UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

[Amethyst]

BBC NEWS | Business | UK life costs 'at least £13,400'

UK life costs 'at least £13,400'



The benchmarks are often higher than the amounts paid in state benefits



A single person in Britain needs to earn at least £13,400 a year for a minimum standard of living, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has claimed.

A couple with two children need to spend £370 a week excluding rent or mortgage payments, and a pensioner couple need £201, the charity says.
Film tickets, a bottle of wine and a bird feeder were on the list of goods people need to participate in society.

The figures from the JRF are higher than some government estimates.


According to the report, which took two years to put together, the spending power needed to pay for a basic but socially acceptable standard of living was higher than the official government calculated poverty line.

Staying alive
The report combined academic study with a consensus from 39 different groups of people to come up with a series of benchmarks for an acceptable cost of living in Britain.

This government is committed to a fairer, more inclusive society, providing opportunity for all


The definition of a minimum standard of living was not merely the amount of money needed for survival, and included "more than just food, clothes and shelter", the report explained.

"It is about having what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society," it said.
For a single person of working age that included walking boots, a pay-as-you-go mobile phone and a bicycle.
For a pensioner couple, an occasional carvery meal and a bird feeder were on the list, and a single mother needed £210 a week for items including nappies for the baby and a Christmas tree.



What could people live without?

Families should get the chance to have a one-week self-catering holiday in the UK, while childcare also took a big chunk of the family budget, the report said.

Needs not wants
The study excluded "aspirational" items, and the JRF said it was aimed at starting a discussion about what was an acceptable standard of living.

The government has pledged to end child poverty by 2020

"This research is designed to encourage debate and to start building a public consensus about what level of income no one should have to live below," said the JRF's director Julia Unwin.

"Of course, everyone has their own views about what items in a family budget are essential. But this is the best effort to date to enable ordinary people to discuss and agree what all households should be able to afford," she added.
Experts ensured that the lists would provide an adequate diet and enough warmth to remain healthy.
According to the calculations, a single person working full-time would need to earn £6.88 an hour to reach the weekly minimum standard - which is more than the current statutory minimum wage of £5.52.

A single person on Income Support would get less than half this amount.

An out-of-work family would get in state benefits two-thirds of what the JRF regarded as the minimum requirement, but pensioners on Pension Credit reached an acceptable level of income, the charity said.

Poverty levels
Jonathan Bradshaw, professor of social policy at the University of York and co-author of the report, said that this was the first time the question of how much income was enough had been addressed.
Official measures of poverty have been based on relative income data.
The official poverty line is a household with an income of 60% of the UK's median household, with the poverty line adjusted for family size.

The government has used this measure as the base for its pledge to halve child poverty by 2010, and to have eradicated it a decade later.

The JRF's report took in the views of people from a variety of social groups, in rural and urban areas, before coming up with an average for a cross-section of society.

It concluded that a car was not required by any social group, nor were cigarettes, but some alcohol consumed at home was acceptable.

The JRF accepted that it could not be shown that everyone living below its minimum income standard would be in "hardship".

Committed government
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "This government is committed to a fairer, more inclusive society, providing opportunity for all. We have lifted 600,000 children and nearly a million pensioners out of poverty.

"We have increased winter fuel payments to £400 for someone aged over 80 and £250 for 60 years plus.

"We welcome the important contribution of this study."

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

Lone parent, three children JRF say I need £378.90 (excluding housing)

Goverment currently says I need £243 (excluding housing)

hmmmm posh birdfeeders

BBC NEWS | Business | The living standards quiz

BBC NEWS | The Reporters | Mark Easton's UK

BBC NEWS | Business | Women's low pay 'behind poverty'

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!



Under embargo until: 22.00hrs 1 July 2008
Minimum living standards: public consultation shows what people find acceptable

According to members of the public, a single person in Britain today needs to earn at least £13,400 a year before tax to afford a basic but acceptable standard of living. This “minimum income standard”, based on the extensive deliberations of ordinary people supported by experts, shows the cost of covering basic goods and services for different household types.
A minimum income standard for Britain: What people think, published today (1 July), by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, captures the consensus reached among ordinary people (on a range of incomes) about what they feel is needed to achieve an acceptable standard of living today. Thirty-nine groups from different kinds of household (such as families with children, pensioners and single people) had detailed discussions about the necessary elements of a household budget for each family type. Experts looked at these budgets to ensure that they provided an adequate diet and met basic needs like keeping a home warm.
Participants in this study were clear that a minimum living standard should provide for more than mere survival. One older woman taking part in the research summed up this view: “Food and shelter keeps you alive, it doesn’t make you live.” Findings from this extensive consultation with members of the public showed that:

• A single person without children needs to spend £158 a week, and a couple with two children £370 a week, not including rent or mortgage.
• To afford this budget on top of rent on a modest council home, the single person would need to earn £13,400 a year before tax and the couple with two children £26,800.
• For families with no adult working, state benefits provide for less than half the minimum budget for single people and around two-thirds for those with children. The basic state pension provides a retired couple with about three-quarters of the minimum, but if they claim the means-tested Pension Credit their income is topped up to just above the minimum income standard.
• The minimum income is above the official “poverty line” of 60% median income, for nearly all household groups. This shows that almost everybody classified as being in poverty has income too low to pay for a standard of living regarded as “adequate” by all members of the public who took part in this research.

