To think wages should cover the cost of living?

[KeepYourCup]

I'm a single parent, I work full time and pay for childcare for my primary school ages child. I physically can't work any more hours and my salary is just above the NMW.

I rely on top-up benefits from Universal Credit to get by. We have a nice life - nothing fancy but there is food on the table, a comfortable home, car etc. I realise I am in a better position than many people who claim UC but it pisses me off that I am left relying on it each month.

Last month they wiped out my entire payment with only a couple of days warning. I am appealing that decision but in the meantime I ended up having to borrow money to cover a couple of bills and a repair on my car.

Single parent families are normal, and households should be able to get by on one wage. My rent alone eats up almost half of my take-home pay, and I only live in a two-bed flat so not a huge house with a garden or anything.

I realise its all relative and that everyone's circumstances are different, but there is something very wrong when an adult working full time doesn't earn enough to cover the costs of simple living when there is only one adult and one small person living at home.

AIBU?

The problem is that local government gets number-blind. They don't see £80,000 as being a year's worth of council tax payments from 70-ish homes, nor do they see £1000 a year as pretty much equivalent to a month of someone's take home pay on nmw.

Local government doesn't have much choice. 90% of local government income used to come from central government, the Tories have already reduced this to (iirc) 60% and ultimately aim to reduce it to 10%. Most of what local government does is statutory and there is very little scope to make further cuts while still meeting their statutory duties. The only way councils can bridge that gap is by increasing council tax.

Of course, not so long ago people on low incomes could have claimed council tax benefit to help with the cost of CT, but the bloody Tories abolished that as well. Councils run their own schemes now, most of which are less generous than CTB was.

Our council tax is almost £2k a year, for a band C property; we pay the 6th highest in the country.

Lots of bad decisions have been made - the introduction of poll tax/council tax, selling off the council houses, sending manufacturing overseas, complicating the benefits system (which got infinitely more complicated with UC), lowering taxes for the rich, tax avoidance schemes, Brexit referendum etc etc.

A sceptic might be forgiven for thinking these decisions were intentional and the elites don't have our best interests at heart after all.

I agree that the housing crisis is one of the roots of this problem

Obviously elites are motivated primarily by self-interest, those at the top default to feeling entitled to their elevated status in life and they feel completely justified in acting to maintain the status quo

can't risk upsetting the peasants too much though, a certain amount of 'bread and circus' is required to keep us quiet so that we don't get too..... pitchfork-y

The privileged few will always work against the interests of the many
WORD!

They're not just maintaining the status quo, they are actively making things worse for people with every decision they make. Maybe we all should be a bit more pitchforky.

“Conservatives in the upcoming election - a party which has become the servant of the elite.“
I agree with most of your post Beachcomber but the torrid have ALWAYS been the party which serves the elite and has no genuine interest in serving anyone lower than upper middle class. If people have believed their claims otherwise they are foolish.

I’ve said on several threads that govt investment in building social housing would have many benefits for our country, not only in creating more homes but it would bring housing prices down generally (this is why they won’t do it - lots of mps of all colours are landlords and property/land developers - they shouldn’t be allowed to be as IMO it’s a conflict of interest, I would urge you to look and see which mps are landlords/property & land developers AND look at how those mps vote on housing matters. Especially your own mps. It’s shocking!), create jobs and training opportunities and revitalise the economy.

“I have no problem with right to buy but the money from right to buy should go into new housing stock.” In addition to selling off council houses thatcher also put in place legislation preventing councils from replacing what was sold, legislation which I believe has not since been repealed despite us supposedly having had a labour govt in that time - because they weren’t a real labour govt.

“This is what happens when people who have never lived in the real world make the decisions - make the MP's salary NMW & I bet it jumps rapidly!” Again something I’ve proposed several times, I think anyone wanting to be an Mp should spend 6 months living in social housing on minimum state benefits, let them see what it’s really like.

But then I’d also remove the vast majority of Mp expenses, leaving only reasonable PUBLIC transport expenses for those mps who don’t live in commutable distance from Westminster to attend for essential reasons. I’d remove the 2nd home nonsense and instead have a communal building where mps can stay while in London, with living quarters and on the ground floor conference and dining rooms for entertaining visiting dignitaries etc make the costs for offices and staff a set central standard cost that they don’t personally decide. Mps are on a damn sight more than nmw! Absolutely NO reason why they shouldn’t, just like any other employee pay for their food, transport (daily, regular), clothes etc out of their salary!

