuse to acknowledge

To be fair they only renting from the bank. It would no doubt cost more to the rent from a BTL landlord and they might qualify for housing benefit if they rented from a private landlord.

[mfs1959]

 cashinmattress, on 18 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

A wannabe, non-apprenticeshipped carpenter and a vet receptionist?

I suppose its fair to say that the banks have preyed upon their tiny intellects, and that their politicians have failed them in regulating said banks.

Fvcking morons though. Chav numpties.

This IS Britain folks.

Sadly, not quite the case - both started degrees and she betrays elements of financial wisdom. Perhaps they believed houses always rise in price. For which we can blame the press and TV.

[oligotroph]

 "Steed", on 18 March 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

To be fair they only renting from the bank. It would no doubt cost more to the rent from a BTL landlord and they might qualify for housing benefit if they rented from a private landlord.

This is a good example of the perils of borrowing from the bank of mum and dad:

- Their interest-only mortgage payments are £416 a month. Richard's father also lent the couple £30,000 for the deposit
- The kids are 5 years old so she wouldnt have been working when the mortgage was taken out.
- I don't know what a young squaddie would get paid, but lets be generous and assume 20K

That makes the mortgage £126 K, just over 5 X his old salary.

In their current situation, you might think it would make sense for them to sell up and rent, but if they do that:

Due to negative equity they will only come out with £15 K
£15 K in savings is just enough to disqualify them from a whole range of benefits
The father probably still wants his 30K back

They are screwed either way

[cashinmattress]

 mfs1959, on 18 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Sadly, not quite the case - both started degrees and she betrays elements of financial wisdom. Perhaps they believed houses always rise in price. For which we can blame the press and TV.

He: Unfinished degree in leisure management???

She: A foundation degree in animal management???

Sadly, your post is not quite the case.

As I said, a NON-apprenticed builder/carpenter (soon to be highlighted on cowboy builders no doubt).

And she has an NVQ in petting cats and dogs.

Numpties, exactly what they are. And now in serious tick to the banks.

Meh.

[council dweller]

 oligotroph, on 18 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

This is a good example of the perils of borrowing from the bank of mum and dad:

- Their interest-only mortgage payments are £416 a month. Richard's father also lent the couple £30,000 for the deposit
- The kids are 5 years old so she wouldnt have been working when the mortgage was taken out.
- I don't know what a young squaddie would get paid, but lets be generous and assume 20K

That makes the mortgage £126 K, just over 5 X his old salary.

In their current situation, you might think it would make sense for them to sell up and rent, but if they do that:

Due to negative equity they will only come out with £15 K
£15 K in savings is just enough to disqualify them from a whole range of benefits
The father probably still wants his 30K back

They are screwed either way

They certainly are.

Going back about 7 years if they lost their house and managed to get a council house then they'd only have to pay 50 quid per week. Now you're talking about 100 and rising. An avenue closed off.

Realistically they'll be on the breadline for life.....so they should cut all expenses down to the bone.Washing machine insurance? Pets? Do us a favour....

[billfunk]

He pays £400/500 a month in income tax and £130 in council and they receive £900 a month in benefits. Pointless recycling of money that no doubt keeps someone in a job.

She spends 45% of her income getting to work.

£450 on an IO mortgage that will only go up.

An economically unviable family unit spending most of their money on taxation and usury. Two children so they will be OK for the next decade methinks.

[council dweller]

 billfunk, on 18 March 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

She spends 45% of her income getting to work.

Yes, there are very likely cleaning jobs within walking/cycling distance....or maybe she just enjoys driving.

[billfunk]

And...they are actually showing a surplus of around £300 a month so they should have no worries. Ha. I have lived on a budget like theirs and the £300 a month surplus is always pssed against the wall pretty easily. The Grauniad probably omitted these costs as it seeks to paint them as responsible people.

10 fags a day = £100
12 beers a week = £50

Multipy by two and you would have reached your budget. As a singleton I used to do frivalous things like go for meals with friends, dates and have barbecues.

Personally my own view on the subject of the working poor (including me) is to allow them to be peasants again. The drive to promote sustainable living combined with the high and rising price of fuel makes it increasingly unviable for most people to work these marginal jobs. The government should allow people 2 acres on which to build a celtic style semi-sub-terranean "eco-house" (like that Hobbit house that was on here a few weeks ago) and grow their own food. Granted they would not be generating any tax income necessary for high level amenities (health and law+order) but they would be less of a drain on the taxpayer. There are 3 million unemployed and many millions working part-time and in non-jobs. These people should head back to the fields and work for living. They would be happier; the country would be richer.

Just have to get it past the planners first. Ha. I am sure they would rather people live as spoon-fed slaves.