That thread about the Scottish guy who trained his girlfriend's dog to be a Nazi got me thinking. He was working in a call centre, a minimum wage (or close to minimum wage) job, but he seemed like he was living an independent lifestyle.
As a fairly sheltered Londoner this makes me wonder: are there actually places in this country where one can live independently and reasonably well on the minimum wage, or a smidgeon above it?
Rents are drastically lower up here in the provinces. Around my way, you can rent a two bedroom terraced house in a slightly scruffy part of town for £400 a month. Down in That London, you'd be lucky to rent the top bunk in an airing cupboard in Zone 27 for that.
The current minimum wage works out to just over £1050 a month after tax. It's not the lap of luxury, but it's absolutely livable if you're not paying London rents and you're reasonably sensible with money.
It might seem like bargain to the Londoners, but the fact you can pay 40% of your income just for the privilege of "living" in a shite two up two down terrace in Beeston or somewhere equally dire fucks me right off.
Chances are that your landlord will be a tight fisted Asian cunt and the place will be in an awful state, your neighbours will be noisy anti-social wankers, and you'll be terminally depressed already because you work for Direct Line.
It's more the fact that that's the very bottom end of the market- You can get a reasonably nice, if pretty cramped, flat for the same price, but you can't really get below that £400 line no matter where you are.
It's a big chunk of money just to keep the roof over your head; I'm not old enough to know better but something tells me it hasn't always been so disproportional compared to overall income, even for minimum wage earners. You earn fifteen grand in a year and give about 6 of it straight to some tosser for no reason other than he owns a spare house.
>>6289 >Chances are that your landlord will be a tight fisted Asian cunt and the place will be in an awful state, your neighbours will be noisy anti-social wankers, and you'll be terminally depressed already because you work for Direct Line.
So in other words, just like London but much fucking cheaper?
>>6291 Why is it surprising that earning at the bottom end of the market affords you property at the bottom end of the market?
People have always had to make sacrifices to put a roof over their head. My parents went without holidays, trips to the pub and other such luxuries so that they could afford to put a deposit down on a house 30 or so years ago. When they moved in they couldn't afford furniture so they had deck-chairs set up in the front room. Contrast that to today, you can't imagine most people dreaming of giving up their two weeks in Ibiza, their four pints of shit cider in the pub every night, or their 50" plasma tv to get on the housing ladder. They just sit there and complain because nobody makes it easy for them.
When I was a baby my parents didn't have any proper furniture, just a load of old shit that had been dragged out of sheds and skips. All their photos from that time look like they were taken in a squat or a particularly grim student house. Four mismatched chairs around a wobbly table, a sofa with bits of foam sticking out, an upturned tea chest acting as a coffee table. They were both teachers, so it's not like they were desperately poor.
The housing market today is manifestly unfair, particularly in the south east, but I think we've forgotten how much our standards have changed. My mum grew up in a house with an outside toilet and no central heating. She ate big piles of bread and butter with every meal, because it was cheap. She darned socks and wore shoes with holes in the soles. In the winter she slept under a pile of army surplus blankets and greatcoats.
Landlords are cunts, but they've always been cunts and probably always will be. What has changed is that we expect to have all new furniture, all new clothes, a new car, a foreign holiday every year. We've forgotten how to live within our means. We're captivated by consumerism. We don't know the meaning of "enough".
>>6294 >We've forgotten how to live within our means.
Uh, not all of us mate. Just because I don't harpoon rats and sleep under a blanket of mold doesn't make me entitled or privileged.
Times were different back then and general misery and apathy are relative. We do have a sense of "what is enough?", but I think thats partly due to the consumer culture, but with it, an acceptance of basic human rights. E.g.: sleeping under a roof, having a bit of furniture, having clothes, food, etc...
>>6298 He's saying that people expect to be able to afford a house and have a holiday, and acting as if changing standards is somehow a bad thing. Our standards have certainly changed: his parents' standards were higher than those of his grandparents. That is a perfectly valid expectation if you believe that living standards should continue to rise.