And I’m sick of hearing the “small businesses couldn’t afford to pay a living wage” crap - if you can’t afford to pay employees a decent wage the business isn’t viable.

“The introduction of UC, however well intentioned” well intentioned? Are you serious? There was nothing well intentioned about it! Ids and cronies WANT the poor to be even worse off.

I think most posters have been jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts. You say that you have a comfortable life, a decent home in a decent area, a car, food on the table etc... so ultimately, you are doing ok doing a job that in theory at least shouldn't be stressful and demanding as one paying much more.

The issue seems to be that you still need to rely on UC, but isn't this mainly the case because of childcare? If you took childcare away, wouldn't you be ok on your income alone?

If that's the case, it is only a temporary position and once your child start secondary school, you should be better off especially if with the additional years of experience, you can move to the next level.

The other issue is indeed the cost of rental. Half is indeed quite a lot. There are two options, either you live in the SouthEast/London where rentals are indeed high, but so are house price, so everything is relative, or you have chosen a very nice flat in a very nice area, and therefore paying more than if you were in a not so nice area (without being in the worse one).

I think it is impossible to know how fair income is without knowing everything about the person's spending. I agree that for some people, it is really tight despite very modest spending and that isn't right, for others though, it is tight because of the choice they make.

And I’m sick of hearing the “small businesses couldn’t afford to pay a living wage” crap - if you can’t afford to pay employees a decent wage the business isn’t viable.

I like the idea of a living wage, I think we all do, but obviously it carries enormous implications for the cost of living that would hit the poor the hardest.

*I believe many of our problems in this country have arisen from tax credits, housing benefits and uc. The welfare state should be a true fall back for those unable to work.

Instead we have a ludicrous situation of working people being forced to claim benefits to get by. Companies get away with paying too little (whilst profits accelerate paying the rich more and more). Landlords are able to put up there rents because at the bottom end the state pays it which puts the cost of living up for everyone. Ridiculous - if the state wasn't paying market forces would mean that rents were set at an affordable level.*

I'm not sure that rents would fall if the "subsidy" of UC/HB stopped, tbh. I think some tenants would fall into arrears pretty quickly and that they would end up homeless as a result; in the medium term I think a lot of private l/ls would sell up, leading to fewer PSR properties and rents for those that were left would go up.

Imo, two things would need to be in place before reducing or stopping in-work benefits: a massive programme of building (or acquiring) new social housing and an increase in minimum wage. Neither of those are going to happen any time soon. There's no appetite in the current government for increasing public spending (and taxation) to increase the housing stock or to increase costs on business by forcing wages to rise (which would lead to job losses, which in turn would increase public spending on unemployment).

MPs residing in a communal building, like mere peasants in an HMO??
I can't see them voting for that
yes they all got their greedy fat fingers in the property development pie and that's why they don't want affordable housing

The issue seems to be that you still need to rely on UC, but isn't this mainly the case because of childcare? If you took childcare away, wouldn't you be ok on your income alone?

I don't have childcare costs - I won't be ok on my income alone once the tax credits stop I'll have £15 a week to cover everything other than the basics.

My employer pays NMW & will not go above it yet my job involves quite a lot of responsibility for others financial situations, I am in work at least an hour early every day because I do not have enough time in the week to complete all the tasks I have to do my NMW job actually works out at less. My job title is admin assistant - what I do isn't admin assistant tasks.

Everyone else in my office is younger than me & lives at home so there's never been any grumbling about the wages - even from those under 21 getting £11,000 for the same job (badly structured company with no defined roles & lots of swapping tasks).

I'm looking for a new job because I need to earn more but those jobs are few & far between and as my last 2 employers have been lackadaisical with formal training & professional development I'm at a disadvantage unless I get an interview & can prove myself there, but with hundreds of applicants (some vastly overqualified due to UC rules) that doesn't always happen.

I agree with you OP. It’s shocking how low wages are these days.

I work in a care home full time. I’m 23 which means I am paid minimum wage rather than the actual “living wage”. I get £7.70 an hour and I have to work between 45-50hrs a week in order to earn a decent wage. Last month I earned around £1,100 after tax, NI and pension contributions. I think all together £200 was deducted from my pay, and whilst most people would think £200 isn’t a lot of money, to someone who doesn’t earn very much in the first place, it is a lot. I use to work in child care and it was exactly the same.

