Household finances at breaking point

Loughton_Monkey

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I am no liberal lefty by any means

Nor am I.

Going4TheDream wrote: »

but I do have a heart. How many of those people are on 'zero hour contracts' on minimum wage , no guaranteed hours or therefore not really being aware of what they will earn from one week to the next, perhaps how they will pay their rent. feed themselves, pay their bills or travel to work, or are part time hours and underemployed?

!!!!!! its must be so easy to sit there whilst you keep toasting 'gin and tonics all round' being all smug, without actually seeing that some people are actually struggling despite actually doing their best and what is right.

Perhaps the hardest decision you have to make is whether to have 'Bombay sapphire or perhaps only Gordon's'. Perhaps you need to get out more, and away from your social circle and actually see what is happening in the 'real world' for a huge number of people. The reality is 'eat or heat' for some it is 'eat themselves or feed their kids', working people are just as likely to be in poverty as unemployed.... is that really fair?

I was responding to a comment that implied that 'more and more' people are finding it 'more and more' tough..... which I find misleading, wrong, exaggerated, and typical of woolly thinking these days.

You talk as if you think I have never had such hard times myself, but I do know financial conditions well before today's high benefits availability and so feel qualified to talk about it.

Of course it's hard for some. Of course there are some genuinely tough cases. An of course I sympathise with them, and if anyone in my family were in that position I would give all the help (financial and non financial) I could.

But the economy is improving. There were 250,000 new jobs last quarter. Identify any of the specific people of which you speak, and ask yourself how hard they tried to secure any of these jobs...... or ask how 'responsibly' they allocated the funds they had through either work or benefits.

This concept that benefits are so low that many people have to decide whether to eat themselves or feed the kids is utter nonsense. It is the fodder of the gutter press who will never disclose that actual reasons for any such family they highlight - simply because it can never be 'genuine'. Behind every such case there is a bunch of reasons. Behavioural reasons. Behaviour that will never be modified by paying out more - or even by pouring out sympathy.

Show me a person on benefits that they 'can't possibly' live on, and I can guarantee that down the street there will be another 9 (with exaclty the same income and commitments) who are living on it. I have oodles more sympathy for the 9 than I do the one.

I am not without heart at all. It's just that I reserve it for 'real' cases, the large majority of whom 'manage'. These people need (if anything) more opportunities. Simply throw more money at them and it gives no incentive do do anything for themselves.

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

Never let facts get in the way of your own prejudices, eh?:rotfl:

No doubt city types might be using their hoped for substantial annual bonuses to clear their debts, again.

Perhaps they will transferring the debt to a personal loan to be repaid shortly before next Christmas having forgot it occurs each year.

Perhaps they will just keep paying the minimum on their credit card that could be strategic too.

If the debts were simply going to be cleared from their premium rate savings or investment account then that would have been stated. The fact said they were financing it through debt.

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

No doubt city types might be using their hoped for substantial annual bonuses to clear their debts, again. ...

So let's trot out some more prejudices then eh?

grizzly1911 wrote: »

...Perhaps they will transferring the debt to a personal loan to be repaid shortly before next Christmas having forgot it occurs each year. ...

That's right, Christmas happens once every year. So what makes you think that the 25% of people who "could only afford to pay for Christmas by borrowing" aren't the same 25% of people who borrowed to pay for last Christmas? And the one before that?

grizzly1911 wrote: »

..Perhaps they will just keep paying the minimum on their credit card that could be strategic too.

If the debts were simply going to be cleared from their premium rate savings or investment account then that would have been stated. The fact said they were financing it through debt.

And so what? Don't you realise that the whole point of debt is to finance something? Borrowing money so that you can pay for Christmas, pay for a holiday, pay for school uniforms, is perfectly normal behaviour, and how a lot of people get by. Go and speak to the people who run your local credit union, they'll educate you on 'life'.:)

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

So let's trot out some more prejudices then eh?



That's right, Christmas happens once every year. So what makes you think that the 25% of people who "could only afford to pay for Christmas by borrowing" aren't the same 25% of people who borrowed to pay for last Christmas? And the one before that?



And so what? Don't you realise that the whole point of debt is to finance something? Borrowing money so that you can pay for Christmas, pay for a holiday, pay for school uniforms, is perfectly normal behaviour, and how a lot of people get by. Go and speak to the people who run your local credit union, they'll educate you on 'life'.:)

If you can't afford Christmas don't do it. Anybody would think it was a God given right. It is a consumer fest. Ask Coke.

The true meaning is lost on many.

So City types don't receive large annual bonuses anddon't use them to pay for their excess consumption through the year? Don't believe Investment Banker pay has any thing to do with prejudice they are paid
excessively for what they do. Even Jenkins from Barclay's makes the point that it is just what they have to accept.

