Great 'what costs more for if you're poor?' Hunt revisited

lazer

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I don't understand. Plenty of things that people have said (e.g. pre-pay electric meters) are more expensive if you are poor.

No - pre-paid meters are more expensive for everyone if they use them

You only have to use the pre-pay meters if you get into arrears which is a not a direct result of being poor - it is a result of bad money mangement (which can happen to rich and poor)

The things listed cost the same if you are rich or poor.

VED on an old car costs the same regardless of income, it just the proportion of people owning the cars that differs.
Although it could be argued that the rich actually pay more for cars as they buy the new cars and hence pay the VAT on them and the monthly finance costs etc.

Oil & Cashpoint charges are again the same for everyone - this is somethign that is mroe expensive if you live in a rural area - regardless of income.

Bulk buyign discounts are available to anyone - regardless of income.

In fact a lot of things are more expensive if you are not poor (as a large number of poor people receive means tested benefits) - prescriptions, Stamps (this christmas), fuel (No Fuel allowance) and a number of spaoting events etc offer discounts to those in receipt of means tested benefits.

JimmyTheWig

lazer wrote: »

No - pre-paid meters are more expensive for everyone if they use them
...
VED on an old car costs the same regardless of income, it just the proportion of people owning the cars that differs.
...
Bulk buyign discounts are available to anyone - regardless of income.

Either you are being pedantic (in which case, yes you are right the answers are not quite being precise, but I would imagine everyone knows what they mean so I don't think it is an issue) or you have completely missed the point.
Yes, a rich person may choose to have an older car and pay higher VED. Yes, a rich person may choose not to buy in bulk and so not get the discount.
But a poor person has no choice on these things.

And so, for example, it is fair to say, in general, that a poor person pays more per kilo of a given dog food than a rich person does.

lazer

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Either you are being pedantic (in which case, yes you are right the answers are not quite being precise, but I would imagine everyone knows what they mean so I don't think it is an issue) or you have completely missed the point.
Yes, a rich person may choose to have an older car and pay higher VED. Yes, a rich person may choose not to buy in bulk and so not get the discount.
But a poor person has no choice on these things.

And so, for example, it is fair to say, in general, that a poor person pays more per kilo of a given dog food than a rich person does.

I would actually say that a rich person pays more per kilo of dog food as they tend to not look for the bargains, buy expensive brands, so even if they buy in bulk it is probably still more expensive, than the poor person who looks for the best possible deal.

The rich subsidise the poor in most areas of life - How much profit do you think the supermarkets make on the value brands (as bought by the poor) as opposed to the premium brands (as bought by the rich).

I lived much more cheaply when i was poor as I put more of an effort into finding the bargains - going to supermarkets at the right time for the evening discounts, researching the best price i could get on something, nowadays, I am slightly better off and I do not put as much effort into the bargain hunting - if i am buying something expensive such as a TV or christmas presents - I will look for the best price, however, I won't go to a number of different shops doing my grocery shop to save 10p on bread etc.

I was not being pedantic (well maybe slightly) - I was merely pointing out that things cost the same to whoever chooses to buy them, the reasons for buying them are what differs.

The only thing that is actually more expensive if you are poor is often Credit - as you may get charged a higher API as it is individually determined based on income etc.

JimmyTheWig

lazer wrote: »

I would actually say that a rich person pays more per kilo of dog food as they tend to not look for the bargains, buy expensive brands, so even if they buy in bulk it is probably still more expensive, than the poor person who looks for the best possible deal.

I said of a given dog food - i.e. leaving brands out of it. [Though, interestingly, a friend who used to sell pet food once mentioned that people in wealthier areas tended to buy cheaper brands of dog food than those in poorer areas.]

While I take your point about looking for bargains, a rich person still has the option of looking for bargains. A poor person doesn't have the option of buying in bulk.

Mouseboy007

I agree with lazer, a lot of things aren't explicitly more expensive FOR poorer people in terms of an income based discrimination, but they appear to be less-affordable or have fewer options as a worse financial status tends to narrow the choices. Also, it's a valid point that there are a lot of subsidies going on in the higher income brackets for those in the lower brackets.

I suppose the point of the thread is to demonstrate that when you've got less money, you have fewer choices and the choices open to the lower income brackets are more expensive in terms of percentage of income, or percentage of good bought for the same price (if you're wealthy enough to be able to afford 10'000 tins of beans, I bet you'll get a cracking deal!). I guess that's one of the problems with a free and open market.

Unfortunately if you try and level the playing fields to make it no more expensive for higher-brand products or individual purchased items all that will happen is profits will drop for the stores, everyone will buy the equally priced (perceived) higher-brands and product choice will be narrowed resulting in everyone ending up paying more. A great recent example is the successful 'equal-rights' campaign that has been run to 'stop' the inequalities of gender-based car-insurance pricing. To level the playing field are us men expecting our premiums will be dropped to align with the women? Nope, the women are going to have to cough up more in future for the same level of insurance they have enjoyed at a lower price for the previous years.

