£53 a week

[Charl91]

Can you even rent somewhere for £250!!?

You can in Stoke (where I am). House prices are dirt cheap round here.

Living anywhere else, you're even more fvcked.

[pSinatra]

Can you even rent somewhere for £250!!?

You can't even get a council flat for that.

........you would need to be unemployed though, before you are eligible for a council property & free satellite TV.

[Rincewind]

Free satelite TV? First time I heard of that. As far as I know you only get housing discount and you now have to pay a portion of Council Tax. You still have to pay for gas, electric etc.

[Captain...]

Call it what you like it's still true.

Even in this country there would be consequences. My wife works for Asda for a little less than £7ph, I believe this living wage campaign wants the minimum wage to be £10,or something like that. That would mean giving most of their staff a £3ph raise. The only way they could pay for that would be a massive rise in prices that we all pay for our food. This would inevitably lead to inflation which reduces the value of money meaning that you would have to increase the living wage still further just to stand still, which would in turn lead to more inflation.It's a silly idea.

...and yet I was shot down in flames when I suggested we lower the minimum wage.

Reducing the minimum wage would stop a large number of unskilled economic migrants, look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage

The figures seem out of date as the UK minimum wage is still £5 something, but you can see the minimum wage in Poland is/was a third of the UK minimum, of course unskilled polish people will come here if they can earn 3 times as much without having to train or learn a skill (except English of course).

If done correctly lowering the minimum wage would bring down the cost of goods, the problem would be companies exploiting it to increase their profits and not passing savings on to customers.

[danny.]

You can't even get a council flat for that.

........you would need to be unemployed though, before you are eligible for a council property & free satellite TV.

I was going to say... I used to live in a right crap hole flat and it was £450/mo! Didn't even have Sky!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

If anyone has Sky, move up the social ladder one place. Ah! Now I feel better.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

So, assuming he is on benefit, he reckons he could pay for the gas, water, electricity, food, and all other essentials on £53. What an amazing man.

Even toilet paper costs a couple of quid a week. Maybe he would "washit" dry it out, then re use it.

[Manwell Pablo]

Ok, so £53 per week is £212 per month. These are my actual monthly bills (I live with my GF which makes some things a little cheaper) -

£18 gym

£10 tv/internet

£40 gas/electricity/water

£3 netflix

£6 phone

£5 Xbox live

£100 food per month (£25 x 4 weeks)

= £182 a month.

That gives me £30 a month left over.

.

You do realise this is something you have to do for pretty much life in order to prove that it is feasible, not something you can play at doing for a few months before going back to normal, I'm quite sure any of us could exist on a shoe string for a short period of time (in fact I've done it myself) However it is when something goes wrong i.e Your TV and your Xbox both cark it inside of 2 weeks of each other and Netflix put their price up by a couple of quid etc etc it will soon become apparent it is impossible to live of £53 quid long term.

[Webbo]

...and yet I was shot down in flames when I suggested we lower the minimum wage.

Not by me.

[Vardinhio]

I think £53 is supposed to encourage people to find work, the idea being that whilst you can survive on it you certainly wont be able to live anything like you would want to.

I'm not for lowering the minimum wage, it would mean those who are already struggling just struggle even more and would lower the difference between benefits and those working in supermarkets.

[Captain...]

I think £53 is supposed to encourage people to find work, the idea being that whilst you can survive on it you certainly wont be able to live anything like you would want to.

I'm not for lowering the minimum wage, it would mean those who are already struggling just struggle even more and would lower the difference between benefits and those working in supermarkets.

Lowering the minimum wage would increase benefits in the short term as people would drop below the minimum standard of income and qualify for more benefits, so nobody would be pushed into poverty, as part of lowering the minimum wage it would need to be done along with driving down the cost of living in the UK, getting the savings by the supermarkets for example by reducing costs on wages to be returned by cutting the costs of the basics.

If we lower the cost of living in the UK we can then lower benefits as people will need less money to live to a reasonable standard.

In theory if we halve everything in the UK, cost, price, wages, benefits etc, then we won't be worse off, except when we do business abroad, and the value of the pound is halved or doubled, I'm still trying to figure it out in my head what it would all mean.

[MooseBreath]

Lowering the minimum wage would increase benefits in the short term as people would drop below the minimum standard of income and qualify for more benefits, so nobody would be pushed into poverty, as part of lowering the minimum wage it would need to be done along with driving down the cost of living in the UK, getting the savings by the supermarkets for example by reducing costs on wages to be returned by cutting the costs of the basics.

If we lower the cost of living in the UK we can then lower benefits as people will need less money to live to a reasonable standard.

In theory if we halve everything in the UK, cost, price, wages, benefits etc, then we won't be worse off, except when we do business abroad, and the value of the pound is halved or doubled, I'm still trying to figure it out in my head what it would all mean.

If we halved everything we'd be in exactly the same position as we are now but with a pathetic currency. We might gain a nice export market but at the expense of real wealth, what's the point?