Also, we fundamentally can't all "live within our means". The economy is fuelled mostly by private debt. Paying that all off would result in a huge contraction of the money supply which would almost certainly cause economic catastrophe.
I work in a call centre setting, but I work from home.
I used to work in the main office, but they put me on an overnight shift. Had the option to go sit in the office on my own at night or work from home. No brainer. Don't have to pay for transport to work, saves a lot of money each month.
Off to live in Malta next month. Get about £18000 a year, and a fully furnished apartment with internet in a nice part of the island will cost me about £350 a month. Opposed to the £600 for a box room in a house share full of wankers here.
>>6304 Well what are you saying then? Living standards in the UK have increased since the 70s, that doesn't mean that you magically have a right to a holiday abroad or whatever you arbitrarily decide you should be entitled to because *wave hands frantically* it's the modern age guys.
It's not surprising at all that you get bottom end quality for bottom end prices. What I'm complaining about is that "bottom end" still means "close to half a person's full time income".
This is a first world country, it's not unreasonable to expect things to be more affordable, if not of a better quality. I don't mind living in a shithole, it just irritates me that the money I spend for my shithole alone would probably feed and house somebody for several years in a poorer country.
We're not paying a lot for our shoebox flats or crap mouldy terraced houses because that's what they're worth, but simply because there's an artificial scarcity of supply. The free market working perfectly, as usual.
I don't want to get into that tiresome argument about poor people insisting on BIG PLASMA TELLIES and their 20 FAGS A DAY, but it's clear you've never personally had to support yourself on minimum wage for any extended period of time. Maybe poor people would be able to afford a home if they did nothing but go to work and come home to sit in an empty, candlelit room to eat bread and water, but a)it's 2016, not 1716, and b) the economy would literally collapse if they stopped "wasting their money" on those things.
>>6305 I'm saying that it's stupid to say that people should accept growth in living standards being eroded by an alarming growth in income inequality and an absurd explosion in house prices because *wave hands frantically* you've got to live within your means guys.
>>6306 >What I'm complaining about is that "bottom end" still means "close to half a person's full time income".
The median UK household income was £23,556 in the 2013/14 tax year - which works out to nearly £2k per month. £500 per month rent is more like a quarter of this.
>I don't mind living in a shithole, it just irritates me that the money I spend for my shithole alone would probably feed and house somebody for several years in a poorer country.
Currencies in different countries have different values shocker. Hint: try comparing the median annual pay in these poorer countries to the UK.
>but it's clear you've never personally had to support yourself on minimum wage for any extended period of time.
I was a student for a few years, I think you'll find that £3k per year student finance is considerably below minimum wage. Also, PhD students manage to support themselves perfectly well on £13-14k per year stipends. £15k per year does not make you poor.
>>6308 >The median UK household income was £23,556 in the 2013/14 tax year - which works out to nearly £2k per month. £500 per month rent is more like a quarter of this
"A person's full time income" is not a household income. Is that before or after tax anyway?
>>6309 After tax. No, but a household's median income is the more representative figure when talking about rent which is often shared between multiple people.
I think a significant part of the problem is that we are seeing more people living alone than ever before in the UK. It seems somewhat paradoxical, particularly in cities like London, that people are simultaneously living in closer proximity and are better connected by technology yet are on average more alone than ever before. Living alone has the confounding problems of putting extra strain on your wallet each month as well as reduced social interactions causing poorer mental health and increased risk of depression. The causes are complex and multi-faceted, it's not a trivial problem but one I believe will make a large difference in people's lives, moreso than simply making it more affordable for people to live alone.
>>6311 It's enough money for a roof over your head, food, and transport. It's not luxury, but it's not poverty in the sense that one would apply to third-world less economically developed countries.
>>6314 Ah. I see. I suppose nobody in Britain is poor since we are richer than 99% of Malawians. We should thank the good Lord for providing us with enough for rent, food, heat, lights, transport, and such.
>>6308 > The median UK household income was £23,556 in the 2013/14 tax year - which works out to nearly £2k per month. £500 per month rent is more like a quarter of this.