Julia Unwin, Director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: “This research is designed to encourage debate, and to start building a public consensus about what level of income no-one should have to live below. Of course, everyone has their own views about what items in a family budget are ‘essential’. But this is the best effort to date to enable ordinary people to discuss and agree what all households should be able to afford.
“Naturally, people’s circumstances and preferences vary, and this research does not dictate how people should spend their money. But it does start to pin down how much people think is needed to be able to afford basic opportunities and choices that allow proper participation in society.”
Co-author Jonathan Bradshaw, Professor of Social Policy at the University of York, said: “Until now, poverty assessments have been largely based on rather arbitrary measures of relative income, which are helpful for monitoring trends but leave unanswered the question of how much income is enough. Based on these public assessments, almost everyone defined as living below the official poverty line falls short of what people judge to be adequate for their fellow citizens – sometimes by quite a long way.”
Co-author Noel Smith, from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, said: “This study has allowed us to engage in detailed and productive discussions with people from all walks of life about what anyone should be able to afford. These groups have taken their task very seriously, in lively and thoughtful discussions about all aspects of a household’s spending. This is not about what ordinary people would like to have, but about what they consider to be basic needs.”
Notes to Editors:

1. The full report, A minimum income standard for Britain: What people think, by Jonathan Bradshaw, Sue Middleton, Abigail Davis, Nina Oldfield, Noel Smith, Linda Cusworth and Julie Williams is published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. More information is available at www.minimumincomestandard.org
2. The whole consultation process with members of the public was based on the following definition which was agreed by an initial set of groups: “A minimum standard of living in Britain today includes, but is more than just, food, clothes and shelter. It is about having what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society.”
3. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is one of the largest social policy research and development charities in the UK. It supports a research and development programme that seeks to understand the causes of social difficulties and explore ways of overcoming them.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

July 2008 – Ref 2244
A minimum income standard for Britain: what people think

This research aimed to find out what level of income people think is needed to afford a socially acceptable standard of living in Britain today, and to participate in society. The study compiled household budgets to calculate the first-ever minimum income standard (MIS) for Britain. Combining expert knowledge with in-depth consultation with members of the public, the MIS standard provides a new benchmark to inform future poverty debates and public policy decisions affecting the incomes of those worst off.
Key points

• According to what people said, in order to maintain a minimum, socially acceptable quality of life in 2008:
  • a single working-age adult needs a budget of £158 per week;
  • a pensioner couple needs £201;
  • a couple with two children needs £370; and
  • a lone parent with one child needs £210.
  
  These amounts are after income tax, and do not include housing or childcare costs.
• Most people relying on basic out-of-work benefits do not reach this standard. A single person on Income Support gets less than half. Out-of-work families with children typically get two thirds. However, pensioners receiving Pension Credit do reach the minimum income standard
• A single adult, working full time, needs to earn £6.88 an hour to reach this weekly standard, compared to the minimum wage of £5.52.
• For almost all household types considered in this study, the minimum income standard is above the threshold used to measure relative poverty – 60 per cent of average (median) income. The great majority of households below this poverty line cannot afford a standard of living that members of the public participating in the study considered to be the minimum acceptable in Britain today.

Background: what is a minimum income standard?

Defining the line between an acceptable and unacceptable standard is a challenge. Currently, the Government often defines this line in terms of having an income less than 60 per cent of median income. However, this measure is not based on research about what people need. The MIS represents a benchmark measure of a socially acceptable standard, to which relative income and other poverty measures can refer.
Based on these budgets, the project makes it possible for most people in Britain to calculate their own minimum income standard.
The MIS budgets are based on detailed lists of what is required by different household types, including:

• food;
• clothes;
• accommodation;
• utilities;
• fuel;
• household goods;
• personal goods and services;
• transport; and
• social and cultural activities.

