Families need £36,800 to live acceptably, study says

Generali

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

I think I'd get by very, very comfortably on that figure. I get maybe half that sum and it is very difficult to get by - not impossible but I dont enjoy life much these days, every waking hour is spent thinking about how to manage money. Holidays - thing of the past. Maybe weekend away but the days of being able to for 1000 on a holiday are long gone. So not sure what to think about this one. Guess it depends on what a reasonable standard of living is - how can you define it when everyone has a different idea about it?

This is meant to be an objective way to define a standard of living for families.

I guess when Joseph Rowntree was footing the bill then he could provide whatever standard of living to his workers that his conscience and pocket book saw fit.

This report is rather different as it suggests that everyone should earn an above average standard of living. That seems problematical mathematically for a start. They also want 'someone else' (bankers? the Rich? Jews?) to pay the bill. The point is made that cuts in benefits are the primary reason for the required cash to maintain a basic standard of living rising by so much.

the_flying_pig

FTBFun wrote: »

...apparently childrens footwear x2 costs £350 a year. I call BS on that one (and a lot of other figures) - this is supposed to be the "minimum" btw.

yeah, dunno, i guess the assumption might be something like 5 pairs each per year at £35 per pair.

5 pairs is a fairly extraordinary requirement. a 7 yr old especially would rarely grow out of a pair of shoes much quicker than 4 or 5 months, usually.

if they assume more than £35 per pair they're entering into 'luxury' territory [e.g. see http://www.clarks.co.uk/c/boys-age-7-to-8#pagesize-is-all-and-page-is-1 - a 3 year old's shoes woudl be much cheaper]

chewmylegoff

The 'study' is pointless as it is carry out by a charity whose objective is to lobby (from the stand point of trying to abolish relative poverty which can, by definition, never be abolished) for an increase in benefits or an end to cuts in benefits. The questions and whole set up will have been designed to paint a picture that cuts are resulting in extreme poverty.

The fact is that if you ask someone how much they need to earn in order to maintain what they consider to be a "socially acceptable standard of living" you are going to get a vastly different result than if you ask the same people a question like "what is the total amount of money you think should be paid in benefits to a person who doesn't work in order to assist them with maintaining an acceptable standard of living".

My view is that this survey is attempting to answer the second question by asking the first.

ecoguy

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The fact is that if you ask someone how much they need to earn in order to maintain what they consider to be a "socially acceptable standard of living" you are going to get a vastly different result than if you ask the same people a question like "what is the total amount of money you think should be paid in benefits to a person who doesn't work in order to assist them with maintaining an acceptable standard of living".

My view is that this survey is attempting to answer the second question by asking the first.

I agree that studies like these are pointless, especially in the UK. London so skews the numbers that it doesn't tell you anything. Even within London itself figures can vary widely. Trying to take these numbers to a national 'average' tells you next to nothing. £36k is tons for places up North, but won't take you far in central London.

All about where you live.

heathcote123

FTBFun wrote: »

£78 a year on oven cleaner? I'm in the wrong business.

.

That does seem a lot. I have spent precisely £0 on oven cleaner in 5 years.

The oven could use a clean though. However with the £390 I've saved, I could probably just buy a new one!

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Here is what makes it up:

http://mis.jrf.org.uk/

You will notice that they use a family with a 3y/o and a 7y/o. This is a particularly expensive combination as the 3y/o AIUI doesn't qualify for state payment of childcare allowing them to put £147/wk (>£7,000/yr) onto the assumption for the amount of money needed. They also allow almost £100/wk (£5,000/yr) for social and recreation. That doesn't include the money in the food budget for eating out.

I think there may be a little 'creative accounting' going on. Take the item 'men's outerwear' which I think means coats. They allow £2.28/wk for this or about £120 a year. In the UK I would expect to have 2 winter coats (smart and casual) and a summer jacket. I would expect the smart coat to last 8-10 years and the jackets to last perhaps 5-6 years. My budget to buy 5 coats a decade would be £1200!

I suspect that they are using the argument that you need a winter and a summer coat. To buy 2 M&S coats would set you back £120. What I guess they are not accounting for is that stuff lasts.

I saw the childcare element explained on the TV, and it was pretty simple and made sense IMO.

The basis was that if families were "expected" to earn over and above the national average wage (26k), then both parents will need to be working to make up the 37k. Therefore, in most cases, childcare will be needed, and that was the average worked out.

It's true really. Either you both work and earn the 37k combined....paying the childcare bills as you go (this included before and afterschool clubs), or you have one parent stay at home, and earn less.

Graham_Devon

FTBFun wrote: »

EDIT: oh and apparently childrens footwear x2 costs £350 a year. I call BS on that one (and a lot of other figures) - this is supposed to be the "minimum" btw.

It could do, since christmas I've spent £122 on my sons footwear so far.

3 pairs of shoes, a pair of supportive sandals (I feel the support is pretty important right now) and some welly boots.

I have had a word and asked him to stop growing!

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I saw the childcare element explained on the TV, and it was pretty simple and made sense IMO.

The basis was that if families were "expected" to earn over and above the national average wage (26k), then both parents will need to be working to make up the 37k. Therefore, in most cases, childcare will be needed, and that was the average worked out.

It's true really. Either you both work and earn the 37k combined....paying the childcare bills as you go (this included before and afterschool clubs), or you have one parent stay at home, and earn less.

The only thing is that average of all employees mean full time male is £36.5k or if we are using median £28.4k about £800 less than figure qouted less child care.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The only thing is that average of all employees mean full time male is £36.5k or if we are using median £28.4k about £800 less than figure qouted less child care.

You'd have to use median.

Mean is pointless in respect to the original point.

patchwork_cat

Has anyone spotted whether they have a pet?