After tax, that is £1,598.77 per month (according to http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php). Not counting pension contributions or student loan repayments. Not nearly 2k per month.
>>6316 Well why is relative poverty an important thing to talk about in this context? If we were to raise the minimum wage to £20k per year say, that would just become the new relative poverty. Housing would not magically become any more affordable either because of the market reaction. This is pretty basic stuff.
We're not talking about median income you thick bastard.
Nice way to willfully miss my point.
I knew you'd say that. No, being a student tosser for a few years doesn't count. I bet you managed to find plenty of spare money for booze out of your paltry income then, but it's a different matter when real poor people do it.
>>6323 Of course. Rent is 350, council tax is a bit of a killer, I don't spend a lot on eating, don't really drink or smoke, I buy food from local markets and cook a lot and do so efficiently, ie planning meals etc. I have no car or anything, I cycle to work, rarely have need for public transport. Phone is payg and I don't use it much,, just texts and ringing my mum. Winter is cold but I'm a heating nazi anyway so I don't really mind, my laptop and cooking are the big sources of heat. I live with others who don't earn a lot, they're good lads. I very rarely make any big purchases and that's partly out of necessity and partly simply because I'm not really interested in fancy hardware. I got a new (expensive) phone recently and I bought that outright, none of this crappy short term loan nonsense. I know my parents would bail me out if I needed cash for something but I've not needed to yet.
Really it's just living like a student permanently but with less excess. Students don't live dissimilarly, what's the loan now 5.5k for living away from home for 6-9 months plus say 3-5k a year from other sources, so roughly 12k a year apiece. I had a Romanian friend who lived off £200 a month after rent while at uni.
It's a tight life but I don't have an issue with it. I had a job interview this morning which'd almost double my salary so hopefully that goes well.
Oh and I don't have a girlfriend. If I did I think I'd need 3x as much.
>>6324 Right, so the 'person' who's income is half taken-up by rent is not meant to be someone statistically representative of modern Britain, but rather a projection of your own specific position on the income distribution. Nice to have that cleared up.
Also, given your apparent 'dem bloody stoodents m8' attitude suggests you were never a student yourself, I would suggest you pick your fights slightly better than to accuse a graduate of being a 'thick bastard'.
So you've arbitrarily decided that living on below minimum wage for four years isn't relevant to knowing what it's like to live on minimum wage because...? I don't know many students who have the time or money to regularly sit around in the pub paying £3-4 a pint, like many people I know on minimum wage do - there's a reason undergrads learn to love the cheap booze from Aldi.
Besides, if you're also not counting PhD students as a good parallel to people earning minimum wage because it has the word 'student' in you should probably reconsider. At least in science, a PhD is functionally more or less identical to a job (only with more emphasis on personal responsibility/accountability). If PhD students can live for 3-4 years on £13-14k without needing to visit food-banks, then so can people earning £15k or above.
>>6328 No, lad. Freezing your bollocks off in the winter while you plan your week's eating, drinking and sleeping down to the last detail is not called "being an adult".
>>6330 That's hyperbole and you know it. Believe it or not, having a vague plan of what you are going to eat in a week and how much it will cost you is something that most adults are capable of.
>>6333 I wouldn't turn the heating on all day or eat fucking takeaways all the time even if I could afford it, it's just how I am, nothing to do with my income.
I don't have to plan all my meals, I eat what I want, I just cook for four and freeze a lot. I don't eat beans all day, I made steak and ale pie yesterday. Obviously I have little disposable income but Christ I don't have any issue.
Also I have no idea what you lot consider 'planning to the last detail'. I buy food, I cook food. If I want to go to the pub I consider if I have the money to go to the pub, what the fuck is the difference to any normal person? I don't live some regimented lifestyle, what the hell do you think I do??
>>6334 Being permanently single, only communicating with your mother, not having a car, never buying any large purchases etc. is all pretty grim to people who are not like you, which is most people.