These lists were developed during 39 group discussions and day-long workshops with members of the public. Each group comprised individuals from the type of household under discussion, from all income backgrounds. Groups were informed by advice from experts, such as a nutritionist and a heating engineer, ensuring that the budgets met basic needs such as nutritional requirements and adequate heating.
The MIS addresses needs and not wants, and is rooted in the principle that those best placed to set minimum acceptable standards are people in the family types to which those standards apply. An initial set of groups defined the 'minimum standard':

A minimum standard of living in Britain today includes, but is more than just, food, clothes and shelter. It is about having what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society.

Table 1: Summary of the MIS budgets for four family types


£ per week Single working age adult Pensioner couple Couple +2 children Lone parent +1 child Total excluding rent 157.84 201.49 557.03 345.35 Rent 52.30 64.43 69.40 64.07 Total including rent 210.14 265.92 626.43 409.42 Total including rent but excluding childcare N/A N/A 439.45 274.38 Total excluding rent and childcare 157.84 201.49 370.05 210.31
Subsequent groups negotiated what items were essential for this standard, focusing on needs, not wants. Check-back groups validated or amended decisions taken by previous groups, taking account of comments by experts.
The groups recognised that people's needs vary. The MIS they constructed does not represent an acceptable living standard for every individual. Instead, it draws a line below which it is socially unacceptable for any individual to live.
This method brings together the two leading budget standards methodologies used previously in the UK. These are the 'consensual' methodology based on group discussions among members of the public, pioneered at the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University, and the expert-led methodology used by the Family Budget Unit (FBU). This research involved collaboration between CRSP and FBU.
MIS budgets

MIS budgets are being made available on the project website, for most household types, covering 79 per cent of all households in Britain. A 'ready reckoner' calculates the minimum budget for any specified household type, and what level of income is needed to afford this budget once taxes, tax credits and benefits have been taken into account.
Budget totals for four household types are presented in Table 1, which shows budgets before and after rent, and with and without childcare costs.
These budgets can be interpreted by comparing them with a range of other indicators, including the safety-net level of benefits, the level of earnings needed to meet a minimum standard and the actual distribution of income and expenditure in Britain today.
Table 2: MIS compared with out-of-work benefit income, April 2008


£ per week Single working age adult Pensioner couple Couple +2 children Lone parent +1 child MIS (excluding childcare, rent and council tax) 144.51 183.72 349.32 194.76 IS/PC excluding housing costs 60.50 193.19 224.80 132.84 Difference +/- -84.01 9.47 -124.52 -61.92 IS/PC income as % MIS 42 105 64 68 Note: IS = Income Support; PC = Pension Credit.
Table 3: Gross weekly earnings required to meet the MIS, April 2008


£ per week Single working age adult Couple +2 children (single earner) Lone parent +1 child with childcare MIS (including rent and council tax) 210 439 301 Gross earnings required 258 516 230 Less income tax -30.75 -82.35 -25.15 Less National Insurance contributions -16.83 -45.21 -13.75 Plus Child Benefit 0 31.35 18.80 Plus Working Tax Credit 0 0 40.89 Plus Child Tax Credit 0 19.78 50.44 Hourly wage rate for 37.5 hour week £6.88 £13.76 £6.13 MIS and benefits

To what extent does the state guarantee people in Britain enough income to reach what these groups thought was an acceptable standard of living? These findings suggest that people think it falls far short of doing so for working-age families but provides something around an acceptable minimum for pensioners who claim means-tested benefits.
Safety-net benefits for households not in paid work are far lower than the MIS budgets for working-age households. Table 2 shows that, for a single person, Income Support covers only 42 per cent of the MIS budget. Families with children on Income Support receive about two-thirds of the MIS budget. Conversely, the income of couple pensioners receiving Pension Credit (including the winter fuel premium) exceeds the MIS budget by five per cent.
MIS and earnings

Can people in work with low wages achieve the minimum income standard defined by these groups? The picture varies by household type, but it appears that most families with one person working full time but relying only on the minimum wage would be unable to reach the minimum acceptable standard of living defined by the study.
Table 3 shows the level of wages needed to reach the minimum income standard for three types of household – a single person working full time, a couple with two children where one person works full time, and a lone parent with one child who works full time and pays for full-time childcare. The couple with children would need a wage well over double the National Minimum Wage of £5.52 an hour to reach the minimum standard. The single person could reach it on just over £1 an hour above the National Minimum Wage. The lone parent, helped by tax credits, would get closest to reaching MIS on the minimum wage; if she had no childcare costs, her income on the National Minimum Wage would exceed MIS as long as she worked at least 30 hours. However, for the many lone parents working fewer hours, and not entitled to a tax credit bonus for working 30+ hours, a higher wage is required to reach the minimum income standard.
The couple with children would need a wage well over double the National Minimum Wage of £5.52 an hour to reach the minimum standard. The single person could reach it on just over £1 an hour above the National Minimum Wage. The lone parent, helped by tax credits, would get closest to reaching MIS on the minimum wage; if she had no childcare costs, her income on the National Minimum Wage would exceed MIS as long as she worked at least 30 hours. However, for the many lone parents working fewer hours, and not entitled to a tax credit bonus for working 30+ hours, a higher wage is required to reach the minimum income standard.
MIS, incomes and poverty

