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

BobQ

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

Apart from the calculator, I did not see a clear explanation of what people had said they thought was the minimum standards of living?

Some people would probably say to afford to buy a house, others might say to have each child with their own bedroom, some would regard a car less than 3 years old to be essential, others to be able to afford a foreign holiday. It would be fascinating to know what people said to generate these expectations.

daveyjp

BobQ wrote: »

Apart from the calculator, I did not see a clear explanation of what people had said they thought was the minimum standards of living?

Some people would probably say to afford to buy a house, others might say to have each child with their own bedroom, some would regard a car less than 3 years old to be essential, others to be able to afford a foreign holiday. It would be fascinating to know what people said to generate these expectations.

It would have taken you less than the time it took to type the above to find the answer from the link in the first post. Theres a full explanation of what Minimum Income Standards are and how they are arrived at.

Kim_kim

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

I got the same, but I threw a few bills in & it decided I needed just over 20k.
The original calculation was giving me something like £15 for gas & electric. I spend just over £100 a month on these.

£27 a week for travel & fuel, I wish!!!!! I do that in petrol alone & a bit.
£45 for food, I probably spend more & £5 for booze. I don't really drink.

GDB2222

I think the figures are not as daft as is being made out. For example, for a couple with young children, both are assumed to be working full time. So the calculator's outgo includes a hefty allowance for childcare.

Michaels worked out the equivalent earnings for just one of the couple earning, but he may not have removed the childcare allowance.

The rent figures seem very low, but perhaps in the North that's accurate? Some of the other figures seem rather extravagant for minimum living standards, but there's not enough detail to pin it down.

Cakeguts

And the top earners are all based in the South East? This result is what happens if you ask a small sample of people in one area of the country and try to make it apply to everywhere. It also implies that JRF pays peanuts.

Malthusian

greggymagic wrote: »

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

If you fall on hard times you and your kids cut your cloth accordingly. In this country if a High Net Worth person has very bad luck and ends up on benefits or working a minimum wage job their kids are not going to starve or be sold into slavery, no matter how many they have. They cannot expect to be subsidised to maintain the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed by those who've never had that lifestyle.

Malthusian

Fun fact: I put myself into this calculator and it said my partner and I needed £23,405 per annum between us, which is nice, if pointless.

The bit I find interesting is that when I left children as "0", it said we needed to spend a minimum of £9.58 a week between us on alcohol. (Quite reasonable for a "minimum standard", I think - that's basically a 4-pack of beer each to have over the weekend. More if we went for White Lightning or Lambrini.) However, when I experimentally changed this to 4 children (the max), our alcohol budget dropped to £9.01 a week. So apparently we need slightly less alcohol to maintain a minimum acceptable standard of sanity if we have 4 children? Give over.

michaels

GDB2222 wrote: »

I think the figures are not as daft as is being made out. For example, for a couple with young children, both are assumed to be working full time. So the calculator's outgo includes a hefty allowance for childcare.

Michaels worked out the equivalent earnings for just one of the couple earning, but he may not have removed the childcare allowance.

The rent figures seem very low, but perhaps in the North that's accurate? Some of the other figures seem rather extravagant for minimum living standards, but there's not enough detail to pin it down.

This is correct but then I thought perhaps the extra childcare costs might offset the laughable £91 per week rent - can't see the 5 of us living in one room in a shared house that you might be able to afford for that.....

AnotherJoe

I want to know what the near £80 per week worth of "cultural activities" me and the missus should be enjoying each week are. Which BTW was about what it said I should be spending on food, and thats pretty close to what i do spend so I'm feeling culturally deprived now.

Frogletina

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

But as soon as you are a pensioner it says you only need £8,707 as housing benefit and council tax support makes up the difference. This indicates that it is a complete waste of time to take out a pension - why would you want to save to increase your pension to 17,311 to get the £286.54 a week a non pensioner is shown to need.

Council tax is shown to be under £16 a week in both cases, I wish!

It says a pensioner's needs are £264.88 a week
Non pensioner's needs are £286.54 a week

Not compared all the differences but rent is shown to be cheaper? The other differences are slight - when you go to Wetherspoons, Pastures New, you can spend more on alcohol! But you won't look as nice as you will be spending 95p less a week on clothes

frogletina