Forcing the minimum wage down in theory means less disposable income, which means businesses like supermarkets have to cut prices, which means they make less money so there is no savings that can be passed on. Everything reverts back to mean, you've just devalued your currency for no reason.

[Charl91]

You do realise this is something you have to do for pretty much life in order to prove that it is feasible, not something you can play at doing for a few months before going back to normal, I'm quite sure any of us could exist on a shoe string for a short period of time (in fact I've done it myself) However it is when something goes wrong i.e Your TV and your Xbox both cark it inside of 2 weeks of each other and Netflix put their price up by a couple of quid etc etc it will soon become apparent it is impossible to live of £53 quid long term.

It's not meant to be a life style choice. It's meant to be enough to survive on while out of work. It isn't SUPPOSED to be a life style choice. It's not impossible by a long stretch, unless you view luxuries such as TV, Xbox or going out with friends as a necessity. That's what they are - luxuries, not something that people have a divine right to have.

I was just showing my monthly outgoing bills, but if I had to live on benefits long term, I would obviously cancel netflix/gym subscriptions and the like, 'til I had a job. After rent, I've been living off £250 a month for the past year (less than the £70 a week most get on benefits, and not much more then the supposed £53) and I've been managing just fine. If you actually budget and don't smoke/drink/waste all your money on crap, it can go a long way.

I can't comment on what it's like for a family on a benefits budget, but for a single person it's fine.

[ADK]

Lowering minimum wage whilst covering the loss of earnings with increases in tax credits is just going to massively increase the welfare bill while not really affecting the cost of living at all.

[leicesterseddon]

I don't think the argument is so much about us low-lifes having to survive on £53 a week. It's the arrogance of a shit like IDS saying he could.

The man is a known liar & managed to marry into a very rich family. Hardly a role model.

What else could he have done though?

I listened to the interview on the Today programme, Humphrys asked him 'Could you live on £53 a week?' as a direct question to start the interview.

If he says no, the instant reply is going to be 'well why should Mr. X, or whatever, be expected to do it?'. If he says yes, then they run the story 'IDS claims/says/asserts he can live off £53 a week'. Simple journalistic manoeuvre to make you look like a prat either way...to be honest, he should have just tried to avoid the question (as I'm sure the real-life Malcolm Tucker in the Press Office has already told him).

Either way, it's a very facile and ad hominem way to do politics during a debt crisis when the deficit badly needs to be cut.

[Part Of The Crowd]

The way I see it, and forgive me if I put it in a slightly derpy way as I'm having one of those days.

If you have your housing paid for etc and then you have your £53 a week JSA, the way you're meant to live on it is exactly that. You get yourself food and essentials needed to live. People saying that a phone bill will take a chunk out of that are surely thinking that JSA is fine to use on luxuries.

JSA is not an alternative to a job, it's meant to be seen as something that stops you being unable to live if you have no job. I know some people work extremely hard indeed at getting a job, or work to make their own business viable while on JSA and put it to good use, but to make the system more comfortable to them is making it more comfortable for the people who do try to live a life of luxury off of JSA without the intention of getting a job. It even opens up a new bracket of people who feel it's fine to quit their job for JSA.

I was on JSA for a couple of months, I used the money for food and fuel and that's it. I'd even have put fuel as a luxury but I already owned my own car and insurance for it at this point and it was useful in getting myself another job. When I see hardworking people like the guy who puts hundreds of hours a month into his stall I do feel sorry for them, but I do always think that the system's there to help people but not spoonfeed everything to them.

I'm fine if I'm not quite 'getting it', but I think that people see 'living' these days as something completely different to what it means and expect to be able to afford luxuries on it.

[whitlock]

Rent - paid for

Electric, gas, water - £20pw

Food - £15pw

Total - £35pw

God this is tough.

I'd struggle to spend £15 on food a week. What if you don't live near a shop? You need money to get there and back. I think benefits are for lazy fcuks.

Ooo let's have a kid and get a free house and put it all over Facebook how your a great mummy. Bore off, feeding your kid doesn't make you great, it's your duty, great mum is giving the kid a chance. Benefit mums give there kids no future chances, which then results in the kids being the same. Cut benefits and let the scrounges die out over the next few years.

Job done.

[pSinatra]

The way I see it, and forgive me if I put it in a slightly derpy way as I'm having one of those days.

If you have your housing paid for etc and then you have your £53 a week JSA, the way you're meant to live on it is exactly that. You get yourself food and essentials needed to live. People saying that a phone bill will take a chunk out of that are surely thinking that JSA is fine to use on luxuries.

JSA is not an alternative to a job, it's meant to be seen as something that stops you being unable to live if you have no job. I know some people work extremely hard indeed at getting a job, or work to make their own business viable while on JSA and put it to good use, but to make the system more comfortable to them is making it more comfortable for the people who do try to live a life of luxury off of JSA without the intention of getting a job. It even opens up a new bracket of people who feel it's fine to quit their job for JSA.

I was on JSA for a couple of months, I used the money for food and fuel and that's it. I'd even have put fuel as a luxury but I already owned my own car and insurance for it at this point and it was useful in getting myself another job. When I see hardworking people like the guy who puts hundreds of hours a month into his stall I do feel sorry for them, but I do always think that the system's there to help people but not spoonfeed everything to them.