How does the conventionally defined poverty line, 60 per cent of median income, compare to the minimum income standard defined by the public in this research? Typically, the poverty line is considerably lower, indicating that families defined as being in poverty fall well short of reaching the minimum acceptable standard of living defined by the study.
Table 4 shows that, before housing costs, the MIS budgets are all above the poverty line. After housing costs, the MIS budgets are also above this line, except for the pensioner couple. Other household types, not shown here, all have MIS budgets above the poverty line before and after housing costs. Over 96 per cent of individuals classified as being in poverty, in the households covered by the study, are below the MIS.
Table 4: Comparison of MIS and median weekly income, including and excluding housing costs


£ per week Single working age adult Pensioner couple Couple +2 children Lone parent +1 child Including housing costs Estimated median income* 265 395 553 344 MIS (excluding childcare and council tax) 197 248 419 259 MIS as % of the median 74 63 76 75 Excluding housing costs Estimated median income* 195 337 472 263 MIS (excluding childcare, council tax, water rates and rent) 140 178 344 187 MIS as % of the median 72 53 73 71 * Note that this is not the actual median for each family type, but the median for the whole population, adjusted for size of family.
The considerable differences in the percentage of median income represented by MIS for different household types reflect the fact that the relative needs of various households look different in MIS than in the measurement of income poverty. For example, in MIS, a pensioner couple was calculated as needing 27 per cent more (excluding housing costs) than a single working-age adult, whereas the adjustment used in poverty measures assumes that the pensioner couple needs 72 per cent more. According to MIS criteria, the relative needs of families with children and of single adults are being underestimated when adjusting the income measure for household composition, while the relative needs of pensioners are being overestimated.
MIS and average expenditure

It is interesting to note how MIS budgets compare to actual expenditure among households in Britain. The MIS budgets do not represent what is actually being spent – rather they measure what people said are needs. However, comparing the budgets to what happens in practice provides a 'reality check' to ensure that they are not wholly out of line with how people live. Some of the later budget-setting groups in this study were informed of cases where elements of budgets seemed high or low relative to actual spending patterns, and given the option of altering them.
In general, overall budgets were towards the lower end of relevant household types' actual spending. For example, about three times as many pensioner couples spend more than the MIS budget than less, and the same is true for couples with two children. On the other hand, among lone parents, who are far more likely to be on low incomes, about half spend above and half below the MIS budgets. Other than pensioners, households relying on means-tested benefits spend on average below the MIS budgets.
Conclusion

This study has for the first time produced an income standard for Britain that is based on detailed research about what people said is needed to reach a socially acceptable standard of living. The research will be of relevance to people who measure poverty and to all those whose actions influence basic disposable incomes, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to trade unions and employers, and judges and adjudicators who schedule the repayment of debts or fines by people with limited means.
The MIS is not perfect. Many individual households will have needs that go well beyond a common standard that covers the whole population. As a national standard it does not create an acceptable living standard for every individual, but it does set a level that members of the public believe it is socially unacceptable for anyone to live below. It does not replace existing poverty measures, but will act as a benchmark that helps to interpret them. The MIS therefore represents a new and important tool for informing social policy in order to promote fairness and well-being in Britain.
Further information

The full report, A minimum income standard for Britain: what people think by Jonathan Bradshaw, Sue Middleton, Abigail Davis, Nina Oldfield, Noel Smith, Linda Cusworth and Julie Williams, is published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Further information about the project is available at the project website: minimumincomestandard.org.

• Download this Findings (PDF, 76KB)
• Comment on this Findings
• View the press release
• Download the full report (PDF, 57 pages, 240KB)
• More details about the full report from our Bookshop

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

Minimum Income Standard Launch on 1st July 2008

On 1st July 2008 the MIS team launched its final report in London at Coin Street Neighbourhood Centre at 108 Stamford Street, London. This report is the culmination of two years of research, based on work with 39 focus groups involving more than 200 people, who were actively engaged in shaping the research, in combination with input from experts on heating and nutrition.

The report sets out a series of minimum income standard budgets for 4 household types: single adults, couples with two children, lone parents with one child and couple pensioners.