NB: Have in a previous life worked with many in debt and need but don't let that get in the way of your assumptions.

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If you can't afford Christmas don't do it. .....

There is nothing in that Which? survey that suggests that anyone "can't afford Christmas". So people borrow money to pay for Christmas. SFW. People have always done so. There is nothing in the report to suggest there is anything new happening.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

...The true meaning is lost on many......

The true meaning of Christmas is that it is a mid-winter food and drink binge. It has always been thus.

Graham_Devon

grizzly1911 wrote: »

NB: Have in a previous life worked with many in debt and need but don't let that get in the way of your assumptions.

It truly is a waste of time trying to get some to accept there is even hardship out there. At least on the sub board of the forum. The rest of the forum seem to understand it.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It truly is a waste of time trying to get some to accept there is even hardship out there. At least on the sub board of the forum. The rest of the forum seem to understand it.

This is because most of us live in the real world.

The real world that reflects that life is clearly not 'rosy' if you are unemployed, or if you are in a situation of having to bring up 2 children on your own etc. But that is why - at massive expense - the taxpayer provides substantial benefits.

By no stretch of the imagination can this be called "hardship". It becomes hardship only when such people bring upon themselves burdens that are at best 'unwise' and at worst 'reckless'.


You don't have to take my word for it. Just use the following benefits calculator for any type of case you care to dream up. See what this person is costing the taxpayer.

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

I shoved in a "typical" case [perhaps] of an unmarried mother with two young children living in a 2-bed paying annual rent of £6,500 and Council Tax of £1,008.

We are throwing that family £18,981 a year tax free. A single person living next door needs to earn £23,765 [about average wage] in order to bring home £18,981.

So after Rent and Council tax being paid, we have a net annual income of 11,473 or £220 a week. This is to cover food, utilities, clothing, bus fares, toys, etc. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Do you see this as unreasonable?

Of course if this individual smokes, and is prone to spend more than the odd afternoon down the bingo hall, or perhaps "can't live" without an expensive i-Phone and accompanying expensive computer, broadband, with active Facebook account, I can soon envisage credit card bills overflowing with 19.7% interest, and/or unauthorised bank overdraft charges slapping on £35 costs here and there. I can see it is possible to get into a situation of using £120 a week of that income to service debts and nothing else.

That's hardship. But hardship 100% of the person's own making.

So please enlighten us as to where this hardship is, how it happens, and what you expect the taxpayer to do about it.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It truly is a waste of time trying to get some to accept there is even hardship out there. At least on the sub board of the forum. The rest of the forum seem to understand it.

What Shelter do is exaggerate the problem so it's difficult to reconcile the scale involved. 1 in 11 (9%) are apparently worried that they won't be able to pay their mortgage or rent this month and yet c99% of mortgage holders (and rising) are paying their mortgages month in month out.

We can't even say that Shelter surveys can be seen as forward looking because a troll back through some of your Shelter threads will show the scary picture they paint never comes to pass.

They're also at pains never to replicate a survey so that 1 in 11 stands alone - being able to compare that to the same time last year might tell us something. Shelter won't do that because it would show that less are worried about rent and mortgages this January than last.

Shelter cannot be trusted to give a true idea of the scale of hardship in the UK.

Loughton_Monkey

wotsthat wrote: »

.....

They're also at pains never to replicate a survey so that 1 in 11 stands alone - being able to compare that to the same time last year might tell us something. Shelter won't do that because it would show that less are worried about rent and mortgages this January than last.

Shelter cannot be trusted to give a true idea of the scale of hardship in the UK.

Agreed. They are the true "nasties" of the so-called 'charity' world, having moved from physical help for the homeless into a political campaigning group. Professional whingers in other words, with a special expertise in spinning sound-bites
to invent or exaggerate issues.

I think that for most people, me included, the way to convince me of what financial 'hardship' people are going through would be to publish accurate figures of real cases [who can remain anonymous] of exactly what their income and expenditure is.

All you ever get is "Mr & Mrs Smith find themselves with only £79 a week to feed themselves and their 3 children....." without giving a clue as to why £200 goes on car payments and £100 on credit card bills....

As I have said, I don't deny for one minute that many people are extremely hard up, but I sincerely need to filter out all the self-inflicted cases before I can see any "true" hardship.

grizzly1911

REPORT REVEALS THE NEW FACE OF UK POVERTY
For the first time, there are more people in working families living below the poverty line (6.7 million) than in workless and retired families in poverty combined (6.3 million), having suffered a sustained and ‘unprecedented’ fall in their living standards.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/report-reveals-new-face-uk-poverty

Analysis of the latest data on poverty in the UK.

This annual report by the New Policy Institute gives a comprehensive picture of poverty in the UK, featuring analysis of low income, unemployment, low pay, homelessness and ill health.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoring-poverty-and-social-exclusion-2013