Cherry takes the reins

Floss

WelshmansDaughter said:

This article says £67 for a week for a couple.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/26/uk-benefits-fall-short-of-minimum-living-cost-by-140-a-month-charities-say
Although it is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and they may not be the most practical of folk.

The JRF & Trussell Trust probably have their facts almost spot on, although that was published in February, costs for 2023/24 were estimated and food costs have increased significantly since then.

Cherryfudge

I'm guessing @WelshmansDaughter meant that the JRF spell out what they think should happen? That might be 'impractical' because people don't want wealth to be shared more evenly.  

I was looking for more recent data but I suppose it's changing day by day so nothing will be right up to date.

WelshmansDaughter

I like to live in fairytale Utopia land where you get asked are you suffering? Yes. Ok lets figure out what help you need. 
The type of stats in use today are top down rather than bottom up which only works in short term.

I had a controversial thought last night Cherry, what if you increased your food budget? Your estimate was about 5500 annual. What if you increased it to 6000 and took out 500 per month just to spend on groceries? Do you think you would see an attitude shift? Spend more or have money left over?

Cherryfudge

I will join you in the fairy tale Utopia, @WelshmansDaughter: if the questions don't get asked, how can they be addressed?

Regarding the food budget: since the pandemic started we haven't got 'food money' out in cash, so the actual budget side of it has gone by the by. We have more cash available despite a cut in income, as the mortgage was paid off just before lockdown. As long as there was cash left at the end of the month, I wasn't too worried. In fact, for a long time the cash mounted up.

What, apart from COL, made a difference? Probably the main factor has been putting money into a higher interest account, which is limited term and comes to an end in the autumn. I've done that using the current account that my pay goes into, as I was aware it wasn't doing anything useful just sitting there. Savings and inherited money are elsewhere and I try not to touch them, so this is mostly about how I handle money on a day to day level. It just means that money is tighter when it gets to the end of the month, and I've wondered if I should reduce the savings, but why do it if it's not really necessary?

Which is a long way of trying to admit there's not really a budget, I just use tactics I've learned over the years to reduce outgoings. It was interesting to read an article I saw off the one you linked to, talking about an experimental minimum income of £1,600 for a handful of individuals to see the effect it had on them. That's way above what I earn. I'm not saying I couldn't cut costs, as we have our luxuries. I feel I live fairly modestly, though.

Our housekeeping includes cleaning products as well as food and a number of these are delivered (loo rolls, paper towels, tissues come about once a year in the minimum delivery size. Laundry capsules, dishwasher tablets, fabric conditioner and multi-surface spray come as needed, and I keep an eye on both accounts and modify delivery dates so I don't have too much in store).

What is shocking is the increases in basics that I buy. Oats went up from 75p to 84p a bag recently. That's still not much to pay for the food value in them, but it's an increase, and it's real, and for people on the breadline, it's very significant. Then there are the things I buy because they contribute to making the rest of the household run smoothly, for instance washing soda, which I use in the washing machine to decrease limescale and reduce detergent use, has gone up to 200% of what it cost a year ago. Regular luxuries: cappuccino sachets went from a minimum of £1.50 a box to £2 a box, though they are now on offer at £1.89 (and I'm experimenting with cheaper brands).

If I were organised enough, I'd have all the details on a spreadsheet but I have more good intentions than energy to apply them. I think I need to say 'this is what things cost now, accept it and let it be a motivator not to buy junk food'. I have the leeway should I need it.

Oh - the other significant thing - I chose cooking as a grounding activity quite early on in counselling. It's something I really enjoy, and which takes up enough of my attention to give me a mental break. I'm also really interested in nutrition, hence a lot of frozen vegetables and beans that I can throw into curries and casseroles to feed our microbiomes! And I guess that contributes to the ridiculous amount of food shopping trips, because if I have to get leeks, for instance, or pomegranates or ras el hanout, they aren't something I would have in stock. At least it's an interest that contributes to our health, depending on how I use it (which is why I have a backlog of baking ingredients: DH said he will only eat so much cake!).