BBC News

Report

Final Report
Findings

Launch Presentations (Powerpoint):

- Comparisons and Uses of Minimum Income Standards - Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, CBE
- What is a Minimum Income Standard - Noel Smith
- The Standard for a Family of Four - Abigail Davis

Working Papers

Working Paper 1: Comparison of MIS and Expenditure and Food Survey Data

Related spreadsheets :
- WP1 Decile Analysis Single Working Age;
- WP1 Decile Analysis Couple Pensioner;
- WP1 Decile Analysis Lone Plus One;
- WP1 Decile Analysis Couple Plus Two.

Working Paper 2: Uprating and Rebasing Minimum Income Standards

Working Paper 3: A New Equivalence Scale

Budget Sheets by Family Type:

- Single Working Age;
- Couple Pensioner;
- Lone Parent with One Child;
- Couple Parents with Two Children.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

Publication To order: An Overview of Recent Work on Standard Budgets in the United States and Other Anglophone Countries, Gordon M. Fisher 2007 Online Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for Pensioners April 2006 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for Families with Children and a Single Man April 2006 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for Families with Children April 2005 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for Pensioners April 2005 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Aceptable Budget for a Single Man Aged 20-30 April 2005
Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Aceptable Budget for a Single Man Aged 20-30 April 2004 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for Pensioners April 2004 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for Families with Children April 2004 Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for pensioners updated to April 2003. Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Budget for a families with children updated to April 2003. Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable wage levels and the 'exported costs' of low pay in Brighton and Hove. Peter Ambrose Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable: A Minimum Income Standard for Households with Children in Wales. Ed Hermione Parker, Unison, 2002. Downloadable - pdf Modest but adequate budget for pensioners April 2002 prices Ed Hermione Parker, Age Concern England, 2002 Downloadable - pdf Mapping low pay in East london September 2001, Ed Jane Wills, Unison, 2001 Downloadable - pdf Low cost but acceptable: A minimum income standard for households aged 65-74 years April 2001 prices. Ed Hermione Parker, Age Concern England, 2001. Downloadable - pdf Low cost but acceptable: A Minimum Income Standard for Households with Children in London's East End April 2001, Ed Hermione Parker, Unison, 2001. Downloadable - pdf Low cost but acceptable: A minimum income standard for the UK: Muslim families with young children Tower Hamlets February 2001, Ed Hermione Parker, Unison, 2001. Downloadable - pdf Low Cost but Acceptable Incomes for Older People. A minimum income standard for households aged 65-74 years in the UK. Ed. Parker H. Bristol. Policy Press. 2000. ISBN 1 86134 136 9. £19.99 (£12.99 voluntary organisations) Order from: Marston Book Services, PO Box 269, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN
Tel: +44 (0)1235 465500 Fax: +44 (0)1235 465556 email: direct.orders@marston.co.uk Low Cost but Acceptable: A minimum income standard for the UK: Families with young children. Ed. Parker H. Bristol. Policy Press. 1998. ISBN 1 86134 136 9. £19.99 (£12.99 voluntary organisations) Order from: Marston Book Services, PO Box 269, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN
Tel: +44 (0)1235 465500 Fax: +44 (0)1235 465556 email: direct.orders@marston.co.uk 'Money to spend as they wish'. The Personal Expenses Allowance in Care Homes. London. Age Concern. 1997. Contact Age Concern England The Adequacy of Foster Care Allowances Nina Oldfield, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997 ISBN 1 85972 427 2 Order from : Averbury. Ashgate Publisjing Limited Gower House, Croft Rd, Aldershot, Hants GU11 3HR Modest but Adequate. Summary budgets for sixteen household types. April 1997 prices. London. Family Budget Unit. 1997. Send cheque for £9.50 payable to Family Budget Unit to contact details, specify request for "Modest but Adequate" The Costs of a Child: Living Standards for the 1990s, Nina Oldfield and Autumn CS Yu, London: Child Poverty Action Group, 1993 Order From : CPAG, 94, White Lion St, London, N1 9PF Budget Standards for the United Kingdom Ed Jonathan Bradshaw, Aldershot: Avebury, 1993. ISBN 1 85628 591 X Order from : Averbury. Ashgate Publishing Limited Gower House, Croft Rd, Aldershot, Hants GU11 3HR