>>6337 What am I misinterpreting? You said you wouldn't be able to have a girlfriend on your income, don't have a car, only use your phone for texting and calling your mum, and "very rarely make any big purchases". For most people that is a shit life.
>>6338 I don't call anyone anyway, just text or facebook message. I'm not gonna ring my best mate to natter about my day, plenty of people have girlfriends with zero income, I was just being facetious about women being expensive.
How shit I don't buy a new telly every year and an audi on finance l, I really suffer. I don't have a car because I don't need one, not because I can't afford one. My mum earns 50k a year and doesn't even have an HD television, some people aren't as interested in consumer crap as you are.
>>6339 >an audi on finance
You should be getting that thing on a lease, especially if you can do it via salary sacrifice, saving yourself a load of tax in the process. You may not own the asset, but given it'll depreciate like a stone that's not necessarily a bad thing.
>>6340 I know someone on minimum wage who drives a new Merc on one of those longish term leases. Just depends what your priorities are, cars aren't really necessary in cities but are if you live out in the sticks.
>>6339 >some people aren't as interested in consumer crap as you are
Hm yes, people who would struggle to lead an enjoyable life on 13k are clearly just whores to consumerism. You got it m8.
>>6342 You've just told me I'm struggling because I'm not making big purchases. I don't struggle because I can meet all my financial committments and live my life as I see fit.
>>6343 I said your life sounds like a struggle because you can't run a car, can't have a partner, and can't make "big purchases" (which means more than consumer goods, mate).
If you're comfortable your situation, fine. Good for you. It means fuck all to normal people though, who would not be comfortable, and not on account of them being, like, such blind materialists, maaan.
>>6343 Do you plan on not having any relationships, a family, friends, material possessions, ever? Or...? How do you see your future? Or are you just happy with 13k a year indefinitely?
I have to say, it sounds really grim. You can't drink, keep warm, socialise, buy stuff for yourself. How do you put a positive spin on it? I would have probably become a criminal if I ended up planning my meals weeks ahead.
I hope it gets better for you, mate. It isn't nice living like that in one of the richest nations in the world.
I live a similar lifestyle, through choice rather than necessity. Superficial hardship doesn't faze me, because I've been absolutely broke for much of my life. I was homeless for a bit, I was a professional musician, I was a grad student. I scraped by on nothing well into my thirties, so I'm just not in the habit of spending money.
My definition of "a good life" is quite humble. As long as I've got food in the cupboards, a half-decent guitar, a serviceable laptop and a library card then I'm happy. I pay £400/mo for my room (bills included), plus £250ish a month on food, clothes and household items. I rarely spend more than £15 on a night out.
If I moved to London and worked back-to-back contracts for finance companies then I could easily earn >£60k, but that's not the life I want. I'd rather do just enough work to get by and have more time to myself.
>>6349 I have a housemate who has a life like that. He seems to enjoy it. On one hand his situation may be a little precarious (I have no idea what his savings situation is like) but he gets a lift from a colleague to work, spends his leisure hours camping and wandering around the lake district and shit. Doesn't have any money-intensive hobbies as far as I can tell.
He's in wilderness management on a course so maybe he'll get a big thumping pay rise once he certifies.
>>6348 > How is this life? This sounds really shitty. I would have probably killed myself if I were in that situation. Or move to Nepal.
I'd ask you what the hell is wrong with you.
>Not only is it a really shitty way to live,
It isn't.
>but you seem proud of it
I'm proud of being able to handle my fucking adult life unlike all you kiddies seem to be able to? I'm not proud of working a dead end job, I'm certainly proud of being able to live the life I want to lead on a budget that you cunts think is impossible, I ask you what the fuck you're doing with your money if you're struggling so much on more than I am.
>>6349 >Do you plan on not having any relationships, a family, friends, material possessions, ever?
Of course not.
>Or...? How do you see your future? Or are you just happy with 13k a year indefinitely
Of course I'm not planning on earning 13k a year.