I'm fine if I'm not quite 'getting it', but I think that people see 'living' these days as something completely different to what it means and expect to be able to afford luxuries on it.

That's pretty much how I see it too.

There are people who are able to choose to stay on benefits, but they are in the minority.....despite what politicians & the press would have us believe. To come down on this few they are punishing the majority of people on benefits.......people already in work & on such low income that their wage has to be subsidised by the government.

The rhetoric seems to be "get off your arses & get a job".........but most people on benefits already have a job & those who don't have a job can't find a job. There are some people who wouldn't shift their arses from the sofa no matter what. There are plenty more that would love to work, gain some self-respect, buy a few beers, buy nice clothes, have a night out, go on holidays, etc......if they were given the opportunity.

[Rincewind]

That's pretty much how I see it too.

There are people who are able to choose to stay on benefits, but they are in the minority.....despite what politicians & the press would have us believe. To come down on this few they are punishing the majority of people on benefits.......people already in work & on such low income that their wage has to be subsidised by the government.

The rhetoric seems to be "get off your arses & get a job".........but most people on benefits already have a job & those who don't have a job can't find a job. There are some people who wouldn't shift their arses from the sofa no matter what. There are plenty more that would love to work, gain some self-respect, buy a few beers, buy nice clothes, have a night out, go on holidays, etc......if they were given the opportunity.

This is what I've been saying. Now they are taking people off disability and forcing them to look for work when there is none suitable. Companies have to have them in place first. Also they are making some to pay a proportion of counciltax. Many are doing part time work are on benefits. Lowering benefits could mean more becoming homeless when cuts are being made to hostels meaning more rough sleeping.

[Guest]

think it's funny some guy is saying how he can live on this amount and talks about saving money by using his computer to watch recorded stuff. Are computers free if you're unemployed? Are these computers that don't go wrong? and £100 a year on clothes - be real, I don't buy many clothes but you'd find it hard to replace 1 pair of shoes and your socks whilst going commando for £30. Not quite sure how wearing the same pair of primark jeans every day of the year and that sweat stained T shirt are going to go down at your weekly job interviews.

I'm all for tightening up on system abuse but the economic fact of the matter is that all the money so called scroungers get or rip off is put back into the local economy unlike the wealthy who leak money out of the economy. The action DOESN'T make economic sense. Putting people in houses of the correct size and making sure that people who are getting benefits are looking for work is commendable but until there are enough jobs for everyone available to work then let's not penalise honest unemployed for being out of a job.

[Rincewind]

I noticed IDS said he was unemployed but his GF at the time was a daughter of a Lord. MP's do not live in the real world.

[ADK]

think it's funny some guy is saying how he can live on this amount and talks about saving money by using his computer to watch recorded stuff. Are computers free if you're unemployed? Are these computers that don't go wrong? and £100 a year on clothes - be real, I don't buy many clothes but you'd find it hard to replace 1 pair of shoes and your socks whilst going commando for £30. Not quite sure how wearing the same pair of primark jeans every day of the year and that sweat stained T shirt are going to go down at your weekly job interviews.

I'm all for tightening up on system abuse but the economic fact of the matter is that all the money so called scroungers get or rip off is put back into the local economy unlike the wealthy who leak money out of the economy. The action DOESN'T make economic sense. Putting people in houses of the correct size and making sure that people who are getting benefits are looking for work is commendable but until there are enough jobs for everyone available to work then let's not penalise honest unemployed for being out of a job.

Wow i actually agree with FIF for once.

Personally I think the "lazy benefit scrounger" is largely a figment of right-wing propaganda. Welfare cuts arn't about saving the economy but trying to get the vote of the "working class Tory" - the person who wants to be told they are a good little worker despite the fact they are basically bottom of the pile.

[Parafox]

Ok, so £53 per week is £212 per month. These are my actual monthly bills (I live with my GF which makes some things a little cheaper) -

£18 gym

£10 tv/internet

£40 gas/electricity/water

£3 netflix

£6 phone

£5 Xbox live

£100 food per month (£25 x 4 weeks)

= £182 a month.

That gives me £30 a month left over.

.

Wow a whole £7 a week to do with as you please... you must be fun to be out with.

[Parafox]

My daughter has JSA at £53 a week. She was placed in a 2 bed flat a year ago and is considered a vulnerable person due to various issues she has. When she got housed she had her baby with her so was given the 2 bed flat. Sadly her child is no longer with her. She is now being "penalised" by having 14% of her benefit taken off her as she is now deemed to have a spare room.

In a recent survey in Manchester it was found the there were (something like) 40,000 2-3 bed social housing properties and only 4,000 single bed, all occupied, and in some cases by single people. If all those who only needed a single bed property were to be leave their 2 -3 bed houses to save money, which is feasable now, where would they be housed?

[Babylon]

When you are a chain smoking alcoholic I'm sure it is hard to live off £53 a week.