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

Basics of Britain

• Mark Easton
• 1 Jul 08, 09:40 PM GMT

Is a DVD a necessity? A car a luxury? Are cigarettes an indulgence? Is the odd glass of wine part of a decent life?
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's (JRF) attempts to define the minimum income necessary for an "acceptable" living standard is bound to provoke argument. But they won't mind one bit.
For decades those organisations with an interest in people living at the margins have held on to the concept of 'poverty' - absolute poverty, relative poverty, the poverty line.
But the word inevitably prompts a chorus of derision, because the poverty of Darfur looks nothing like the poverty here. How can you compare someone with obesity and a plasma screen to someone with malnutrition and no shoes?
So JRF have looked at it another way: what do we think is acceptable as a minimum standard of living in 21st Century Britain?
Now, this is a cultural and social question rather than a matter of survival. And as such, it forces us to think quite hard about the way we live.
A minimum standard of living involves a degree of socialisation and cultural life. Never being able to go out or buy yourself a chocolate bar is "unacceptable" in a rich country like ours. We demand the wherewithal to have a diet that is nutritious, a home that is warm and the choices to participate in wider society.
To assess what a minimum income standard might look like, 11 panels of "ordinary people" from different social groups - pensioners, single mums, families with children - were asked to look at everything that a household would need. From a bath to broccoli. Pillowcases to porridge. From night clothes to a night out. Where would they draw the line between luxury and necessity?
Well, the answers make intriguing reading.
In 2008, home access to the internet is a "luxury" for all except families with secondary school-age children. Free surfing at the library is enough for the rest.
But I wonder how long that will remain the case? At what point will modern life require almost permanent access to the web? Perhaps, for some, we are there already.
There are some interesting anomalies in the lists - almost moral judgments. Cigarettes are a luxury. But all the groups decided that alcohol was an essential treat. The pensioners' group decided that a weekly can of stout was vital.
A single mum is entitled to a bottle of wine and a couple of cans of beer each week. She can indulge on a Kit Kat once every nine weeks and a Twix once every three-and-a-half. There is also £15 a week for social activities.
The panel concluded that a couple with two kids should be able to spend a minimum of £360 on Christmas and £450 on birthdays.
JRF told the panels "to exclude items that may be regarded as 'aspirational'
- it is about fulfilling needs and not wants". So a single adult needs a pair of trainers, but the budget is £20 a year. They will have to save up a long time to get a pair of the latest designer running shoes.
This is a fascinating distinction. We need "stuff", the panels agree: DVD, Freeview, CD player and our telly. But we don't need the "right stuff".
The JRF hopes that this new measure will become an international standard for developed nations, allowing the debate to move on from dreary arguments about whether you can be poor if you smoke.
But the panels' deliberations also reveal something telling about the way we live today. In trying to identify the requirements for social participation, the research has painted a detailed picture of contemporary life. From Marmite to muesli, pull-up nappies to reduced-fat spread. This is about the basics of Britain.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

If anyone finds the lists of essentials for the different groups g'is a link ta xxx

Some very interesting reading in that lot, I'll try and pick out the main bits into a sensible sized post later.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

I like this quote

The poverty of Darfur looks nothing like the poverty here. How can you compare someone with obesity and a plasma screen to someone with malnutrition and no shoes?

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

UK spending power 'in heavy fall'


Retailers are being hit by falling discretionary income, the report says

UK consumer spending power has fallen "dramatically" due to a large rise in the cost of living, research by Ernst & Young suggests.
The average household is 15% worse off than it was five years ago, the Annual Discretionary Income Study says.
After household bills and tax, it found the typical family had less than 20% of its gross income remaining - compared with 28% in 2003.
It added that rate rises and fuel bills meant "the worst could be yet to come".
"Many UK consumer segments are clearly feeling the pinch as big rises in household costs are far outstripping relatively modest wage inflation," said Jason Gordon, director of retail at Ernst & Young.
"The significant decline in discretionary income means consumers are no longer in a position to spend as freely as they have done in the past."
Fuel factor
The report said that monthly discretionary income for a typical household was now £772.79 - compared with £909.84 in 2003/04.
And with higher interest rates and a growth in the amount people are borrowing to buy property - average monthly mortgage payments are just under £735 - 78% higher than in 2003/04.
Other findings included:

• Fixed monthly household costs have risen by almost 45% since 2003/04
• Petrol costs for a typical household are £193.61 per month - 29.4% higher than in 2003/04
• Average monthly energy bills have risen by 110% since 2003/04 to £95.80.
• Council tax is up almost 25% since 2003/04 to £114.50 per month for a band D property.

However the report said that increased competition had brought down the cost of fixed line telephone costs while lower servicing charges and tyre costs had reduced the cost of car upkeep.
"All consumers are painfully aware of the huge hikes in petrol and utility bills but we've also seen some fairly hefty price increases in pension contributions and debt repayments," Mr Gordon said.
"If we go one step further and factor in food price inflation it's clear that household budgets are under enormous strain.
"Add in the impact of falling house prices on the consumer's propensity to spend, and the consumer economy is undoubtedly on a knife-edge.
"Worryingly, though, the worst could be yet to come. If, as predicted, utility prices rise by as much as 40% later this year and interest rates are increased to control rising inflation, consumers and consumer facing businesses will face even bleaker times."