This thread has been absolute bollocks, you all stink of teenlad Corbynites, you see me saying I earn 13k a year and don't have many issues with it and you interpret it as being some crushed working class lad oppressed by the higher classes into accepting it and wanting to impose it on others, albeit with no prospects or ambitions. I certainly have ambitions, it's really fucking me off how you see 'I earn x money' and then following on from that 'you are shit and want nothing'.
Bunch of cunts. All I fuckign said was that I manage my money effectively, apparently in the eyes of most of you that's an absurd thing to suggest. Someday you'll grow up.
>>6350 You say similar, I don't see the similarity. I don't have hardship, I'm not absolutely broke, Ive never been homeless. I live a life I want to lead, the difference between me and most in this thread is that I handle it and they can't/don't think they can.
The guy above who said he was on more and has issues I can respect, he's not saying bollocks, he's looking for a bit of a hand and an explanation as to how someone else can do better. That's respectable and I want to help where I can. What I don't respect is cunts basically being demeaning shites boasting about how they can throw their cash away as they see fit. I manage my money well - they don't, and apparently I don't fit their model of a low paid worker.
>>6351 The lifestyle suggested by '49 is nothing to do with me. I have no savings, it's not really possible on my income, that has nothing to do with how I live my life though and is a product of my income.
Am I being retarded or is this imageboard just full of teenlads? Someone tell me that how I live my life is shit please, with justification, I'm already sick of being told it's shit without justification despite the fact I'm happy with it and want for little.
But how can you want for little without your new 4k TV...
>>6352 >I'm proud of being able to handle my fucking adult life
But what you've described isn't adult life. It's student life. So congratulations, lad. You can handle fucking student life. Your mum must be so proud. Maybe you could text her in the morning to find out.
>>6353 Since when could students handle their finances? You say 'student life' in regard to consumption, not life management. I'm ot in my overdraft, I don't avoid my electricity bill.
I'm yet to hear a valid criticism of my life other than conjectural bullshit. There's plenty of criticism to be had, all you have to do is identify it properly.
>>6354 >You say 'student life' in regard to consumption, not life management. I'm ot in my overdraft, I don't avoid my electricity bill.
Doesn't matter. That just makes you a slightly better class of student.
>I'm yet to hear a valid criticism of my life
That you don't think it valid doesn't make it not so.
>>6355 >That you don't think it valid doesn't make it not so.
You're right. However, that doesn't mean there's any criticism in this thread for me.
I'm waiting for that criticism.
Is the criticism 'you don't earn enough'? If it is, that's extremely arrogant and patronising.
Is it 'you should spend more'? If it is I think that's highly irresponsible and a short route to bankruptcy.
Is it ''you are struggling and dont want to admit it'? I think is the most likely answer, but given that 'struggling' is based on my interpretation and not yours, then the answer is no. As I said, I have no financial commitments I cannot maintain. Again, I'm sorry for not buying that new graphics card, I don't play games.
>>6356 >Is the criticism 'you don't earn enough'? If it is, that's extremely arrogant and patronising.
Says the lad who's boasting about how he spends his time planning the efficiency of his food shopping and phoning his mum, and pointing out how useless everyone else must be if they can't live like him.
>Is it 'you should spend more'? If it is I think that's highly irresponsible and a short route to bankruptcy.
That sort of financial illiteracy is probably why the poster of that other thread thinks that better financial education is in order.
>Is it ''you are struggling and dont want to admit it'?
There is probably an element of this.
>but given that 'struggling' is based on my interpretation and not yours
Nope. You don't get to set the terms of other people's arguments. Especially when their argument is along the lines of "you're in denial".
I think the bigger criticism, which is entirely valid, is entirely justified, and appears to have been entirely borne out, is that, as described, your life appears to be utterly devoid of ... well, anything that passes for "life".
No, there's nothing wrong with his life. That is how most people live. You're a complete bell-end who looks down on the working class. We can't all be managers, some of us have to do the shelf-stacking.
>>6358 Nobody is criticising his life. Nobody gives a fuck about his life. It's his implication that anyone who would find a life without a car, partner, savings etc. somewhat grim is somehow obsessed with consumerism that makes him look a cunt.
If he's happy with 13k, fine, good for him, but that isn't relevant to normal people.
>>6358 I think it's pretty clear that >>6348, >>6349, >>6353, >>6355, >>6357 and >>6359 are all some samechap weakly attemping to troll by willingly misinterpreting >>6352lad at every point. Clearly, how much you earn shouldn't affect the number or quality of your relationships with people who aren't cunts. In the modern age, there are uncountably many free ways to communicate with even the cheapest mobile phone or computer device so being on low income doesn't limit to just talking to your Mum as has been somehow implied. As for 'big purchases', I'm sure nobody earning minimum wage on less than 40 hours a week expects to be able to buy a shiny new car, computer, hi-fi and a jacuzzi full of strippers but I'd say buying a mobile phone outright counts as a relatively 'big purchase' to someone on minimum wage, so there you go. Case closed.
I've not seen any credible evidence in this thread so far that minimum doesn't serve it's purpose - as the absolute minimum somebody with no dependents can expect to live off of, reasonably comfortably but with no frills attached. Of course if you have dependents that complicates things, but that's why we have child support benefits and why single mothers are fast-tracked into getting housing support.
>Of course if you have dependents that complicates things, but that's why we have child support benefits
These are more generous than most people realise. A household with two children and one person earning minimum wage would receive £183.24 a week in child benefit and tax credits. These benefits would increase their net income by 75%, from £1,059.53/mo to £1,853.57/mo. That's just under the median household income. They are also likely to have part of their rent paid by housing benefit, depending on housing costs in their area.
It's absolutely feasible to raise children on minimum wage.
>>6361 I can assure you that not all of those posts are from the same person.
Maybe that would be clearer if you actually read the fucking thread. Then you'd know that he can't afford a car at all, never mind the running costs. He has no capacity to save, and has to rely on his parents to bail him out should the need arise. Money's tight for him even when single, meaning affording the expenses associated with a relationship would be difficult. I don't know why you've decided to change what he lacks into "a shiny new car, computer, hi-fi and a jacuzzi full of strippers". Are you a subliterate cunt, or a facetious cunt?
>>6354 You could probably make a lot more. Maybe two to three times more, if you taught English in China or something. You would also get to have relations, call your mum whenever you want instead of texting her once a week, drink all you want, socialise, travel, etc. Don't limit yourself, poorlad. It is sad to see one's youth being wasted in such a manner.
>>6365 >It's absolutely feasible to raise children on minimum wage.
Sure it is, when other people have to hand over their cash so that you get to stuff your little cunts' mouths with food.
>>6368 Yeah, those people who have are suffering at the hands of those who have not. I mean, it's utter madness. Next thing you know, they'll be saying we should give votes to women or the unlanded.
>>6369 Mate, I'm all for a safety net and all, but having kids when you know you can't feed and clothe them is something else. Would you not agree? It isn't something to aim for, and saying that "yeah it's alright, kids can be brought up with bennies," is really silly.
>>6373 Maybe it's because I've read too many of my other half's trashy women's magazines whilst on the shitter over the years, but they'd regularly have articles from teenage girls who got pregnant on purpose to get a free council house and avoid having to work. At least one of them referred to getting knocked up at sixteen as like winning the lottery. Labour encouraged tee age pregnancies, breeding a whole new generation of voters for them.
You should read with some skepticism. There is a section of popular media that virtually treats this as an industry. Tabloids set up the archetypes, single mothers, scroungers, drinkers, drug users, whatever. Reality television then ropes in semiprofessionals as contestants on Big Brother or human bait on Jeremy Kyle, sometimes people with very obvious dysfunctions and/or in genuinely vulnerable positions, to play up certain characteristics and become hate figures.
Since this was only written in Smush magazine, though, I'd also like to suggest the possibility that some twat has just made it up.
>>6374 You are quite seriously misinformed. Getting knocked up at sixteen is definitely not like winning the lottery and Labour (believe me I hate them too) have never encouraged teenage pregnancies. I suggest you should get off the shitter a bit more.
>>6366 Christ on a bike lad. Yes, just reiterate the same crap points you have willingly misinterpreted multiple times, there's no way that's getting tiresome by now.
>>6366 Why would I get a car when I have no need of a car? It's no wonder you people struggle with money, you seem to buy shit you don't need all the time.
>has to rely on his parents to bail him out should the need arise
I certainly CAN rely on my parents to bail me out should the need arise. Who do you rely on when that time comes? Nobody at all? I think I'm better prepared here.
>>6367 I have relations you fucking tool, I have not implied anywhere that I haven't. I don't care about moving abroad to earn more money, nor do I want to teach English in some shithole on the other side of the planet.
>>6382 It's certainly true that there are some jobs people have in remote areas with poor public transport, for which owning a car would conceivably be necessary. I think a lot of the time though, people feel they need to own a car as a status symbol, or because they've been driving since they were 18 and so never had to work out how public transport works/get fit enough to ride several miles on a bike regularly.
Running a car in this day is a significant cost for most people, and it's only going to get worse with increasing petrol prices in the near future. Whilst necessary for some, it's certainly a cost that many people could avoid if they really wanted to.
>>6384 >It's certainly true that there are some jobs people have in remote areas with poor public transport, for which owning a car would conceivably be necessary.
Yes. I'm not one of them.
>>6383 I don't think you can infer that from the data. The variations between 1975 and 2005 are small enough to be essentially noise (note that the y-axis starts at 20 per mille not 0, a well-known trick to emphasise apparent changes). The dip between 2005-2012 is more significant but without knowing the data between 2012-2016 it's entirely plausible that the rate bounced back to around the 4% mark.
Given that the argument is whether Labour encouraged teenage pregnancy through the benefits system, post-2012 data isn't really relevant.
I can't be bothered to dig out the latest ONS figures because their website is gash. Data from the UN shows that the rate has continued to fall, reaching 1.5% in 2015.
>>6382 >Why would I get a car when I have no need of a car? It's no wonder you people struggle with money, you seem to buy shit you don't need all the time.
Who are "you people"? And why is needing a car such an alien idea to you? People do live outside of cities, you understand?
>I certainly CAN rely on my parents to bail me out should the need arise. Who do you rely on when that time comes? Nobody at all? I think I'm better prepared here.
That's what savings are for, genius.
Why can't people grasp that some people are perfectly content living on a meagre salary and although it's not ideal, not overly comfortable or luxurious, some people do manage to still enjoy their life without incessant misery and depression?
People are also misunderstanding I'm sure that just because some people say it's not terrible being poor it doesn't mean they don't wish they earned more.
Jesus Christ, it's easy to tell who has actually been to work in the real world and who is an idealist student who thinks they're just gonna waltz into a 40k job.
>>6390 What classes as a meagre income? I'm only on £28k but that, plus tax credits, is enough for me to pay the mortgage on a decent 4 bedroom house in a non-shithole neighbourhood, bring up 3 kids, support my lazy partner while she takes a couple of years out of work to be with the baby and still usually have about £200pm more coming in than I have going out.
Sorry lad, I was talking more about the lad who lives on 13k rather than people who earn anywhere near 28k. Compared to the President of an investment bank that's very meagre, compared to your average Briton, that's pretty alright.
An income that's not comfortably above average, for a start. Anything below £25k is below average.
I'd say anything below £20k is meagre in today's economy- More than liveable, of course, this is a first world country and nobody is truly "poor" if they aren't literally on the streets. I'd consider meagre the sort of level of income where you can afford things, but any big unexpected expense can really fuck you over if you're not careful. Say someone hits your car, the excess on your insurance will likely push you overdrawn; or if the fridge breaks, you have to do without chilled food until payday.
I still stand by the fact that having landlords earn so much, proportionately to income, from people in these demographics is appalling, on the same moral principle as those drugs companies charging a fortune for HIV drugs to those brown people who have flies on their faces. Especially if they're a BTL parasite.