steviedeluxe

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...d-live-53-week

Of course his point is that for someone in between jobs, then yes of course they can survive on that, even if they have to dip into savings.
But...is it something we should expect someone to survive on over a long period? Maybe, but they'll be eating a lot of lentils...and it's better than existing on begging and nothing else...
Should there be a minimum EU-wide safety-net? Or will that just encourage the "shirkers" ?

jackytoo

Lets see...single person in a studio/bedsit. Rent and council tax free...possible. They certainly won't starve although they won't get all the trimmings like LCD TV. SKY, meals out etc. that working people enjoy. Why should they when the taxpayer is funding it. You can get a sliced loaf for 50p and eggs for a £1. Lettuce and tomatoes for less than £2 which will last more than once. Lots of cheap stuff around.

me me

The likes of Spain won´t go for that as they would end paying money to people who now don´t get any ie workers who have used up all their dole and other entitlements-

Fredbargate

Well that's the value of my UK pension and I think I am alive

Lynn R

Not being up to date on UK prices I can't really say, but I know I wouldn't want to do it. I hope we don't see any silly publicity stunts like politicians saying they will do it for a week, because that would be totally unrepresentative of the reality of managing on that amount over several months or longer.

Often, the poorest people find themselves having to pay more for goods and services than others do. They may be living in areas where there are no large supermarkets or public markets for fresh, cheap produce and paying higher prices in Spar type shops, and not be able to afford to run a car or pay bus fares to get to cheaper shops. They can't afford to buy in bulk to take advantage of special offers, and may not be able to afford the fuel costs involved in cooking to buy things like cheap cuts of meat for stewing (and someone living in a bedsit might not have more than a hotplate and a microwave to cook with). If they have to have pre-payment meters for electricity or gas, their utility costs will be much higher than the norm. You can't buy an annual season ticket or a monthly bus pass to cut down on public transport costs, because you can't afford the initial outlay. If you have to use a launderette to do your washing because you can't afford to buy a washing machine, that works out much more expensive, or you get sucked in to one of those terrible HP deals with sky high interest rates where the washing machine ends up costing ten times as much as if you'd paid cash for it.

Dick Dasterdly

Exist on it no problem, subject to being in good health, but I would hardly call it living.

Domino

so called "single portion" tins are more expensive than larger sizes on a price per gram or similar. It is therefore more cost effective to have a larger size and divide between 2 meals. So called cheap products are not always a better buy - just cheap. Cheap baked beans from Tesco/Asda have more liquid "slop" than actual beans, making the more expensive Heinz a better buy.

having a fridge/freezer helps because cheaper cuts of meat can be had in larger packs, split and frozen down. Morrisons used to do largish pork joints at around the £2.99/kg, but you had to invest £6+ but could be cut into smaller joints and frozen down.

Shopping in the evening when they are marking down the end of date stuff for quick sale also helps.

Been there done that, so long as it only covers the basic living needs then it is doable - but extra would be required for heat and light, travel etc.
Remember the Living on €100 per week thread ??

steviedeluxe

Living on 100 units (I find generally a Euro in Spain can buy more than a pound in the UK, although there are exceptions like fuel bills, newspapers etc) per week is probably about the minimum over a period of time. The problem comes with occasional items like when you need a pair of shoes, or smash your glasses, or take an interview that requires travel. And of course there are other things like the tv license or mobile phone bill, which are seen as luxuries, but in reality are very difficult to live totally without. But I do find that those who claim 53 a week is sufficient, are sometimes the same people who will spend more on their wine bill on a couple of meals out. It's hard however in the other direction - why should someone on minimum wage, or slogging hard to launch their own business, subsidise others who aren't contributing? A very difficult topic.

jackytoo

There are places where the unemployed can go for furniture etc. According to foro Londres the unemployed get free travel cards for jobseekers and one-off grants for emergencies. (they have everything sussed)

Of course I wouldn't like to do it but it should help some get off their backside and take the low paid jobs. The lefties always drag out some sob story but we all know that some are doing ok on benefits. Remember the Mum of 11 who bought her partner flying lessons for Xmas and a horse for one of her kids. Same as all this about the "room tax"...how can it be a tax when they are getting the rent paid.

amideislas

A the risk of revealing my age, I do remember a time when it was necessary to seek, establish, and maintain your means. Strangely, I also seem to remember quite a bit of economic prosperity in those days.

sigh Yes, I know, I sound like my father

steviedeluxe

It is a different world now though. A majority of the labour intensive factories, coal mines, steel work etc were closed down and a lot is done out in the far east. Other jobs get outsourced too. Then when you look at jobs that can be done locally - maybe in a coffee shop or a sandwich store, you find the employers prefer to hire trendy young Slovaks or Poles. There are still stores like Boots and Greggs who manage to hire locals, so you can't put it down glibly to lazy youth. They have a lot of opportunities that weren't available to us years ago (for a young IT geek now the world is their oyster), but generally things are grim work wise for the youth. I don't envy their lot.

davidinspain

That about sums it up.The NHS would just spend more in treatment and drugs for depression.

Lynn R

I think that is the crux of the problem - it is the families with a large number of children who rack up the telephone number entitlements in benefits which hit the headlines - but it is a very different story for a single person, I think they are the ones who struggle more than anybody to exist on what they get - and there are now more single person households than ever before. Last year my stepdaughter narrowly escaped being made homeless when she was made redundant and her claim for Housing Benefit took months to be processed. She has always worked since leaving college (she is now in her mid '30s) and thankfully got another job just in time, but received nothing but basic JSA for more than 3 months.

I'm sure I've said this before, but until they take the hard road of telling benefit claimants that no additional money will be available for children conceived whilst in receipt of benefits, then the problem of it being more financially attractive to produce more and more children than it is to go out to work will never be resolved.

davidinspain

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/68...per-vacancies/

Mitzyboy

In reality no one can live on that little money, certainly not IDS ...... they can exist but thats about it without a bit of herp

This about sums it up