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

July 2008 – Ref 2234
Financial inclusion in the UK: Review of policy and practice

Financial exclusion is the inability, difficulty or reluctance to access appropriate, so-called mainstream, financial services. The reduction of financial exclusion is a priority for the present government because it can lead to social exclusion. This study was a review of current policies and practices aimed at reducing financial exclusion. The financial services covered included money and debt advice, financial capability, banking, affordable credit and insurance.
Key points

• People outside the mainstream financial services suffer financial disadvantages including: higher-interest credit; lack of insurance; no account into which income can be paid; and higher-cost utilities.
• Even those with bank accounts may barely use them, preferring to withdraw all their money each week and manage it as cash.
• Those particularly vulnerable to financial exclusion include: housing association tenants; young people not in employment, education or training; those leaving care; lone parents and divorced people; disabled people, those with mental health problems and carers; people living in isolated or disadvantaged areas; prisoners, ex-offenders and families of prisoners; members of ethnic minorities; migrants; asylum seekers and refugees; homeless people; older people; women; people with a Post Office Card Account or basic bank account; people with low incomes.
• The number of adults in the UK without a bank account fell from 2.8 million in the financial year 2002–03 to 2 million in 2005–6. Despite this progress, there will continue to be people who cannot take full advantage of bank accounts and other financial services. The reasons for this depend on the different characteristics of vulnerable groups; all are exacerbated by low income.
• Much financial exclusion is caused by a complex set of factors. Consequently, financial exclusion initiatives must address many different issues. These include: geographical exclusion e.g. resulting from branch closures; failure to qualify because of poor credit history or problems in supplying identity document requirements; the relative cost of financial products and services e.g. charges for unauthorised overdrafts; and cultural and psychological barriers.
• In an increasingly cashless future economy the consequences of not holding a bank account are ever more exclusionary.

Background

Financial inclusion has two elements: good financial decision-making (the 'demand side' of the equation) and access to suitable products and services (the 'supply side').
Good financial decision-making requires:

• Financial literacy, or a basic understanding of financial concepts.
• Financial capability, or the ability and motivation to plan finances, seek out information and advice, and apply these to personal circumstances. Financial capability is increasingly important, as the range of financial products becomes more complex. The need for financial education is continuous through people's lives as the market and personal circumstances change.

Poor financial decision-making can, of course, affect people not on low incomes. However, those most affected are those who will suffer a greater loss of welfare as a consequence of poor decisions. Better-off people are more likely to have a cushion of financial assets or access to affordable credit and so may be able to get by with only a rough knowledge of how much they earn and how much things cost: they are not financially excluded.
Implications of financial exclusion

Financial exclusion is a current policy concern because it creates financial problems in the following ways:

• Exclusion from affordable loans leaves people who need to borrow money with no option but to use high-interest credit.
• A lack of insurance and savings makes families vulnerable to financial crises following unexpected events such as burglary or flooding. A lack of savings can lead to poverty in old age.
• Many employers will only pay wages into a bank account.
• Cheque cashing agencies may charge 7 to 9 per cent of the value of the cheque plus a fee for the transaction.
• Not having a bank account with a direct debit facility excludes people from this method of paying bills. Most utility suppliers charge more for using other methods of payment, such as pre-payment meters, pay-point cards in convenience stores, postal orders or cash.

Financial exclusion reinforces social exclusion. It is not just an individual problem: a whole community can suffer from under-investment in financial services. Conversely, financial inclusion significantly contributes to a route out of poverty.
Policy context

In the last ten years, financial exclusion has emerged as a policy concern and funding has been made available at both national and local levels. There are many different initiatives under the auspices of different government departments and statutory bodies. In addition there is divergence between the policies in England and the devolved administrations. The voluntary and private sectors also play a crucial role in providing services to financially excluded groups.
There is currently a push for financial advice to be more widely available. The aim is to ensure that there is greater access to high-quality, affordable and 'sales-free' financial advice for those who are most vulnerable to the consequences of poor financial decision-making. The Thoresen Review feasibility study of 'generic financial advice' – also referred to as 'money guidance' – published its final report in March 2008 (Thoresen Review of Generic Financial Advice: Final Report, HM Treasury).
Aims of the study

The aims of this study were:

• to identify which groups appear likely to remain financially excluded in the future;
• to identify the strengths and weakness of current financial inclusion initiatives;
• to look at how policy makers and practitioners can address the needs of the financially excluded.

