Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Living 'costs At Least £14,400' For A Single Person

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10510360.stm

A single person in the UK needs a gross income of at least £14,400 in 2010 to live to an acceptable standard, a charity says.

And a couple with two children need £29,200 for a minimum acceptable standard of living, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) said.

The figure indicates a growing gap between the national minimum wage and the minimum income standard.

The charity claimed this was due to rising inflation for necessities.

"This research shows what ordinary members of the public think is needed - not just to survive but to take part in society," said Julia Unwin, chief executive of the JRF.

"It provides powerful evidence for the new government to use as it develops policies to deal with poverty."

Typical basket

The JRF report is an attempt to raise the debate about the level of relative poverty in the UK beyond the official poverty line of 60% of average earnings.

Inflation is calculated using a typical basket of goods. Similarly, since 2008, the JRF has gathered information from focus groups to set a benchmark for an "acceptable standard of living".

For example, it now considers a computer and home internet connection as essential for all working age households. In previous years this has only been necessary for people with school-age children, it concluded.

Pensioners, however, thought the internet was growing in relevance - but not yet a necessity.

Key findings from the report included:

* The minimum household budget needed to rise by 3% to 4% in the year to April - broadly in line with inflation.

* In the last 10 years, inflation had risen by 23%, but key essentials cost 38% more.

* This included food prices (up 37%), bus fares (up 59%), and council tax (up 67%).

What do they expect in a high cost economy, requiring nearly £15k a year is a ridiculous amount of money.

However this point is clearly missed on the authors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This research shows what ordinary members of the public think is needed - not just to survive but to take part in society," said Julia Unwin, chief executive of the JRF."

They didn't ask misers though.

Mobile phones and holidays aren't essential to take part in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how they can provide a precise figure rather than a range. It varies massively depending on your housing and travelling costs.

A single person renting in some parts of the country would need double that. In a house mortgage paid off, or living with parents, you can live on a lot less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how they can provide a precise figure rather than a range. It varies massively depending on your housing and travelling costs.

A single person renting in some parts of the country would need double that. In a house mortgage paid off, or living with parents, you can live on a lot less.

Indeed.

I know what our basic bills are. And excluding housing costs - cos we have none - it's about 400-500 a month I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're doing your crappy min wage temping thing how will they contact you? Are you supposed to hang around the local phone box?

By letter?

You have a point maybe - but:

A basic mobile phone costs about 10-15 quid.

It's a one off charge. I don't think a new one is needed to take part in society and I don't think contracts should be included as "essentials"

A mobile phone can be a zero cost item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mobile phone can be a zero cost item.

I agree, but I think you're arguing against yourself here. If mobile phones can be almost free (basic handset bought for cash, PAYG and rarely used) then it doesn't matter whether they're essential or not as almost everyone can afford one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but I think you're arguing against yourself here. If mobile phones can be almost free (basic handset bought for cash, PAYG and rarely used) then it doesn't matter whether they're essential or not as almost everyone can afford one.

I think we need to know what costs are attributed to one in the 14400 breakdown.

Landlines and mobiles paid

for through contracts and

bundled packages, linked

to Internet (pensioners still

pay-as-you-go mobiles)

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/MIS-2010-report_0.pdf

In the full report

Social and cultural participation 104.73 a WEEK for a couple with 2 kids.

Or 42.16 for a single.

Well to me that sounds excessive to "expect it as a minimum standard"

Edited by SarahBell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel - Couple and two children - £20.

Rent - Couple and two children - £71.

Childcare - £199 - wtf is this included as such a high costs compared to the above?

.

LOL! Dream on.

This report is ********.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

Indeed.

I know what our basic bills are. And excluding housing costs - cos we have none - it's about 400-500 a month I think.

Typical living expenses in my area for a single person:

Rent on a 1 bedroom flat = £500 pcm

Council tax = £60 pcm

Food and other consumables for 1 person = £250

Clothes and shoes = £30

Telephone = 30

TV = £11.88

Internet access = £10

Gas/Electric = £60

Wage (after tax) required pcm = £951.88

Wage (before tax) required pcm = £1158.33

Wage (before tax) required pa = £13900

I have rounded tax to include income-tax and national insurance at 25% and a personal allowance of 4K for the sake of brevity.

I dare say if a person was willing to live on sh*t for food, they may be able to get their food and other consumables bill pcm down to, say, £200. Also, they could concievably do without a TV and internet access, saving another £21.88

A rough guess tells me this would still leave them requiring an annual salary before tax of at least £12000

All of the above before thay have done anything other than sleep, sh*t and work

Edited by Steve Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14K seems reasonable given how most people around me value money.

But as you can't earn it twice,

I can do it on a shade under 12K and that includes keeping a horse, running a car, but renting a house. Surplus gets invested.

A 'No Television' type lifestyle though with entertainment provided by out of doors activities.

went to get a new mobile phone last year.

'do you want a contract ?',

No

'How much do you spend ?'

Oh about 20 quid

'A week ?'

No

'A month ?'

No, every couple of years.

Edit to add

And having read the previous post, I eat very well, only fresh produce though. Living on Sh1T food is expensive. Spent the last month catching mackerel

and to change 10K - 12 K

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand what is happening in this thread, 14,000 seems ludicrously low to me, is the common consensus that this is a lot of money?

