living wage

DizzleUK

evespikey wrote: »

Sorry but that's just not the case. I won't speak for London but for a single person with no dependants, if an average studio flat is approx £500 a month, add your bills, food, council tax and travel then yes, 940 a month is enough to live on for one person. It might not seem like much, and it isn't, but you can live off it- no question. Especially if you're moneysaving.

If a couple was earning this ammount each, they're be very comfortably living. They wouldn't be rich. But they could pay all their bills and have enough for entertainment and a little saving without worrying about debt.

I think it would say a lot about a person's lifestyle and their (in)ability to budget if a couple couldn't live of that kind of money per month.

Ok, I'll rephrase that slightly. A single person could just about manage on £940 a month (with a rent of £500pm + associated bills), but only if they have no debts to service, no car to run, no pets, didn't smoke (not a bad thing) and only went out very cheaply once or twice a month. It IS possible, yes. But there would be no room for saving much, if anything (certainly no pension). If a single person has any sort of debt, and most people do these days, then things would be more difficult. If they were earning less than that (eg NMW) then they'd probably not manage much more than a single room in shared house.

The point I was trying to make was that on today's standards, a single person's ideal minimum income would be £15k IMO, depending on where in the country you live. Of course there are ways of living on less, but it's not very comfortable.

As for the couple, I agree with what you say there. I am part of one such couple with a combined take-home income of £1900 a month. We have a car and a little bit of debt to service. We are quite comfortable, but we do have to keep a tight control over our budget. We can afford 1 cheap holiday each year and have 2 cats, one of which is on a lifelong prescription diet. There is always call for just that little bit more money each month though.

hcb42

We couldn't live on that - it wouldn't pay the mortgage for a start

evespikey wrote: »

I think it would say a lot about a person's lifestyle and their (in)ability to budget if a couple couldn't live of that kind of money per month.

Person_one

Mudd14 wrote: »

What about those who want to actually work and are already on a wage below £7.15? Should they quit their job and then claim benefits just to get a higher wage? Its a joke.

As someone on NMW, I'd be a bit miffed if new starters at my job were earning that much more than me! I was on benefits before this job, can I have the extra money retroactively please?!

Person_one

DizzleUK wrote: »

If you are on the lowest rung (either a Band 1 or Band 2 post on the first increment) then the annual wage is currently £13,653 which works out at £6.98ph. After this Friday that will be £13,903 which works out at around £7.12ph (not quite £7.15 but close enough).

I work for the NHS for 5.99p/h

I'm on the lowest band but also classed as a 'trainee'. I will get a pay rise to the actual band 1 wage on completion of a rather pointless NVQ which the trust seem to be dragging out for as long as they can get away with.

Thankfully, I also get a bit extra for unsociable hours or I wouldn't be able to pay my bills.

DizzleUK

Person_one wrote: »

I work for the NHS for 5.99p/h

I'm on the lowest band but also classed as a 'trainee'. I will get a pay rise to the actual band 1 wage on completion of a rather pointless NVQ which the trust seem to be dragging out for as long as they can get away with.

Thankfully, I also get a bit extra for unsociable hours or I wouldn't be able to pay my bills.

Ah I see. Bit harsh, but at least you know you will eventually get that rise. Hope it comes quickly for you.

Person_one

DizzleUK wrote: »

Ah I see. Bit harsh, but at least you know you will eventually get that rise. Hope it comes quickly for you.

Thanks, but I've made other arrangements!

The trust wait over 6 months before allowing HCAs to start the NVQ and drag it out so that it takes 18 months or more to complete it. All the while the 'trainee' HCA is doing the exact same job as the 'qualified' HCA, they don't get any more responsibilities or duties on completion.

It sucks, basically, leaving people on awful wages for as long as they can to save the trust a paltry few grand a year. I'm very glad I'm moving into something more regulated and structured.