The research was complicated by the very many financial inclusion initiatives currently taking place and the fast-moving nature of this field. In addition, because government investment in financial inclusion is relatively recent, many initiatives remain at the early stages or are short term and so few have, as yet, been properly evaluated.
Groups particularly vulnerable to financial exclusion

The study highlighted the huge diversity of financial inclusion work taking place. It was clear from the sheer number of initiatives identified that what helps one group of clients may not help another. The variety of advice being offered is not necessarily a problem because of the diversity of needs, and because of the way financial exclusion interlinks with the other problems a person may be facing. Nevertheless, considerable work remains to be done to identify what is effective for different types of client. It was impossible to fully evaluate the impact of this work within the time span of this study. However, data from the interviews suggests that successful initiatives shared the following features:

• Intervention occurred at the point when the client was ready to receive advice or was looking for financial help.
• They enjoyed continuity of funding, enabling an on-going service to be provided.
• They used trained staff. In some cases, money advisers were trained in the needs of vulnerable groups. In others, financial training was given to those already working with particular groups.
• The service was effectively marketed to potential clients.
• The service was seen as independent and trusted.
• Partnerships with other relevant organisations were developed.

The study's recommendations to money and debt advice services and financial capability initiatives were:

• To understand the specific needs of the target group in terms of where, when and how to deliver assistance, and the topics to be covered.
• To make cross-referrals, recognising that financial exclusion may be only one of several problems faced by an individual.

Recommendations for central, devolved and local government departments were:

• To provide more assured, long-term funding to money and debt advice and financial capability projects. This will ensure that experienced staff are not lost to the sector, and recognises the long-term nature of clients' needs.
• To continue to invest in the financial training of advice workers, particularly those working generally with a specific vulnerable client group.
• To ensure that the current government push for generic financial advice is sufficiently targeted, since the most successful projects are tailored to clients' circumstances.

The financial services industry

Recent changes in the financial services industry have increased the risk of financial exclusion for some groups, but have led to greater financial inclusion for others. The gap will widen further between those who stand to gain from being able to make the use of direct debits, online banking and text banking, and those whose main reason for financial exclusion is that their financial resources are stretched and who find it easier to use cash.
For those in danger of being left out, banks need to help customers on low incomes to control their finances by offering suitable financial products.
Credit unions (third-sector lenders) are an important means of tackling financial and social exclusion, but they cannot lend to the most high-risk customers. Therefore, the accessibility of the Social Fund should be monitored by the Department for Work and Pensions. So, for example, any difficulties in getting through on the phone to make a claim should be monitored.
Recommendations for the financial services industry were:

• When planning services, consult those groups who are likely to be financially excluded so as to understand their needs.
• Ensure that consumers receive clear, simple and understandable information.

Recommendations for central, devolved and local government departments were:

• Continue to monitor the impact of technological, macro-economic and demographic changes on access to financial services by the specific vulnerable groups identified in this report.

The roles of the different sectors

In terms of the balance of roles of the different sectors, the answer lies in a co-ordinated approach by the public, private and voluntary sectors. This will have to be led by government because people on low incomes are the least attractive customers to banks and other service providers. Credit unions are not widespread enough to be a single solution to high-cost lending, nor can they afford to take on the highest risk customers. The Financial Inclusion Taskforce will also have to continue to engage mainstream financial service providers who, otherwise, will be unlikely to make major changes to the services they offer to vulnerable groups.
Financial exclusion in the future

The study concluded that, overall, the number of those without access to banking services will continue to fall while the need to have a bank account will increase. Despite the impact of current policy and practice initiatives to combat financial exclusion, there will continue to be people who cannot take full advantage of banking and other financial services. There are many different reasons for this, depending on the different characteristics of particular vulnerable groups, but they are all exacerbated by low income.
About the project

The methods of the study included:

• Systematic searches of existing research studies and databases.
• An email survey sent to 233 organisations across the UK.
• Interviews with 11 umbrella organisations for background information.
• Telephone interviews with representatives of 52 organisations, chosen to cover a range of types of project, target group, size and UK regions.
• The use of the database of Transact (a network for people interested in financial inclusion) as a source.
• Geographically, the interviews covered England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

For more information

The full report, Financial inclusion in the UK: Review of policy and practice by Lavinia Mitton, is published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

• Download this Findings (PDF, 4 pages, 84KB)
• Comment on this Findings
• Download this report (PDF, 118 pages, 456KB)

[Amethyst]

Re: UK life costs 'at least £13,400' - BIRDFEEDER a neccessity !!!!!

Latest uprating reports

http://www.minimumincomestandard.org...ing_report.pdf
and
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jr...0-report_0.pdf






Also of interest for people working out budgets (be warned these are not the CFS figures and are in general a lot higher)

http://www.minimumincomestandard.org..._2008-2010.pdf