WelshmansDaughter

I find myself curious as to whether anything has gone down in price? It would be an interesting test of economic principles.
I wonder if it would be possible to cut food bills by varying your diet each shop. 
N.B. this is a hypothesis not a dig at anyone's choices or lack thereof.

At one point in Ireland there was such a glut of some things that supermarkets were selling them for 6p. Swings and roundabouts 

Cherryfudge

WelshmansDaughter said:

I find myself curious as to whether anything has gone down in price? It would be an interesting test of economic principles.

I suspect a supermarket war over certain popular items does actually drive down prices - perhaps I'm not the only one to migrate between coffee brands? Some things could possibly vary seasonally too, though offhand I don't know what. In the very long term, sugar, spices and tea have gone down relative to income, but that's literally over hundreds of years.  

How interesting that supermarkets were selling things for 6p! Now, where did I park my time machine...?

I wonder if it would be possible to cut food bills by varying your diet each shop. 

There's the basis for a challenge in there! Probably there's an element of this for those who can be versatile with where they shop, because they can follow offers round, or buy sale items.

I was intending to complete the DoItProfiler this afternoon but first I had to put a massive chicken chasseur in the slow cooker (using up packets of chicken, bacon and carrots, but once cooked some of these will go back in the freezer). I've washed the bedding from DS2's room as Auntie is staying this weekend and I can't remember washing it after DS2 was home the other week. DH has taken a big bag of things to the charity shop and a spare duvet to the refuge, and I've used some of the under-bed storage boxes that DS2 emptied to pack his shoes and the spare bedding for that room neatly away. There's still a lot in that room but it's slowly reducing.

Right (said she, sternly), time I looked out the login for that website.

badmemory

I made the mistake of comparing last years housekeeping bills with this years.  The only thing that has changed is that I am more careful to buy when on offer when I probably wouldn't have bothered.  20% increase was a really good month, the odd month was over 40%.  I would actually like to go through their figures with a fine tooth comb as frankly I find them questionable.

Cherryfudge

That's really alarming, @badmemory. I suppose there will be variation according to what we buy most of, but across the board increases are affecting everyone.

I've always found the figures quoted on programmes about reducing food spending to be unachievable, though I don't generally buy many branded goods and I like to cook from scratch.

Floss

Cherryfudge said:

   ... It was interesting to read an article I saw off the one you linked to, talking about an experimental minimum income of £1,600 for a handful of individuals to see the effect it had on them. That's way above what I earn...

That £1,600 is around 20% less than my salary, but I live alone so all bills, maintenance, car repairs etc are paid from my income. If I were unable to work and had run out of sick pay, I couldn't keep my car and home, heat / light it and feed myself on the existing benefit levels. Having a guaranteed level would mean that if I do need to finish work before retirement age in 8 years, I could afford to pay my bills & keep my roof over my head, rather than having to continue working when not well enough to do so.

I guess the increased cost to the public purse of that figure would be offset by removing the administration costs of the wide range of benefits we have now.

Cherryfudge

Floss said:

Cherryfudge said:

   ... It was interesting to read an article I saw off the one you linked to, talking about an experimental minimum income of £1,600 for a handful of individuals to see the effect it had on them. That's way above what I earn...

That £1,600 is around 20% less than my salary, but I live alone so all bills, maintenance, car repairs etc are paid from my income. If I were unable to work and had run out of sick pay, I couldn't keep my car and home, heat / light it and feed myself on the existing benefit levels. Having a guaranteed level would mean that if I do need to finish work before retirement age in 8 years, I could afford to pay my bills & keep my roof over my head, rather than having to continue working when not well enough to do so.

I don't know how I'd cope if I lived alone: DH is currently earning less than I do but his salary makes all the difference. He used to earn more and his eventual pension will reflect that. I've effectively taken a pay cut as I've been off with stress for some months and don't think I would benefit from going back as things are. I kind of miss opening my payslip and seeing random amounts of extra money according to how many extra shifts I've worked, but it's a small price to pay for dropping the stress.