How little money can a person live on?

[Northerner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22065978

Now, I'm pretty frugal, but I would seriously challenge some of the food items on the suggested list. Firstly - 800g bread for 50p that is 'healthy'? Nonsense - you can only get the cheapest white rubbish for that. Six eggs for 95p? Nowhere around here can you buy eggs for that price - double that usually. 7 bananas for 68p? Nope. 4 tins beans for ?1? Nope. Kidney beans fr 21p? Nope. 250g rice for 10p? Not basmati, you couldn't, so same as with bread. 250g butter for 33p? No chance. Jam, 30p a jar? Where?

Obviously, if you can visit various supermarkets, all large enough to have sufficient range of products and therefore probably out of town rather than local, then you might be able to find all the lowest-priced items, but that in itself would be a cost, both in time and probably public transport. Even then, it's not a healthy diet, certainly not for a diabetic, and we have the 'true' healthy diets without all the c**p carbs!

This reminds me of the 'Stakhanov Principle'. In Soviet Russia there was a miner called Stakhanov who was able to mine a prodigious amount of coal each day. Although he was truly exceptional and no-one could come close to matching his feat, Stalin decreed that each miner should be expected to mine at least that amount each day. In the same way, this sort of article is suggesting something that is practically unachievable in the long term. 😱

 

[Flutterby]

This sounds like a project for Paul - a challenge to see if he can get all the items on the list - a bit like the apprentice!

Seriously though you are so right - the 50p bread is going to be white c**p and I can't imagine where you'd get butter so cheap. I think some of the stuff might be available if you shopped around in Lidl or Aldi or somewhere but it's all going to be rubbish ingredients - not exactly a healthy diet.

 

[AlisonM]

Managing on basic rate benefits, no housing benefit as we own the house outright, is a huge struggle for me. I constantly have to choose which bill to pay this week and weigh that against what food I can buy. I can't live on tins or bulk up on spuds and pasta because of the diabetes. I buy the best I can, often waiting till the end of the day to get the best bargains for meat, fruit and veg. I look out for Bogofs and twofers, and use coupons when I can to stretch things. I can't afford a haircut, or going out for a cuppa without cutting out something I really shouldn't. I use the pound shop for things like shampoo and other hygiene products.

Half my money goes on bills (gas, electricity, water, phones, internet) many of which are higher up here anyway, the rest is spent on food and toiletries. Occasionally, I will be very naughty and spend some of it on threads for my crochet, but that means going without something else, or leaving a bill unpaid for a few more days.

I don't drive, drink or smoke and couldn't afford to even I wanted to. I desperately need new shoes, a lighter coat and new glasses, but I don't have the money and don't want to get a Social Fund Loan because I'd be even worse off for some time as I paid it back. Luckily, having won my appeal, I should be getting a windfall soon of the back benefits that have been withheld till now. That will pay some urgent bills and maybe get me my specs. If I'm lucky, it will get me the shoes and coat too.

30p pot of jam? If you could find such a thing would you want it?

 

[Caroline]

I think it depends where you live how cheaply you can live. If you live near lots of shops you can shop around. Although I can reach shops easily enough they are not close enough together to be able to shop in this way.

It also depends how easy it is for you to go shoppng, some people are not physically able to shop so shopping around is impossible for them.

 

[DeusXM]

This whole 'living on a budget' issue is a complete red herring though.

The current Government is trying to engender a social climate whereby those on benefits are demonised, and those on JSA etc are the ones labelled the scroungers or fraudsters. We are told that these people are draining the country dry of money so we need to scrap benefits.

We're always told the country spends ?x billion on benefits. However, half of what is considered benefits spending is in fact, pensions. JSA and so on is a drop in the ocean relatively speaking, and fraud is an even smaller proportion of this.

The fact is, if we scrapped all the benefits the Government wants to and completely eliminated benefit fraud, the current spending on benefits would still be phenomenal. We currently spend around ?160 billion on 'benefits'. Even if we scrapped disability benefits, housing allowances and JSA, we would still be spending around ?80bn. Meanwhile, benefit fraud amounts to ?1.2bn. To put this in perspective, it is believed that the Government UNDERPAID benefits last year by ?1.3bn, which means fraud was offset and thus didn't actually cost the Treasury anything!

The elephant in the room which isn't being address is tax evasion. I'm no accountant and I don't know how much tax companies should really be paying, but I'm willing to estimate if every company in Britain paid tax fairly instead of using loopholes to avoid it, the revenue received would more than offset whatever we currently spend on non-pension benefits. It certainly would cover the cost of fraud (if fraud actually cost us!).

However, the current Government has a political incentive to turn you against your neighbours rather than against the corporations, so we end up with coverage of some single mother with 10 kids and Sky TV being an example of the worst excess of not paying their way, while some fat guy in a suit who screws this country out of millions of pounds a year goes off for another round of golf with the Cabinet.

 

[AlisonM]

I think it depends where you live how cheaply you can live. If you live near lots of shops you can shop around. Although I can reach shops easily enough they are not close enough together to be able to shop in this way.

