mortstar Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 As I'm sure most of you saw/heard in the news yesterday the Joesph Rowntree Foundation have produced a report explaining what the minimum income that is necessary to have an acceptable living standard (Minimum living standards: public consultation shows what people find acceptable). For a single adult they've reached the figure £13,400(gross)/pa. Looking at the jobs posted on this site, I see many jobs advertised at or just above this level and it isn't just IT support in school. Most 'support staff' in my school bar a few exceptional circumstances are pro-rata Grade 3/4, which means their salary comes out at around £10k~£14k. With fuel prices set to go up another 40% this year and the inevitable knock-on to all other prices (food, services, etc. etc.) will £13,400 be enough? This amount expects a single person to be renting accommodation for £52 a week. I think the local and national government leaders should be made to live in accommodation that costs £200/month to rent - nevermind the fact they can claim £200 back on expenses without a receipt in Westminster! There is nothing built in for pensions or savings in this figure. How is the state going to provide for such a large amount of the population once they reach pensionable age without a single penny in savings or an asset (like a house) to liquidise? This is coupled with the fact that, in education, we work with people who's salaries go up an extra couple of thousands pounds every time they take on "extra responsibility"...I just find it all a bit galling.
TechMonkey Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 £200 a month?! Where are they looking at accomodation? I have to say, it is a bit unfair to be picking up on the Pro Rata pay. I think you have to look at the full pay. Be like saying someone in a job for one day a week is being under paid as they only get £80. Apart from that, can't disagree. But what can be done?
Guest Guest Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 £200 a month?! Where are they looking at accomodation? For £200pm you couldnt even get a council flat. Surerly he means £300, but then id still struggle to find somewhere.
iatkinson Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Last time I was in a council flat, circa 2001 it cost me £70 a week in one of the grimiest areas imaginable.
torledo Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 the rowntree assessment does not include mortgage/rent payments, so you can add several thousand to the 13k and 26k figures highlighted..... we, as a single income family (read 'traditional family' of which there are around 2 million left in this country) need an income of atleast 32k to be able to afford private housing and have a reasonable standard of living....i'd imagine you'd have to increase that 32k figure by several more thousand for those families living and working down in the south and south-east of england... so never mind the 13-16k jobs, those would struggle to provide a single person with a reasonable standard of living, a family needs 30k+ minimum for the mortgage, taxes, cost of living to not overwhelm them....and to be honest 30k jobs do not grow on trees.... particularly in the public sector. where we are you cannot rent anyting (2 bed flat or small terrace) for less than £550 (mortgage repayments would be £800+ depending on deposit), a £26,800 income minus council tax, food, cost of motoring, bills etc. would probably leave around a grand to pay the rent where we are...that leaves £450 to 'save' and god help you if you've got a blown head gasket or you have other unexpected costs to meet or if it's that time of the year to pay road fund license, tv license or get your motor through the MOT. But, all in all, if your being frugal renting is mangeable for a family on 26.8k...if your a ftb single income household you'd be left with next-to-nothing which is not a bad thing, but your left with next-to-nothing on a 100k+ debt!!! 100k would have bought you a four bed executive home in 1998 even though salaries weren't THAT much lower than they are today....and don't forget that 100k+ debt that still has 25 years to run. Again the 25 years isn't the problem, the problem is that salaries are progressing at a snails pace while housing is 30% overvalued. So no, 26.8k is defintely not enough in the current climate. As an income it's reasonable even after taxes, if only rent and mortgages weren't so out of whack. today we have decent salaries and good medium to long term employment prospects and stable interest rates....if only someone would do something about insanely expensive property then living in the uk might not be all doom and gloom, even with high fuel prices.
dhicks Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 As I'm sure most of you saw/heard in the news yesterday the Joesph Rowntree Foundation have produced a report Nope, but I did hear on the radio that Canada is keen on hiring "high-tech workers", which I guess counts us. Looking at the Canadian immigration website (you know, I was just curious...), it looks like they're so keen they even have a whole special area for high-tech workers letting you skip the normal processing procedure. I could get a flat in downtown Vancouver with a shared pool, 2 blocks from the beach, for the same as I pay in rent in Alton - and Alton, while nice, just isn't downtown Vancouver... -- David Hicks
torledo Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Nope, but I did hear on the radio that Canada is keen on hiring "high-tech workers", which I guess counts us. Looking at the Canadian immigration website (you know, I was just curious...), it looks like they're so keen they even have a whole special area for high-tech workers letting you skip the normal processing procedure. I could get a flat in downtown Vancouver with a shared pool, 2 blocks from the beach, for the same as I pay in rent in Alton - and Alton, while nice, just isn't downtown Vancouver... -- David Hicks showing my ignorance here about the vancouver climate....but i'm guessing 'beach' in vancouver is more seaford in january than it is bondi.