Wobblydeb

I can see Lazer's point. Getting bulk discounts requires you to have some spare money upfront (and a bit of space) to take advantage of bulk buying. It doesn't actually require you to be wealthier - as everyone is pointing out, your shopping actually costs less over time.

The big issue is that your cash is tied up - in the car tax disc, the stored groceries, the 12 months insurance.

lazer

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I said of a given dog food - i.e. leaving brands out of it. [Though, interestingly, a friend who used to sell pet food once mentioned that people in wealthier areas tended to buy cheaper brands of dog food than those in poorer areas.]

While I take your point about looking for bargains, a rich person still has the option of looking for bargains. A poor person doesn't have the option of buying in bulk.

A poor person does have the option of buying in bulk though - its just they have other things they prioritise over buying x in bulk.

It is always possible have emergency savings - and you could use some of the emergency savings to buy and bulk and then top up the savings every week with the amount you would generally pay for the dog food.

There is no-one that cannot find a way to save even £1 a week to build up a savings pot IMO - and it is the first thing people in the DFW board are advised to do!

It is bad budgeting that means people cannot buy in bulk- not income status! This can affect rich as well as poor - the rich could have money tied up in fixed period accoutns/investments etc, so cannot get the funds to buy lots in bulk.

If you don't get in the circle of paying premiums for paying things monthy (car insurance etc), then it is easy to pay annually - simply put the required amount away each month, the problem is if you are paying monthly, then you need to have the spare money to effectively pay twice each month - once for the current premium and once to save for next years.
This is where the problem lies - the solution is not to get a car until you can afford to pay insurance in full in the first year.
The solution if you are already paying monthly - either do without the car for a year, make serious cutbacks in lifestyle to allow for the 2 monthly "payments", or put up with the extra charge for the convience of getting car insurance on credit (which is effectively what monthly payments are!)

JimmyTheWig

lazer wrote: »

It is bad budgeting that means people cannot buy in bulk- not income status! This can affect rich as well as poor - the rich could have money tied up in fixed period accoutns/investments etc, so cannot get the funds to buy lots in bulk.

I guess we are saying that these things are expensive for those with cash-flow problems.
But again I would argue that poor people are more likely to have cash-flow problems than rich people are.

either do without the car for a year

Another thing that "poor" people pay more for - transport. It is generally much cheaper (even around here where the busses are quite good) to use a car than it is to go by public transport.
So I'm not sure that people would be saving much by not having a car for a year.

egarobar

We live in rural Wales, where we are obliged to get in the car to do any kind of shopping (until I get myself a pushbike :j!) - and petrol/diesel costs a lot more than it does in urban areas - so we are double-whammied by this . That is, apart from internet shopping, which usually costs extra because of delivery charges. When we lived in London, we were able to pop down to the corner store (on foot) whenever we felt like it.

The "local" shops - a 40-minute drive away!! - do not have the range of choice and price that shops in cities have; and if I want to visit bigger shops I have to drive further, which again costs more.

We live at the far end of a telephone cable, on an exchange that is still stuck in the 20th Century (no LLU), so we are limited to less than 0.5Mb broadband speeds, and we are not allowed to change supplier from good old BT, who charge the earth. (BTW it took me 3 months of phonecalls and emotional aggro to get BT to provide us with broadband in the first place, some 3 years ago.)

We are unable to get mobile phone signals without climbing to the top of the hill; and Freeview TV is impossible, so I had to buy a satellite dish and go with Freesat, costing £300.

Luckily we're not in the outer Hebrides, and so when I order something on the internet I still only pay the standard UK delivery charge, and we don't pay extra to Royal Mail for deliveries or collection; but whereas most deliveries reach urban dwellers the next day, we're lucky if it's two days for us.

Some wise guy on this thread might say 'all this isn't about being poor', but let me explain - one of the chief reasons we moved here (in 1999) was because we couldn't afford to buy a house anywhere else. I do enjoy the country lifestyle, and I wouldn't (now) want to go back to London, but I object to the penalties superimposed by unfair practices - especially institutionalised ones, like being charged more for petrol because we live further away from the main cities when they know we are more reliant upon it. (That's crazy - one of the main entry ports for fuel into Britain is in West Wales.)

As one person wrote above, it's about limited choice just as much as it is about extra expense. But limiting choice just about comes to the same thing - try asking a starving child in Africa if they would prefer to live anywhere else...

umpity

If you have to use public ffone to make calls to government big business and have to call 0845 number, you are finished: the machine slurps up your money so fast and you have to feed it so fast you haven't got time to interact with the necessary servic on the other end. this is a tax on the poor and also a waste of time and your/my/our scant resorces. I do not kno the answer to this but i wish i did. British telecom undoubtedly make a lot of money from this legal con-trick. I had a mainline ffone once, and paid Bt a small premium to pay bill by check, but they increased that, i objected and they threatened to take tme to coort (for about £4). They and the other commercial scammers act like corporate robber barons knowing that i will never get the ca £20k i need to bring a suit against them for extortion.