JRF say only top 20% of earners can acheive a minimum acceptable standard of living

PasturesNew

Single, not a pensioner, no kids, it says I need £17,311.

That's paying £87/week rent - so that'd be a bedsit in an HMO.

But it says I should be spending £44/week on food! Blimey. I need to go and live in a bedsit in an HMO and eat out at restaurants!



Their calculation also includes £46 for social/cultural activities. That's a lot.

It seems to suggest that it doesn't matter that you live in an inadequate and cramped sh1thole - so long as you can escape to Wetherspoons for your tea and have a hobby or two. I'd rather have a nicer home, feed myself chip sandwiches at home and watch telly for a hobby.

davomcdave

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's not..

I plugged my numbers in (mortgage amount + 2 school age kids).

According to this, we need 2 x £27,801 wages for a basic standard of living. So that's 2 people earning average wages. If we had one income, it would be £57,452 needed. I even used my real mortgage (>£1000 a month)

Not £61k

That's £55k. The average UK household income is £23,500 or so, £27k is the average full-time employee income. The average for all employees is £22,000.

Your £55,000 is the better part of three average employees' incomes or 2.5x the average UK household income.

Mine is a fair bit less (fewer kids?) say that Mrs Davo and I need to earn £40k between us however for our minimum lifestyle we apparently need to spend £115 on food and over a ton on social and cultural activities (pub?). That seems high.

Then again we're only meant to spend £92 on rent so I think the calculator thinks I live in a flea-infested backpacker hostel in Laos.:money:

MacMickster

I've played around with the calculator and, while it does seem to give more appropriate figures for adult-only households, it does seem to expect children to be indulged with a (minimum acceptable) standard of living that previous generations could only have dreamed of.

It seems that the days of children being expected to entertain themselves are gone, replaced by expensive organised activities and clubs with associated transport costs are now required. No hand-me-down clothes or make do and mend as that would not be an acceptable standard of living.

Somewhere along the line our sense of entitlement in respect of our children has gone very wrong. For many this means that they expect the benefit system to subsidise this minimum acceptable standard of living. This is why the bill for in-work benefits has become so unsustainable.

wotsthat

JRF are only parroting what they've been told in a survey. They didn't dream up these numbers - the great entitled, feather bedded British public are saying this.

Brilliant for a lobbying group like the JRF because the one thing they'll be able to rely on when asking Brits if they should be entitled to more is a resounding answer to the affirmative.

Browntoa

nice pay for the chairman though


The JRF and the JRHT said Robb would be paid approximately £150,000 a year to lead the charities. The JRF had an income of £5.7m and an expenditure of £14.7m in the year to 31 December 2015.


http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/campbell-robb-appointed-chief-executive-joseph-rowntree-foundation/management/article/1411191

Malthusian

Shock news: Survey that asks silly question gets silly answer.

[Deleted User]

davomcdave wrote: »

That's £55k. The average UK household income is £23,500 or so, £27k is the average full-time employee income. The average for all employees is £22,000.

Your £55,000 is the better part of three average employees' incomes or 2.5x the average UK household income.

Mine is a fair bit less (fewer kids?) say that Mrs Davo and I need to earn £40k between us however for our minimum lifestyle we apparently need to spend £115 on food and over a ton on social and cultural activities (pub?). That seems high.

Then again we're only meant to spend £92 on rent so I think the calculator thinks I live in a flea-infested backpacker hostel in Laos.:money:

But my £53k estimate was also based around my £265 per week mortgage payments. If I was on less money, I wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for that much... So it's a circular argument.

My estimate would be lower if my outgoings were lower SHOCKER!

greggymagic

movilogo wrote: »

That calculation is based on assumption more children require more expenses (which is true).

Indirectly the message is, if you are not earning enough then don't start breeding (which is again true).

You do realise that children are for life not just for Christmas don't you?

What about people who were extremely comfortable and high earning when they had kids but 10 years down the line fall on hard times?

Do you have to have a minimum 20 years expenditure before you should be allowed to have kids in your world?

I believe people should be responsible for their lives and should have at least a plan in place before they decide to have kids, but throwaway comments that "if you're not earning enough then don't start breeding" make me sad.

kabayiri

I think it's true that the running costs for kids is increasing.

Wasn't there a report the other day which said that 25% of mortgages for young adults involved help from Bank of Mum and Dad? That's more than a few quid then.

Then there's the support for the inevitable 99.95% (sarky mode on) of kids who have to go and get a degree.

According to Mrs Kab we will have to bankroll DD to the tune of £600 a month, and that's not champagne living either.

Only 61 grand you say? For now maybe

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Wasn't there a report the other day which said that 25% of mortgages for young adults involved help from Bank of Mum and Dad? That's more than a few quid then.

I received no assistance. Scrimped and saved for a deposit. Did a second job as well for a period.

According to the calculator we only need £23,405 to live on. Which makes us extremely well off!