Living on $12,000 a year

Hardup_Hester

I'd like to make an official complaint about Ceridwen, I don't have enough time in the day to read anymore blogs!!! Thanks, I'll go & check them out straight away

ceridwen

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Enjoy!

moanymoany

The US versus UK debate on costs has cropped up on this thread several times. I wonder if anyone saw the film about Walmart on the Indie channel. It painted a picture of poverty, anxiety and hopelessness for many of the people who work for this huge company. They have a company health scheme - but they have to pay for it and it is a cost that these people on their very low wages cannot afford. They have to rely on charity health organisations for their children's healthcare, they go without.

It is true that accommodation is cheaper. This leaves a larger proportion of their income as disposable. Out of this they have to buy prescription medicines. I remember when my kids were small I always seemed to be at the docs. Food is rising in price as a response to rising fuel prices. Work related health insurance is all well and good if it comes as part of the package, but if it has to be bought - even at a reduced price - it has to come out of this disposable income.

Someone of 60 may have to pay as much as $8000 a year. I've found a news report that refers to a 'middle aged' woman who pays $1,200 a month. Health insurance is not cheap. Also, if someone is covered by their work, they have to pay a 'top up' for other family members.

I remember Alvin Hall saying that people should have several months living expenses as a buffer. This was because if the paycheck stopped - and in the USA an employee can be made to walk with no recourse or payment - there was nothing to take its place.

I know where I would rather live. My DH has spent a third of his time there, for work, in Philadelphia, Oklahoma, California and Washington State, he enjoys going but tells me life looks easy in the USA but in reality as soon as you look under the surface things are quite different.

sluggy1967

Some great ideas, however I often see 1 of the 1st things suggested to get rid of is cable/satelite TV. I personally think people should think very carefully before getting rid of something which, even with 1 of the dearest sky packages, works out as entertainment in your living room for just a fraction over £1 per day. We very, very, rarely go out because we cant afford to, so tv is a godsend. It needn't involve just watching rubbish - there is always something to watch, informative documentaries etc - just be choosy!

Tiger_greeneyes

I half agree Sluggy - although we make do with freeview these days, we can't afford even the most basic of Sky packages. You get very similar channels but you don't pay for them. I download lots of programmes from the net, or watch online for free.

There are always alternatives - the library lends dvd's, try them instead of a hiring from a shop or even buying. Either that or raid your friends/family's shelves when you visit!

Austin_Allegro

moanymoany wrote: »

The US versus UK debate on costs has cropped up on this thread several times. I wonder if anyone saw the film about Walmart on the Indie channel. It painted a picture of poverty, anxiety and hopelessness for many of the people who work for this huge company. They have a company health scheme - but they have to pay for it and it is a cost that these people on their very low wages cannot afford. They have to rely on charity health organisations for their children's healthcare, they go without.

It is true that accommodation is cheaper. This leaves a larger proportion of their income as disposable. Out of this they have to buy prescription medicines. I remember when my kids were small I always seemed to be at the docs. Food is rising in price as a response to rising fuel prices. Work related health insurance is all well and good if it comes as part of the package, but if it has to be bought - even at a reduced price - it has to come out of this disposable income.

Someone of 60 may have to pay as much as $8000 a year. I've found a news report that refers to a 'middle aged' woman who pays $1,200 a month. Health insurance is not cheap. Also, if someone is covered by their work, they have to pay a 'top up' for other family members.

I remember Alvin Hall saying that people should have several months living expenses as a buffer. This was because if the paycheck stopped - and in the USA an employee can be made to walk with no recourse or payment - there was nothing to take its place.

I know where I would rather live. My DH has spent a third of his time there, for work, in Philadelphia, Oklahoma, California and Washington State, he enjoys going but tells me life looks easy in the USA but in reality as soon as you look under the surface things are quite different.

Interesting. A quick web search shows that the average family in the US pays $11000 per year in medical insurance.

It's difficult to make a direct comparison though, as we would also need to compare the average tax paid in the US with the average tax paid in the UK, as although the Americans have to pay private medical insurance, I suspect that in terms of tax, they may pay less than our average 33% or so, and I dont' think they have so many things like council tax, etc.

I suppose the main difference is that if you have absolutely nothing in the UK, the state (via taxpayers' money) will pay for you. In the US, you're on your own, or dependent on charity. However, I suspect the situation for the vast number of people in the middle is not much different between the two countries, possibly they are better off financially in the US.

Perhaps the solution is to live in Canada? They have low property prices but a compulsory state health insurance scheme like we do in the UK.

This is all largely guesswork - any contributions from America gratefully received!

moanymoany

sluggy1967 wrote: »

Some great ideas, however I often see 1 of the 1st things suggested to get rid of is cable/satelite TV. I personally think people should think very carefully before getting rid of something which, even with 1 of the dearest sky packages, works out as entertainment in your living room for just a fraction over £1 per day. We very, very, rarely go out because we cant afford to, so tv is a godsend. It needn't involve just watching rubbish - there is always something to watch, informative documentaries etc - just be choosy![/quote

I agree sluggy1967, The tele is my main form of entertainment, and at £1 a day approx it is good value. I also have sky plus and I record lots of radio programmes from BBC7 that I listen to when I bake or sew. When we had the 'big push' to pay the mortgage shortfall we cancelled Sky and had a cheap freeview box. When the shortfall was made up Sky was the first thing I got back! I love :heart2: my tele - sad innit :laugh:

ceridwen

Re the bit about watching tv on line - is that possible for free and without any fancy additional bits I am unlikely to have on my very basic pc - would be glad if anyone can tell me. I have done a little research on online tv - but maybe I have been looking in wrong direction - so I havent found owt yet.

I would be interested to have a look at the Walmart film on the Indie channel - so any info as to how to find my way into that would be appreciated too.

Hardup_Hester

A word of caution re borrowing DVD's from your local library, ours charges £5.50 a night to borrow a DVD

thriftlady_2

Hardup_Hester wrote: »

A word of caution re borrowing DVD's from your local library, ours charges £5.50 a night to borrow a DVD

:eek: £2.75 for a week in Worcestershire