I live on my own and as I have no children I receive no help towards my rent or bills which makes things a lot harder. I think my bills including rent roughly come to about £950 a month excluding petrol, food, gas and electric. I rarely ever treat myself to new clothes or trips out because I simply can’t afford it.

I’ve had comments of people in the past such as “well you choose to live on your own and not at home”, which is true. But surely a full time working adult should be able to live on their own without having to struggle? I’m hardly going to live with my parents until I’m 40 am I. I think it’s sad that most people have to stay at home and live with their parents whilst working full time, simply because their wages can’t stretch to pay for basic living. I know quite a few people actually who are in their early/late thirties that choose to live at home simply because they refuse to have their whole pay eaten up by bills and rent and not have any money left over for the odd luxury every now and then.

I try not to moan too much about it but I can’t help but get pissed off when the owners (of the company I work for) rock up in their brand new Mercedes and Range Rover, and then state they can’t afford to pay their staff a decent wage.

I’m currently half way through completing my Level 3 qualification in health and social and I hope to apply for a more senior role in the next year or so, which will hopefully come with a higher salary.

I hope things get better for you OP but it’s definitely tough.

I do agree.

But as you say it’s all relative. My idea of badly off and another’s can be very very different as can what people prioritise their spending on.

But then I’d also remove the vast majority of Mp expenses Remove allowances for staff, work out an entitlement to staff based on workload, and recruit and pay out of central funds (paid for by the money not paid out to individual MPs). No matter how "economic" it may be to have one's spouse or offspring to act as one's secretary, it doesn't look fair or money well spent, and that's important.

@mindproject
Obviously in London people earn more or move to cheaper parts of the country.
It’s really not obvious. And it’s not £2k after pensions and student loan deductions. And you missed of childcare completely.

Surely an adult working full-time should be able to live on their own
I agree and the fact that so many young adults can't afford to live independently just serves to lower your self-esteem and infantalise you so that you don't feel as if you are entitled to the privileges of a grown up life.

Obviously in London people earn more or move to cheaper parts of the country.
It’s really not obvious. And it’s not £2k after pensions and student loan deductions. And you missed of childcare completely.

Do you mean people are choosing to live in London, paying London rents, not earning more, but choosing not to move to cheaper parts of the country?

Why would anyone do this?
d

Rock up in the brand new Mercedes or range rover and then state they can't afford to pay their staff a living wage
what they mean is they can't afford to pay their staff a living wage at the same time as keeping themselves in the manner to which they feel entitled.
Something has to give, and since they are the important one with the big important vehicle surely it is obvious that they shouldn't have to make any sacrifices!

@EntropyRising
If London is where you grew up and where your family and support networks are then yes people would choose not to move. Especially if they are a single parent.

Do you mean people are choosing to live in London, paying London rents, not earning more, but choosing not to move to cheaper parts of the country?

How is it a solution to just tell everyone to move away? We need teachers, nurses,police,shop workers, restaurant staff, telephone engineers etc etc etc here in the South East and those people need to able to afford to live.

And where are the council houses. I have no problem with right to buy but the money from right to buy should go into new housing stock.

I have a problem with right to buy because its created this problem. My house was an ex council house, bought for 6k. It's 'worth' substantially more now. So it's been one hell of a nice profit for the original buyers of those who still live in theirs.

Right to buy would work if you had to sell it back to the council when you wanted to move for the price you paid. Not renting as you can do what you want to it, it's your property and can remain so until you die. But it goes back to the council if you move or die, not go to relatives or be sold for a massive profit. It can then be used for people like op who need cheap rental housing again.

How is it a solution to just tell everyone to move away? We need teachers, nurses,police,shop workers, restaurant staff, telephone engineers etc etc etc here in the South East and those people need to able to afford to live.

Why do people have so much sympathy for businesses wanting to pay their employees peanuts in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

Weird.

It's such a complicated issue - if wages went up then prices would go up too and really nothing would change. House prices is definitely a big issue and one that should have been tackled by governments decades ago.

Also single people in general are worse off in every respect of course. It always annoys me the single person council tax discount is only 25% - that means I pay 75% of it while the couple next door pays 50% each out of their two wages... And utility bills in general are the same regardless of the number of occupants.

Imo this all stems from the sale of council houses and the shortage of social housing that created

A lot of social housing was lost through gentrification regeneration.

This book covers it really well.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-rise-and-fall-of-council-housing-56139