It also depends how easy it is for you to go shoppng, some people are not physically able to shop so shopping around is impossible for them.

Yes, that's the other major problem I face. I'm increasingly less able to get around and carrying a lot of shopping with two walking sticks is impossible. There are shops that will deliver but they charge and you can't get the bargains that way.

 

[Caroline]

Yes, that's the other major problem I face. I'm increasingly less able to get around and carrying a lot of shopping with two walking sticks is impossible. There are shops that will deliver but they charge and you can't get the bargains that way.

Some shops do deliver mid week for free but you have to spend a certain ammount to get that and you often miss the best bargains. Places like Iceland also deliver once you have chosen it but there is a minimum spend for this too. Seems we just can't win.

The other thing that occured to me is if you get a cab back it defeats the object of shopping round as the money saved is spent on the cab fare home.

 

[Northerner]

I agree DeusXM, this government is all about creating divisions, where the 'haves' are being made to feel all righteous and indignant about the 'have-nots'. There are thousands of 'hard-working families who want to get on' who are receiving benefts simply because they are not being paid a living wage by the often large and profitable businesses that employ them, and as you say, avoid paying their fair share of tax. This means that those who are paying tax in full, because they can't afford accountants, are subsidising these same businesses in effect.

It's nonsensical to me that if the government were to devote the same energies towards rich people and businesses as they do towards hammering the poor and vulnerable that all of a sudden none of them would want to do business in this country and would up and leave.

It's a pattern with this government - look at how Hunt is having a go at nurses about their quality of care, when the vast majority are very hard-working, and trying their best under very high pressures. They pick a few examples and imply that this is a widespread problem that the brave government is trying to rectify for the mythical 'rest of us' 😡

Hmm..better stop ranting now! 😱

 

[Northerner]

Some shops do deliver mid week for free but you have to spend a certain ammount to get that and you often miss the best bargains. Places like Iceland also deliver once you have chosen it but there is a minimum spend for this too. Seems we just can't win.

The other thing that occured to me is if you get a cab back it defeats the object of shopping round as the money saved is spent on the cab fare home.

Shopping online also means you can't take advantage of reduced-price items which I often buy on impulse to stick in the freezer.

 

[Caroline]

It's a pattern with this government - look at how Hunt is having a go at nurses about their quality of care, when the vast majority are very hard-working, and trying their best under very high pressures. They pick a few examples and imply that this is a widespread problem that the brave government is trying to rectify for the mythical 'rest of us' 😡

Hmm..better stop ranting now! 😱

when my dad was in hospital he got a very good level of care from the often over worked and hard working nurses. No one could fault it. The ones who complained about their care loudest were often the most difficult patients who thought the nurses wer their personal slaves.

Sometimes for our own mental health it is good to have a rant, so rant away.

 

[Abi]

I have to say that I agree with most of the above posts
We often see articles or hear about people who continue to have large familys and live a life of comfort off of the state for years when pefectly capable of going to work
I wonder if the government is intentionally allowing a few families to live in this way in order that the public deamonises all people on benefits- thereby creating an "anti welfare" culture where in people are increasingly happy for tax cuts in return for less expenditure on welfare

 

[Caroline]

I have to say that I agree with most of the above posts
We often see articles or hear about people who continue to have large familys and live a life of comfort off of the state for years when pefectly capable of going to work
I wonder if the government is intentionally allowing a few families to live in this way in order that the public deamonises all people on benefits- thereby creating an "anti welfare" culture where in people are increasingly happy for tax cuts in return for less expenditure on welfare

The example so recently in the news is that monster who set fire to his children...

 

[Northerner]

I have to say that I agree with most of the above posts
We often see articles or hear about people who continue to have large familys and live a life of comfort off of the state for years when pefectly capable of going to work
I wonder if the government is intentionally allowing a few families to live in this way in order that the public deamonises all people on benefits- thereby creating an "anti welfare" culture where in people are increasingly happy for tax cuts in return for less expenditure on welfare

It wouldn't surprise me, although to be fair they are introducing benefit caps which might affect those as well. What concerns me is that we may or may not end up with a stronger economy (there's no evidence of anything positive happening there) but we will not end up with a stronger society. Echos of the 1980s and Harry Enfield's 'Loadsamoney' versus an increasingly isolated underclass Another example of the divisiveness being introduced is the agitation against immigrants and the scaremongering about Bulgarians and Romanians with no real supporting evidence. These are all right-wing man-in-the-pub prejudices stirred up by those with money and influence and no real experience of the life of the ordinary person.

