Living on £12k a year...
Discussion
In apropos of the recent discussion on this thread http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
What do we think, could a couple with 2 kids actually exist on what is effectively the minimum wage with one wage earner and or other part time income with causal work etc?
And is it reasonable for those of us far and above that to 'allow' that to happen in the full knowledge their quality of life would be pretty crap?
Discuss....
What do we think, could a couple with 2 kids actually exist on what is effectively the minimum wage with one wage earner and or other part time income with causal work etc?
And is it reasonable for those of us far and above that to 'allow' that to happen in the full knowledge their quality of life would be pretty crap?
Discuss....
I'm glad you separated the questions (genuinely).
It's probably not possible, realistically. But it's also not reasonable to expect those 'far and above' them to subsidise them either, in my view. Namely because, by doing so, we cease to be far and above them. And honestly, those of us doing the subsidising are very often in as poor a position as they are, when all else is considered. I refer specifically to the childcare argument currently blazing, which to my mind is absolutely ridiculous. And the flippant comment that giving free / subsidised childcare to benefit recipients is fine, because children of parents paying for childcare will get holidays.
Absolutely ridiculous. I'm far from a youngster now, but my parents haven't had a holiday in years. They work bloody hard to subsidise those popping babies out like tic tacs.
Boils my piss.
It's probably not possible, realistically. But it's also not reasonable to expect those 'far and above' them to subsidise them either, in my view. Namely because, by doing so, we cease to be far and above them. And honestly, those of us doing the subsidising are very often in as poor a position as they are, when all else is considered. I refer specifically to the childcare argument currently blazing, which to my mind is absolutely ridiculous. And the flippant comment that giving free / subsidised childcare to benefit recipients is fine, because children of parents paying for childcare will get holidays.
Absolutely ridiculous. I'm far from a youngster now, but my parents haven't had a holiday in years. They work bloody hard to subsidise those popping babies out like tic tacs.
Boils my piss.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 12th April 10:26
I'm guessing it must be very very hard. If they had a house with a garden and grew their own veg, had a couple of chickens etc maybe if on a shoestring.
If however they expect the usuall Range Rover Sport, Plasma, Sky, Ipad/phones for all of them etc etc then not a chance without handouts.
If however they expect the usuall Range Rover Sport, Plasma, Sky, Ipad/phones for all of them etc etc then not a chance without handouts.
heppers75 said:
And is it reasonable for those of us far and above that to 'allow' that to happen in the full knowledge their quality of life would be pretty crap?
I am already being punitively taxed, from which a proportion is used for benefits, etc. That is the extent of my involvement or interest in this matter. Having two children is a lifestyle choice that they made.If these people were my friends, then I might consider doing something differently.
When I first started in the public sector I was on rather less than 12K per year… I don’t have kids so I’m no expert on expensive they may be, but living on that sum of cash was not fun. IIRC my take home wage was approx £800 per month.
What really pissed me off at the time, was that if I was claiming every benefit going I'd have been approx 30 quid a month better off!
What really pissed me off at the time, was that if I was claiming every benefit going I'd have been approx 30 quid a month better off!
You learn to live within your means - I know I earn significantly more than 12k a year, but still occasionally find money tight.
I know I run a car (11 year old), I am paying a mortgage, I have a holiday each year (maybe not a fancy one) and go down the pub a couple of nights a week. I also pay my way with regards to my children who live with their mum.
I also know if something major went on my car, or my boiler gave up, then things could be oh so different, as I don't have any savings.
The only 'benefit' I am elegible for is single persons reduction on my council tax.
When you are earning 12k a year, there are benefits (at least at the moment) such as working tax credits, child benefit, council tax benefit, housing benefit, all of which means that although you may not be earning, your outgoings are not as high as someone earning more.
I'm sure there are people who are on 12k and the associated benefits who go away abroad each year, have the full package sky subscription, and all the other things they seem to think they are entitled to - for me, I have what I can afford to pay for.
I know I run a car (11 year old), I am paying a mortgage, I have a holiday each year (maybe not a fancy one) and go down the pub a couple of nights a week. I also pay my way with regards to my children who live with their mum.
I also know if something major went on my car, or my boiler gave up, then things could be oh so different, as I don't have any savings.
The only 'benefit' I am elegible for is single persons reduction on my council tax.
When you are earning 12k a year, there are benefits (at least at the moment) such as working tax credits, child benefit, council tax benefit, housing benefit, all of which means that although you may not be earning, your outgoings are not as high as someone earning more.
I'm sure there are people who are on 12k and the associated benefits who go away abroad each year, have the full package sky subscription, and all the other things they seem to think they are entitled to - for me, I have what I can afford to pay for.
Edited by AndyNetwork on Thursday 12th April 10:35
It would be nigh on impossible to buy enough food and clothes and heat the house on that kind of money these days BUT they would get benefits which I am sure would help, perhaps not enough, I know not.
In some respects I would also question the logic of having two kids on such an income. Or even one.
In some respects I would also question the logic of having two kids on such an income. Or even one.
It is interesting...
In the other thread I proposed that the welfare system should be radically simplified and in essence you set the minimum wage at £12k a year anyone falling below that could be eligible for state support but only up to that level (or just under) anyone over it is totally on their own nada, zip, nothing, no child benefit not tax credits sod all you have your £12k and that is your lot.
I am sure that kind of life would be hard but you know what it would certainly make folks want to do more and achieve and then there would be those that were simply happy with that lot I would suspect.
