Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Both Parents Must Earn At Least £18400 In Our High Cost Economy

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14019760

Parents must each earn at least £18,400 in 2011 so their family can live to an acceptable standard, a charity says.

Cuts to childcare assistance and the freeze on child benefit, when prices have risen, have raised the income requirement, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) said.

The minimum cost of living was 5% higher than in 2010, the report said.

But the government said it was doing what it could to help people who were feeling squeezed.

"The Government recognises that people are feeling squeezed and is doing what it can to help, reducing fuel duty so taxes on fuel are 6p lower than they would have been and implementing an increase in the personal allowance in April, taking over 800,000 of the lowest paid out of tax," an HM Treasury spokesman said.

Minimum weekly budget

Single working age: £240.89

Pensioner couple: £302.74

Couple with two children: £705.63

Lone parent with one child: £466.08

And what if you have 3 kids or 4 kids ++??? The more kids the more income you'll need.

The govt doing all it can by devaluing the currency and reducing it's purchasing power, although strangely this isn't reported in the article and I doubt it will be in the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14019760

The govt doing all it can by devaluing the currency and reducing it's purchasing power, although strangely this isn't reported in the article and I doubt it will be in the report.

Inflation is being ignored this decade, just like debt was ignored all last decade.

This will end exceedingly badly as the necesity to import raw materials and energy hammers the balance of payments (at a personal level and as a country).

Finanically nduced poverty, first by usury, then be inflation - both stoked by the bankrupt of england enabled through their new found "independence" to basically frig the market with their own particular brand of banksterism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Single working age: £240.89

Lone parent with one child: £466.08

Which means £226 extra is needed when the woman has a baby. Outgoings almost the same, yet income almost doubles.

What strikes me is that my father, who was only an unskilled factory worker, had 4 kids and a stay at home wife. We weren't rich but he managed to pay the mortgage and raise us all on his wage. He was able to walk to work each day. If he lost his job, there were other factories.

Edited by thod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is claiming that the reduction of subsidies and benefits has increased the amount you need to earn.

That sort of misses the real point, which is that even earning 36k/year, you will still need to rely on subsidies and benefits to live to a reasonable standard of living.

It is also interesting that the minimum cost of living is around about the average per capita GDP of the UK (and way above that of somewhere like Portugal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also interesting that the minimum cost of living is around about the average per capita GDP of the UK

With taxpayers increasingly making up the difference of those below the average

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14019760

And what if you have 3 kids or 4 kids ++??? The more kids the more income you'll need.

The govt doing all it can by devaluing the currency and reducing it's purchasing power, although strangely this isn't reported in the article and I doubt it will be in the report.

Just go on to benefits - pop out as many kids as you like as the state will foot the bill and each one you have actually increases your 'earning' power instead of depleting your limited disposable income.

And you'll have all day to spend with them instead of leaving them 'work orphans' and going off to labour all the hours God sends in order to earn enough cash to bring them up and pay for all the kids of people on benefits too.

Seriously, we must be very near the tipping point now where a critical mass of working people would clearly be 'better off' on benefits. How long before this catches on in the general consciousness and people choose to turn to benefits en-masse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me is that my father, who was only an unskilled factory worker, had 4 kids and a stay at home wife. We weren't rich but he managed to pay the mortgage and raise us all on his wage. He was able to walk to work each day. If he lost his job, there were other factories.

Maybe that can now be considered as rich.

e.g. Starting from scratch, average house ~£160K, four kids, single-earner should need about £60K for that life (assuming an 3x income mortgage). Not many unskilled jobs paying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The minimum cost of living was 5% higher than in 2010, the report said.

Ahhh.... deflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at a lot of couples the woman is working her whole life just to pay the mortgage. Which mortgages are so large, because houses are so expensive, because everyone decided to send their woman to work and then bid against each other.

Making the land owners and the bankers very happy. Essentially we put our women to work to make money for a small group of people in the society. An entire life's work for someone else. Its almost funny.

Sour Mash hit upon my advice to most young people.. just have a ton of kids and let the government pick up the tab. If you are stupid enough to go to work, you will in 50 different ways have money taken away from you to pick up the tab for other people.. and actually be worse off in the end.

There is a small group of young people who have the brains/ambition/creativity who can get beyond the hoops.. like some kid who can become a plastic surgeon. So for those I still say tough it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at a lot of couples the woman is working her whole life just to pay the mortgage. Which mortgages are so large, because houses are so expensive, because everyone decided to send their woman to work and then bid against each other.

Making the land owners and the bankers very happy. Essentially we put our women to work to make money for a small group of people in the society. An entire life's work for someone else. Its almost funny.

Correct

With both partners working they were able to borrow more money , but did not buy bigger houses with this money they just paid more for the same houses. Heard a young working mother say recently

" those women in the 60's who burnt their bras have not done us any favours "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, we must be very near the tipping point now where a critical mass of working people would clearly be 'better off' on benefits. How long before this catches on in the general consciousness and people choose to turn to benefits en-masse?

Well this assumes that the benefits keep being paid. Can't be long before they are unaffordable, and the incentives change.