Surely a salary of 14,400 is not beyond the relms of possibility for anyone to achieve? I don't believe for one minute it's possible to live on that little money to any sort of western standard, but then I live in the SEast so maybe my opinion is skewed somewhat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical living expenses in my area for a single person:

Rent on a 1 bedroom flat = £500 pcm

Council tax = £60 pcm

Food and other consumables for 1 person = £250

Clothes and shoes = £30

Telephone = 30

TV = £11.88

Internet access = £10

Gas/Electric = £60

Wage (after tax) required pcm = £951.88

Wage (before tax) required pcm = £1267.88

Wage (before tax) required pa = £15201.88

I dare say if a person was willing to live on sh*t for food, they may be able to get their food and other consumables bill pcm down to, say, £200. Also, they could concievably do without a TV and internet access, saving another £21.88

This would still leave them requiring an absolute minimum annual salary before tax of £13600.

I have rounded tax to include income-tax and national insurance at 25% for the sake of brevity.

I'd like to see if anyone can show how a person could get by on less than the numbers above.

It won't be the Rowntree lot, they seem to have an interst in underreporting the biggest cost. I wonder why?

I think your figures fairly reflect the situation, they just felt they had to hide the source. Guess that people on this sort of wage are regularly filing for BK and hence they knew they had to get to that figure without letting on.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand what is happening in this thread, 14,000 seems ludicrously low to me, is the common consensus that this is a lot of money?

Surely a salary of 14,400 is not beyond the relms of possibility for anyone to achieve? I don't believe for one minute it's possible to live on that little money to any sort of western standard, but then I live in the SEast so maybe my opinion is skewed somewhat

Reading between the lines in the original story, I don't think that it has anything to do with people who earn a living. It seems to be more about the level of benefits that "should" be available to those who don't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading between the lines in the original story, I don't think that it has anything to do with people who earn a living. It seems to be more about the level of benefits that "should" be available to those who don't work.

Looks like it doesn;t it - hence the low rent costs - they should have called it the handout report. Well if they aren't working they don't need a ******ing childcare budget of £200 do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

It won't be the Rowntree lot, they seem to have an interst in underreporting the biggest cost. I wonder why?

I think your figures fairly reflect the situation, they just felt they had to hide the source. Guess that people on this sort of wage are regularly filing for BK and hence they knew they had to get to that figure without letting on.

Hi OM

I've managed to drop that figure slightly as I forgot to incluide the personal tax allowance in the first post. It still come in just a shade under 14K though

Edited by Steve Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi OM

I've managed to drop that figure slightly as I forgot to incluide the personal tax allowance in the first post. It still come in just a shade under 14K though

There will be all sorts of other small costs - largely inescapable that will fill the gap - you have pretty muchthe basics there - all manner of things - soap to insurance to repairs and unforseen unavoidable costs add up a lot.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

Reading between the lines in the original story, I don't think that it has anything to do with people who earn a living. It seems to be more about the level of benefits that "should" be available to those who don't work.

No, it's about what the minimum required income is to live, irrespective of where it comes form. This may well have a bearing on prescribed levels of benefits. That is a secondary issue though.

Unless, of course, one has a pre-determined set of predjudices to bring to the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's about what the minimum required income is to live, irrespective of where it comes form. This may well have a bearing on prescribed levels of benefits. That is a secondary issue though.

Unless, of course, one has a pre-determined set of predjudices to bring to the argument.

They are in the right ballpark, for the wrong reasons - check the link I posted. Could only apply to benefit class in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 2005-8 I was a PhD student living on a tax free stipend of about £14,500pa in London (though I did pay council tax as I lived with non-students). I rented one room in a shared house in zone 2 and cycled everywhere. Life was pretty great, I ate out and went pubbing and clubbing all the time and took lots of cheap overseas trips with my generous holiday time without taking on a penny of debt. The effects of food and fuel inflation were very noticeable, even over just 3 years.

The lifestyle was only made possible by sharing my accommodation and utility costs with 4 other waged adults though. My guess is that a lot of people now aged 40-50 will find themselves back in shared houses over the next decade after their overleveraged property empires self destruct and their spouses accustomed to new cars/Caribbean 4* holidays/£600 coffee tables chuck them out. Shared houses are fine though as long as you are living with decent people with similar standards of cleanliness who respect each other's possessions. They're good enough for pretty much everybody under 30, why not the over-50s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

There will be all sorts of other small costs - largely inescapable that will fill the gap - you have pretty muchthe basics there - all manner of things - soap to insurance to repairs and unforseen unavoidable costs add up a lot.

yep

I've tried to be as stark as possible in the costings to ensure all of the more rabid posters on here don't have an easy get-out clause in their arguments. You are quite correct that I have missed out what many would consider essentials:

Pension provision

daily travel costs

insurance

etc

Edited by Steve Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's about what the minimum required income is to live, irrespective of where it comes form. This may well have a bearing on prescribed levels of benefits. That is a secondary issue though.

Unless, of course, one has a pre-determined set of predjudices to bring to the argument.

Hardly - you had £30 for clothes and shoes. Per month? £360 per year seems a massive amount to spend on clothes and shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's about what the minimum required income is to live, irrespective of where it comes form. This may well have a bearing on prescribed levels of benefits. That is a secondary issue though.

Unless, of course, one has a pre-determined set of predjudices to bring to the argument.

The cost of living for people in work is higher than the cost of living for people who are not in work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

The cost of living for people in work is higher than the cost of living for people who are not in work.

Yep, I'd agree with that

However, the numbers are not going to be massively different when you consider that such things as council tax rebates are born by the working taxpayers anyway

If you accept that the minimum required income per annum is 14k before tax if you are working, then then the amount needed in unemployment benefits is not going to be less than, say, 9k (assuming no requirement to tax). And, as I said, this would not even include such things as pension prvosdion, insurance etc. In the case of apension, this will still need to be picked up by the taxpayer at a later stage anyway,

Edited by Steve Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 142 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.