One thing is for certain the welfare bill would dramatically reduce and you never know we might actually get folks to get off their backsides and contribute to society rather then be a net drain!
In the other thread I proposed that the welfare system should be radically simplified and in essence you set the minimum wage at £12k a year anyone falling below that could be eligible for state support but only up to that level (or just under) anyone over it is totally on their own nada, zip, nothing, no child benefit not tax credits sod all you have your £12k and that is your lot.
I am sure that kind of life would be hard but you know what it would certainly make folks want to do more and achieve and then there would be those that were simply happy with that lot I would suspect.
One thing is for certain the welfare bill would dramatically reduce and you never know we might actually get folks to get off their backsides and contribute to society rather then be a net drain!
doogz said:
If a couple choose to have 2 kids, they should be able to support them. If only one of them chooses to work, and only earns minumum wage, while the other stays at home, that's their choice. I see no reason for anyone/everyone else to be subsidising their choice of life.
If they fall on hard times, loose their job, struggle to find work, that's what state benefits should be for IMO, but they shouldn't be subsidised because of the choices they make.
While I copletely agree with most of that, seperqating those who lose thier job and are struggling to find work from those who who'd rather not have a job must be very tricky. I spent a few months out of work a couple of years ago and the variation in level of effort you'd hear from people chatting to advisors in the job centre was huge.If they fall on hard times, loose their job, struggle to find work, that's what state benefits should be for IMO, but they shouldn't be subsidised because of the choices they make.
Plus "only one of them chooses to work" may not be a choice either. If they've got youngish kids child care it likely to cost them more than they can earn in a minimum wage job, so they're better off staying at home to look after the kids. Presumably in the age of CRB checks there's less child minders around and they cost more than they did years ago.
doogz said:
If a couple have 2 kids, and one parent works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, there's still plenty of scope for the other to have a job, evenings, weekends, part time while the kids are at school.
My thoughts too... What started it was a post which in the previous thread was slightly off topic there really, but essentially: -
£12k a year = circa £900 a month net
Rent = £350
Utilities = £125
C-Tax = £75
Remaining = £350
Part time income from partner or late night Tesco checkout job etc add another £100 a month
Total to live off = £450 a month after your main bills.
It would not be 'nice' but you wouldn't starve.
My girlfriends parents are in this situation and they manage. Father works full time for just over minimum wage, mother works part time at weekends doing a night shift. They own their house, have a mortgage, etc. They still have one kid (14yrs) to raise but it's always been this way (there are 3 kids in total).
To be fair though her mother does make £10 an hour for her 16 hours a week and there's no real reason she couldn't work more hours (I have no idea why she doesn't).
I imagine it's easier for them though as they likely took on their mortgage when houses cost 'peanuts'.
Could they do the same starting again today with the price of rents, etc? Probably not.
To be fair though her mother does make £10 an hour for her 16 hours a week and there's no real reason she couldn't work more hours (I have no idea why she doesn't).
I imagine it's easier for them though as they likely took on their mortgage when houses cost 'peanuts'.
Could they do the same starting again today with the price of rents, etc? Probably not.
Sticks. said:
Guess it depends where you live to a great extent. You can rent a 1 bed flat here in mid Kent for £350, or two beds for £600.
Very true, the example I have given below is actually based on the real figures for one of my rental properties in Loughborough which is a 2 bed mid terrace a stones throw from the train station and walking distance from the town. heppers75 said:
What do we think, could a couple with 2 kids actually exist on what is effectively the minimum wage with one wage earner and or other part time income with causal work etc?
And is it reasonable for those of us far and above that to 'allow' that to happen in the full knowledge their quality of life would be pretty crap?
It is difficult to see how people could live on minimum wage without additional state assistance. Unfortunately in the current situation raising minimum wage far enough to avoid state intervention isn't possible without economic ramifications (Decline in GDP and reduction in new positions available).And is it reasonable for those of us far and above that to 'allow' that to happen in the full knowledge their quality of life would be pretty crap?
In my view, one way or another, society has a moral obligation to uphold a minimum standard of living for all people. This is particularly applicable to children, the young and elderly. Our biggest barrier at the moment is the way social welfare is used as a "one size fits all" approach. Personally I'd like to see long term unemployed people of a working age in training/apprenticeship positions but this is likely expensive in the short term. Governments only think in the short term because voters don't seem to retain memories beyond the last election.
I wouldn't live in a country where economic or social Darwinism was applied, it is more important to me in the grand scheme of things that people eat rather than the few can afford luxuries. Indeed I think such a move would impoverish a country and cause social unrest. Conflictingly however I think the way we deal with unemployment and social welfare is a relic of past times when most people where low skilled factory workers.
In conclusion I suppose what I'm saying is that if there are sacrifices that need to be made now to improve the standard of living in the future then we should make those sacrifices, even if the cost may fall on a few wealthy shortly. However I don't want to see any half measures implemented because we can't afford to fail this time.
speedy_thrills said:
It is difficult to see how people could live on minimum wage without additional state assistance.
Honestly? I have put together what I thought was a pretty rational and credible example below of it which would not be 'nice'; they would not be able to realistically drink, smoke have a mobile, sky and also eat but they would live. Whilst in turn have something to strive and move out of by improving their own lot in life.
And if they simply are not capable of doing that then well you know what some people will peak at that 'factory worker' level and never progress beyond it sorry to sound harsh but that is a fact of life.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff