Can you live on £53 a week?

Can you live on £53 a week?

90 posts
2 April 2013
mph
Photographer
mph
[qt][author]alexcrawford[/author] I've had this dream for years. [/qt] Fortunately when you wake up you will be able to realise that it is arrant nonsense.
Posted 3 April 2013
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
LadylikeMedia
I live in a 4 bedroom detached house, not exactly a mansion... My outgoings before food fuel and luxuries is around £2000 a month but living in a city isn't cheap I guess. If my rent was paid and essentials like council tax covered I'm sure I could live on £53 a week for food and heating. If you don't work then can't expect luxuries I guess.
But if you are actually trying to find an illusive job, you have transport costs to get to an interview (if there were really jobs available)and you would need some sort of phone. You also have to remember that many job-seekers were (are being) made redundant with commitments. The mobile phone company, SKY, bank loans etc. etc. don't have a break your contract if you loose your job clause - you have to keep paying or they sue you. Meanwhile all these housing benefits go to subside companies who are apparently too inefficient to pay a living wage (although the CEOs always seem to be making a mint) and then the money ends up in the pockets of impoverished landlords. Just look at the numbers and it is clear who the real scroungers are.
Posted 3 April 2013
It's fine saying you can live on it. You might not die on it, But you can't cover the basic essentials.

The bare minimum that has to come out of that money is;

Food (Say £25 per week for a healthy diet)
Gas & Electric (£20 per week for an average flat)
Water rates
Council tax (Most people have to pay some percentage of council tax)
Travelling to any health appointments, job searching etc.

The above cannot be done on £53.

Something has to be pushed back so while you might not die, giving up one of any of those is going to make you ill or get you a prison sentence.

Ther simply aren't enough jobs to go around, It's not a case of not wanting to work - In Liverpool, 30,000 people applied for 3000 vacancies. Thats 1000 people per job. Pretty big give away that people do want the work, It just isn't there.

Very few people actually want to be on benefits.

Most housing benefit claimants are workers too.

Posted 3 April 2013
Edited by Missie0290 3 April 2013
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
mph
Tell me - how much extra tax would you like to pay - and how much do you think he should get extra per week out of that?
Of course it is simple economics that the way to prolong the recession is take money from those who don't have any and give it to people who already have plenty secreted away. Paying people less benefits takes money out of the economic cycle, and leads to increased taxes for those that do have jobs. That is why the deficit is so much higher than when this government took office. Worse the prospects of unemployment without a reasonable safety net means that people are not secure in their jobs and will not take on commitments like bank loans to buy cars or even spend money any anything but essentials. How much is Cameron paying towards all the state-subsidised rooms he has at Downing Street and Chequers - a clear case of under-occupancy. And how much of the £53 per week will end up coming straight back to the government in VAT (or as the Daily Mail would have it on Alcohol and tobacco taxes)
Posted 3 April 2013
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
As suggested above...there are some simple economics involved that Osbourn just doesn't grasp despite virtually every economist that writes or is interviewed tries painstakingly to explain.....sucking money out of a shrinking economy merely increases the rate it shrinks.

At a micro level......'benefits' for the really poor doesn't cost the govt much.....most of what they spend goes into the local economy and most of that finds its way back to the govt in various taxes....this was estimated to be around 85% in one article I read.

The worst case (for the govt) are the various benefits paid to people in work as the taxpayer is effectively subsidizing those companies paying below living wages...allowing them to prosper at the expense of companies needing to pay decent wages. It is no coincidence that we keep on hearing how many 'private sector' jobs are created by Tesco etc. I would personally call then part private part state as the taxpayer part funds much of the cost.

So as above, most of the 'wages' from the employed poor comes back to the govt eventually.....but at the cost of distorting commerce in the UK and the ultimate long term viability of UK PLC.

As for the rich! I don't know that many..but the few I do know are talking about buying property in Spain or Italy now it is so cheap, upgrading their Macs or similar.....or otherwise spending in ways that barely helps the balance of payments situation.

Most people I know are like me.....not rich....so saving every penny for the rainy days the libcons have in mind for us.

Posted 3 April 2013
anthonyh
If you can't, you might like to sign this petition! http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
Personally I have been able to live on that amount, but barely. I actually became ill in the process, I'd like to see some of these politicians attempt the same thing, or even try to support themselves and a child on £71 per week.
Posted 3 April 2013
Edited by KayzModeling 3 April 2013
mph
Photographer
mph
stolenfaces

Of course it is simple economics that the way to prolong the recession is take money from those who don't have any and give it to people who already have plenty secreted away. Paying people less benefits takes money out of the economic cycle, and leads to increased taxes for those that do have jobs. That is why the deficit is so much higher than when this government took office. Worse the prospects of unemployment without a reasonable safety net means that people are not secure in their jobs and will not take on commitments like bank loans to buy cars or even spend money any anything but essentials. How much is Cameron paying towards all the state-subsidised rooms he has at Downing Street and Chequers - a clear case of under-occupancy. And how much of the £53 per week will end up coming straight back to the government in VAT (or as the Daily Mail would have it on Alcohol and tobacco taxes)


Good answer. Not to the question I asked - but still!   surprise

Posted 3 April 2013
alexcrawford
Photographer
alexcrawford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM#!
Posted 3 April 2013
panda49
Photographer
panda49
photo_phil
The Queen, like the rest if us can have as many rooms as we want as long as we pay for them. NO we pay her rent and she just got an extra £16000 a week from our taxes to add to her wealth
Posted 4 April 2013
53 Pound a week no chance!! 10 Lectric a week 10 gas. A weej plus nappys and wet wipes food and water etc etc rent no way xx

Posted 4 April 2013
DorsetHammer
Photographer
DorsetHammer
Missie0290

Ther simply aren't enough jobs to go around, It's not a case of not wanting to work - In Liverpool, 30,000 people applied for 3000 vacancies. Thats 1000 people per job. Pretty big give away that people do want the work, It just isn't there.


The major problem in all western world countries is that there are plenty of jobs requiring some basic skills and a lot of unemployed who don't have even the basic skills. We lead the world in many industries from aviation through to pharmacueticals unfortunately there are many areas in the UK where the traditional jobs of the 40's through to the 70's are no longer needed. The big challenge for any Government for the next 20 years or so is to get more people into relevant training, the old days of having no qualifications and still being guaranteed a job in the 'big four' industries (mining, shipbuilding, car industrry, major engineering) have long since gone.
Posted 4 April 2013
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
Missie0290

Ther simply aren't enough jobs to go around, It's not a case of not wanting to work - In Liverpool, 30,000 people applied for 3000 vacancies. Thats 1000 people per job. Pretty big give away that people do want the work, It just isn't there. Very few people actually want to be on benefits. Most housing benefit claimants are workers too.


Isn't 30,000 applicants for 3,000 jobs 10 applicants per job? 


Posted 4 April 2013
mph
Photographer
mph
[qt][author]mattharper[/author] Isn't 30,000 applicants for 3,000 jobs 10 applicants per job? [/qt] Yes - but some people don't have the requisite mathematical skills to get the jobs!
Posted 4 April 2013
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
This was just emailed to me:


400,000 in less than 4 days -- incredible!


First of all I want to say thank you. When I started the petition calling on Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week I hoped it would have some impact, but I never imagined it would set off such a huge chain reaction. As I write the signature count is 408,593. It is overwhelming and inspiring.

This week the Government wanted to control the debate and dictate the tone -- you have taken that from them and given it back to the people!

The petition has been talked about on Facebook and Twitter, and covered hundreds of times in the media. It was on the front page of The Independent, BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and many more.

Iain Duncan Smith has not yet replied directly to me, but told his local newspaper that he thinks the petition is "a complete stunt which distracts attention from the welfare reforms". In fact it is the total opposite.

This petition represents over 400,000 people concerned by the welfare cuts.

Iain Duncan Smith is clearly rattled and wants this to blow over. Let's not give him that privilege.

In the coming days I will deliver the petition in person but let's have a final effort to remind him once again what this is all about -- men who live comfortable lives in country mansions have no right to tell people what poverty feels like.

Post a Facebook message or send a tweet today. Some ideas below...

Please keep supporting the petition -- we have started this conversation, let's keep it going.

Thank you,
Dominic

Help reach 500,000 signers...
Posted 4 April 2013
vipimages
Photographer
vipimages
Isn't it a pity it's not a petition to scrap the bedroom tax rather than 400,000 people agreeing that IDC is a nob?


Posted 4 April 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join