dhicks Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 showing my ignorance here about the vancouver climate... Yep :-) Vancouver is on the west coast, on the Pacific ocean, and is sunny and warm during the summer with mild winters. It's surrounded by large beaches with sand imported from Japan. Okay, more rain than say California (technically the area is in a temperate rainforest), but that's probably a good thing anyway. The only downside to the area is the amount of disembodied feet that have seemingly been washing up all over the place recently. -- David Hicks
sparkeh Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Heard this in the morning and thought it was so out of touch. They should stick to making sweets.
SteveT Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Heard this in the morning and thought it was so out of touch. They should stick to making sweets. !. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is one of the biggest charitable research organisations in the country and concentrates on social research. Spends over £10 million a year on this. While Rowntrees is a sweet manufacturer, Joseph Rowntree was a Quaker so put the money he made to "good works". 2. If you actually read the paper, it doesn't say these are the amounts needed to live on, but that these are the amounts people claim they need, a very different thing. Furthermore, they are significantly higher than the amounts the government claims are required!!!
Guest Guest Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 but that these are the amounts people claim they need, Who claims? Im yet to hear of anyone who has been questioned, interviewed, or surveyed as part of these "the average person..." Where are all these "national average" people? Do they all live in a single area surrounded by housing occupied by people who do questionaires for a living?
sparkeh Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 They should make gingerbread houses for us to live in.
SteveT Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 to see what the report actually said see: A Minimum Income Standard :: Homepage Makes for interesting reading.
somabc Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Why do they not include housing costs? Its not like its an optional cost or a luxury. They should include Housing costs for each major city and county. In London for example even the cheapest 1 bed flat would cost £150 a week, travel (if you lived in zone 2) would cost at least £5 a day, so you are looking more at a basic income of £20,000+ for a single person.
dhicks Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Where are all these "national average" people? Aireborough, West Yorkshire -- David Hicks
richard.thomas Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 I'm paying £200pm but I am sharing a house with two others...
Butuz Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 I paid £195pcm to share a 4 bed detatched house in Cardiff all last year. But to be honest we were very lucky with that one. Paying £275/mo now to live in a much smaller flat with no garden! *sigh* Butuz
zag Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Flawed methodology imo. People spend as much as they earn end of!
dave.81 Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Just one thing i heard on the radio was that it classed multi-channel tv as an essential and a car a luxury, what world do these people live on.
torledo Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Just one thing i heard on the radio was that it classed multi-channel tv as an essential and a car a luxury, what world do these people live on. well, i've obviously got my priorities all wrong...i do have mult-channel tv but don't have a car. wooops!!!
SteveT Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Flawed methodology imo. People spend as much as they earn end of! Again ........ :doh: The report is on what people consider to be necessary incomes. Housing costs were specifically excluded since they vary too much according to individual circumstances. If you actually read the report you will see that they asked a sample of the population what they considered to be essential for modern living. The results give a snapshot of what people in the UK consider essential, not what the investigators thought essential!!!! Yet another case proving the need to read content rather than relying on media headlines!!!
Friez Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Flawed methodology imo. People spend as much as they earn end of! That is such an ignorant statement it's not even funny. I try and save as much as I possibly can. Hopefully I can get a house one day (current estimated house buy date = when I'm 70 odd). Many others end up having to spend MORE than they earn because they have bills e.t.c. that outstrip their income.
Guest Guest Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Just one thing i heard on the radio was that it classed multi-channel tv as an essential and a car a luxury, what world do these people live on. Probably 70% of people need a car to get to work, but 0% need a TV, never mind a multi-channel tv
Butuz Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 That is such an ignorant statement it's not even funny. I try and save as much as I possibly can. Hopefully I can get a house one day (current estimated house buy date = when I'm 70 odd). Many others end up having to spend MORE than they earn because they have bills e.t.c. that outstrip their income. Ah but are those bills actual costs of living such as gas bills, or car tax, or are those bills credit card and loan bills for all the fancy stuff they buy but don't need? Of the few people I know really struggling - its because they choose to fritter their money on several credit cards, or a nice car. Butuz
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now