Rich house poor house??

midlander81

This evening we watched the most recent episode of RIch house Poor house. I love these types of shows. I find it fascinating to get an insight in to how other people live. I am always in awe of people who manage on very low incomes etc.

So for those of you that don't watch the programme, two families, one 'rich' and one 'poor' swap houses for a week. Each family has to live off the disposable weekly budget of the other family. In the context of the programme, this is the money that they have left after they have paid their rent/mortgage and other essential outgoings, except food.

This week the 'rich' family had a phenomenal disposable income of about £1200 per week, however the 'poor' family had a weekly disposable income of £239.....

So, to me this seems quite a lot of money. Admittedly they did have about 3 kids and they do have to buy food out of this money, however £239 per week is not far off £1000 per month. This seems quite healthy to me and a lot more than a lot of people have I would imagine? Even the 'rich' mum commented that it seemed 'ok' and she actually had some money left at the end of the week!

I found it interesting that a family with £239 disposable income per week would be described as 'poor', or 'struggling'.

Perhaps i'm out of touch!!

CakeCrusader

£239 isn't much if there's 7/8 people in their family who all need food/clothes/shoes etc. The 'rich' family was a family of 4 and didn't need to buy anything apart from food for 4 people. Big difference really.

midlander81

CakeCrusader wrote: »

£239 isn't much if there's 7/8 people in their family who all need food/clothes/shoes etc. The 'rich' family was a family of 4 and didn't need to buy anything apart from food for 4 people. Big difference really.

I think that there were 3 kids in the house. Their other children were grown up and left home.
It certainly isn't cheap feeling and clothing 3 kids but I don't think that it costs £239 per week

CakeCrusader

I see your point, there's certainly been people on the programme who were worse off. It seemed like an odd one to be honest, their income is £239 because they are relying on one income, there seemed to be more of a 'get your other half out of the house and find a job' message here. I think it may still be tight for a family of 4, especially with food prices rising, but it's totally doable.

Takmon

midlander81 wrote: »

So, to me this seems quite a lot of money. Admittedly they did have about 3 kids and they do have to buy food out of this money, however £239 per week is not far off £1000 per month. This seems quite healthy to me and a lot more than a lot of people have I would imagine? Even the 'rich' mum commented that it seemed 'ok' and she actually had some money left at the end of the week!

£239 a week is over £1000 per month (just over £1035.66 to be exact). But for a family of 5 that's not exactly a lot of money.

You already said they haven't included food or clothes so that's not a small amount to start with. Then you need consider longer term expenses that most people forget about that come out of disposable income such as money to replace/repair appliances, furniture, cars and other household items.

Spendy_Spenderson

midlander81 wrote: »

I think that there were 3 kids in the house. Their other children were grown up and left home.
It certainly isn't cheap feeling and clothing 3 kids but I don't think that it costs £239 per week

They had 5 children still at home (4 boys sharing one room and 1 older girl in her own room), therefore 7 people in the household in total. As has been pointed out already, when 7 people need clothes, haircuts, food, clubs etc then it does add up.


However at the same time I do agree that 239 pounds is a fair amount of disposable income. I couldn't understand how that was actually accurate, as when the father in the 'poor' house counted out the disposable income the 'rich' family had (which was 1200 pounds) he actually said that was just over what he earns in total in a full month. On that basis I can't see how they would have 239 pounds leftover as disposable a week, after rent, bills, credit repayments etc.

CakeCrusader

Spendy_Spenderson wrote: »

They had 5 children still at home (4 boys sharing one room and 1 older girl in her own room), therefore 7 people in the household in total. As has been pointed out already, when 7 people need clothes, haircuts, food, clubs etc then it does add up.


However at the same time I do agree that 239 pounds is a fair amount of disposable income. I couldn't understand how that was actually accurate, as when the father in the 'poor' house counted out the disposable income the 'rich' family had (which was 1200 pounds) he actually said that was just over what he earns in total in a full month. On that basis I can't see how they would have 239 pounds leftover as disposable a week, after rent, bills, credit repayments etc.

He may earn just over 1200 a month, but by the time any child benefit/child and working tax credit/universal credit is added they probably have a higher weekly income. £239 could be all that's left once the bills/rent/mortgage is deduced.

midlander81

Takmon wrote: »

£239 a week is over £1000 per month (just over £1035.66 to be exact). But for a family of 5 that's not exactly a lot of money.

You already said they haven't included food or clothes so that's not a small amount to start with. Then you need consider longer term expenses that most people forget about that come out of disposable income such as money to replace/repair appliances, furniture, cars and other household items.

I agree that it's not a huge amount of money, however I don't think that you can refer to a family as 'poor' if they have nearly a grand a month disposable. There are currently 3 of us in our house. we shop mostly at Aldi and spend around 60 per week so £20 per head. Lets say that they are spending £140 on food, that still leaves nearly £100 per week for everything else.

Clothes are cheaper than they have ever been due to Primark, Pep & co etc. I can understand why they wouldn't be able to go on foreign holidays etc however with a bit of planning I reckon they could live fairly comfortably. They live in a council house too so they won't need to worry about repairs etc.

CakeCrusader

It's a new series, it will be interesting to see the next episode and whether it follows the same line. This one seemed to focus more on the fact that the family couldn't afford a foreign holiday because their income wasn't high enough, and they seemed to blame the mum for staying at home for this. It didn't look at whether the family would be better off if she worked (their benefits would be reduced, they would have to pay for childcare after school and during the holidays etc, none of this was mentioned), some families are worse off, some are better off. I'd be sceptical of Channel 5 and the message they are trying to portray here.

midlander81

CakeCrusader wrote: »

It's a new series, it will be interesting to see the next episode and whether it follows the same line. This one seemed to focus more on the fact that the family couldn't afford a foreign holiday because their income wasn't high enough, and they seemed to blame the mum for staying at home for this. It didn't look at whether the family would be better off if she worked (their benefits would be reduced, they would have to pay for childcare after school and during the holidays etc, none of this was mentioned), some families are worse off, some are better off. I'd be sceptical of Channel 5 and the message they are trying to portray here.

I agree. I blame social media for a lot of this. There seems to be an expectation that families should be able to abroad each year and have nice things. When I reflect on my childhood, we had very little money. We never went abroad but we all looked forward to our week long holiday in the UK, usually Devon or Cornwall. My dad drove old bangers and we had no central heating. I can remember my parents sitting at the kitchen table counting money and being very aware that it was a tense situation for them. Despite this I never felt that we were poor. I look back on my childhood with nothing but happiness and fond memories.

Davy_Jones_II

I agree with the above, but I’m more surprised at the fact that the “rich” families seem to spend all that they earn. I can’t get my head around that; they’ve a big mortgage, car payments, music lessons etc, and what’s left goes in the pot labeled “blow it.”