With both partners working they were able to borrow more money , but did not buy bigger houses with this money they just paid more for the same houses. Heard a young working mother say recently

" those women in the 60's who burnt their bras have not done us any favours "

But not ALL of the extra money goes on the house, so the families are still financially better off, it's just a question of whether the money gained is worth the quality time lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But not ALL of the extra money goes on the house, so the families are still financially better off, it's just a question of whether the money gained is worth the quality time lost.

But they are not financially better off.

If you read post 4 you will see what things were like 20/30 years ago . I was bought up like that and most of the people around me were as well.

Not all the extra money goes on the house , no it goes on child care , travel to work , clothes for work, more expensive but time saving ready meals or takeaways to save time and extra treats for the kids to remove the guilt from the mothers that have to leave their offspring and work.

There is no question of whether the money gained is worth the quality time lost. With the removal of council housing and private housing way out of the reach of one person working and raising a family It is a question of survival. No two incomes no decent housing.

It's not just the quality of life for the double working household but the quality of life for others as well. As women have stayed in the workforce after having children wages in real terms have dropped , supply and demand . They have also kept the next generation out of the workforce.

Have met working women with children from the top to the bottom of the ladder and many will tell you that if given the choice they would not want to work while their children are young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the government said it was doing what it could to help people who were feeling squeezed.

That'll be bankers and politicians that "the government" is referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds about right. We be a 2+2 family, only my wife stays home. I earn just about enough for all of us, keeps us afloat, the occasional take away, and trip out, but no foreign holidays, lcd tv, i- phone, two cars aged 11 years and 7 years old. etc etc. And i'm just about considered a top rate tax payer!

I always wonder how others manage the lifestyle they do.

We always refuse to play the governments game, and always get clobbered for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a very good video by an american economist (?) - a woman, can't remember her name.

Bottom line was that both partners working has screwed everyone. It pushes up asset prices (housing), while making families more vulnerable if a job is lost. IIRC when only one person worked, if they lost their job, then the other partner could try and find work as well - even if it was just PT or low paid. With both working, and needing the income, they're f*cked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, we must be very near the tipping point now where a critical mass of working people would clearly be 'better off' on benefits. How long before this catches on in the general consciousness and people choose to turn to benefits en-masse?

That's why we will have to have wage inflation which will wipe out any chance of us exporting more because our costs will remain too high.

Thus the sterling devaluation/low interest rates was done purely to steal from savers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus the sterling devaluation/low interest rates was done purely to steal from savers.

To quote* robber, willie sutton, who was asked why he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is"...

* apocryphally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a very good video by an american economist (?) - a woman, can't remember her name.

Bottom line was that both partners working has screwed everyone. It pushes up asset prices (housing), while making families more vulnerable if a job is lost. IIRC when only one person worked, if they lost their job, then the other partner could try and find work as well - even if it was just PT or low paid. With both working, and needing the income, they're f*cked.

Imagine a society where most households have only one partner in work, in that scenario the houshold with both partners working really cleans up, so it provides a powerful incentive for others to follow..

But when many or most households have both partners working then the single working partner household really struggles, so the laggards need to hurry up and get with the programme.

Finally when all households have both partners working then, as you pointed out, everyone's f*cked, but no-one can afford to bale out.

So what to do? Ration jobs and only allow one worker per household? I don't like the sound of that. Looks like we're just going to have to get used to doing more work per household, and for more years, but with decreasing rewards and decreasing security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....the bankrupt of england enabled through their new found "independence" to basically frig the market with their own particular brand of banksterism.

...they are indeed Public Sector ...trust we are looking at their pensions ...it may make them tread with more care .... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a very good video by an american economist (?) - a woman, can't remember her name.

Elizabeth Warren I suspect.

She is now trying to set up a consumer protection agency in the USA and the abuse she is taking from the bought and paid for politicians has to be seen to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what to do? Ration jobs and only allow one worker per household? I don't like the sound of that. Looks like we're just going to have to get used to doing more work per household, and for more years, but with decreasing rewards and decreasing security.

Indeed - we've been well and truly hooked. They've got each household working twice as hard in order to chase assets that have essentially doubled in value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren I suspect.

She is now trying to set up a consumer protection agency in the USA and the abuse she is taking from the bought and paid for politicians has to be seen to be believed.

Thanks - it's her indeed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a society where most households have only one partner in work, in that scenario the houshold with both partners working really cleans up, so it provides a powerful incentive for others to follow..

But when many or most households have both partners working then the single working partner household really struggles, so the laggards need to hurry up and get with the programme.

Finally when all households have both partners working then, as you pointed out, everyone's f*cked, but no-one can afford to bale out.

So what to do? Ration jobs and only allow one worker per household? I don't like the sound of that. Looks like we're just going to have to get used to doing more work per household, and for more years, but with decreasing rewards and decreasing security.

Yes- dual income households as the norm was inevitable once female emancipation combined with the move away from industry to the service sector and 'soft' jobs. Once lending criteria was relaxed, it was only a matter of time before it became essential to afford decent housing. Only now are a few people starting to grasp this, but it's too late.

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.

  • 309 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.