Oops! Went off on one again, better check my levels! 🙂

 

[Twitchy]

Trouble is, you talk to health care professionals around here & a constant gripe is healthcare tourism - they know it's happening, it's not even subtle but there seems to be no functioning way to claim the money back. This isn't sonething I've plucked out of the air, or from a man down the pub, it's first hand from NHS & police workers I know & trust not to be bigots. People literally go from the airport to A&E knowing they can't be turned away. I can also cite the example of my father's wife, who is not British, not even an EU or Commonwealth citizen but got into the UK on a student visa, having already joined a dating agency before she left. (mugmatches.com maybe?!!). She made no bones about bragging that her countryfolk make a point of sharing info (even classes!) on how to get into the UK & how to tap into the system when they are here. Now, surprise surprise, moves are afoot to get her teenage kids over. These people aren't coming over here to sit around on JSA; the NHS itself is enough of a pull & it is a coldly calculated economic decision. Not something I'd ever wanted to believe, but her attitude shocked me to the core. She's never paid into the NHS, but has deliverately moved here to benefit from it. Equally you could argue a kid hasn't paid in, but to my mind there's a moral difference, there's no intention to benefit from others' contributions.

 

[DeusXM]

I wonder if the government is intentionally allowing a few families to live in this way in order that the public deamonises all people on benefits- thereby creating an "anti welfare" culture where in people are increasingly happy for tax cuts in return for less expenditure on welfare

The Philpott case was a bit of an anomaly (although a gift for the Government's case).

However, you know when you read these stories about certain individuals claiming a fortune in benefits? How do you think the journalists find out about these stories? Because I assure you, it has nothing to do with research. As an ex-journalist and now a PR man, I can tell you that the majority of national journalists simply don't have the time to be able to identify particular individuals. But somehow, magically, this information appears to end up in their laps, ready packaged and ready to print. That information comes from somewhere as part of a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Shopping online also means you can't take advantage of reduced-price items which I often buy on impulse to stick in the freezer.

True, but there are ways to spend less overall online. I use the MySupermarket service - you tell it what you want to buy, it tells you where's the cheapest place to order from and you can even split your basket between supermarkets so you get the absolute cheapest deal. It also suggests cheaper alternative products and finds you the offers. Every time I use this, I save around ?40-?50 per shop, which more than offsets the cost of delivery. Plus, not having a car, it's a godsend for bulk buying.

 

[Copepod]

Not the first such experiment...

I remember seeing a TV programme in early 1980s, when Matthew Parris was a Conservative MP, and attemped to live for a week on the single person's payment - about ?25.00, I think, in a northern English city (Tyneside, I think), far from his rural constituency in Derbyshire. Money was deducted for ongoing expenses eg clothes, but he had to pay for all bus fares, electricity etc - and ended up in the dark when he ran out of money for lecky meter. I think he repeated it in early 20s, presumably 20 years on.

And there was a reporter on BBC Nationwide programme who lived the life of a down and out in London, for a month in late 1970s / early 1980s, I think.

 

[Northerner]

I remember seeing a TV programme in early 1980s, when Matthew Parris was a Conservative MP, and attemped to live for a week on the single person's payment - about ?25.00, I think, in a northern English city (Tyneside, I think), far from his rural constituency in Derbyshire. Money was deducted for ongoing expenses eg clothes, but he had to pay for all bus fares, electricity etc - and ended up in the dark when he ran out of money for lecky meter. I think he repeated it in early 20s, presumably 20 years on.

And there was a reporter on BBC Nationwide programme who lived the life of a down and out in London, for a month in late 1970s / early 1980s, I think.

Yes, I remember the Matthew Parris experiment. I was impressed to see that he totally revised his position on the matter afterwards.

 

[Northerner]

True, but there are ways to spend less overall online. I use the MySupermarket service - you tell it what you want to buy, it tells you where's the cheapest place to order from and you can even split your basket between supermarkets so you get the absolute cheapest deal. It also suggests cheaper alternative products and finds you the offers. Every time I use this, I save around ?40-?50 per shop, which more than offsets the cost of delivery. Plus, not having a car, it's a godsend for bulk buying.

I never have ?40-50 to spend on a shop, let alone save that amount! 😱

 

[AlisonM]

I never have ?40-50 to spend on a shop, let alone save that amount! 😱

Ditto! 😱

 

[DeusXM]

This is a monthly shop for two people in London - everything we need for the whole month, including booze. I genuinely don't know whether around ?100 a month or so for groceries would be considered a lot but I do know I'm saving enough to mean I essentially get 4 months' worth of groceries for free.

I remember seeing a TV programme in early 1980s, when Matthew Parris was a Conservative MP, and attemped to live for a week on the single person's payment - about ?25.00

I'm always dubious about these investigations as I'm firmly of the view that jobseekers' allowance should not be a liveable amount - it should be enough to ensure you don't starve but that's it. I really take issue when thinktanks start recommending JSA should for some reason stretch to a holiday and a TV (as was suggested in the BBC article). If JSA wasn't pretty unbearable, it removes an incentive to look for work. My view is if I have to bust my hump to live in a shoebox and take a holiday once a year, I don't see why someone should get the same entitlement without working IF they are able to work.

Disability allowance however, is a completely different thing. If you are incapable of working through disability then you deserve and need a payment that is enough to give you a reasonable life as you don't have an alternative means of funding yourself.