What standard of living do you think should be the minimum everyone can afford?

[MondayAgainnn]

What do you think the absolute basic minimum should be?

I think everybody should be able to afford:

Decent food
Safe housing
Any extra medical things needed, including dentistry
Internet package as it is completely necessary nowadays
Enough clothes to stay warm, dry, appropriate trainers for exercising etc
Enough for some discretionary spending - obviously this is harder to quantify, but things like Netflix, a coffee, cinema tickets I feel should be a normal attainable part of life for everyone
Enough to save a bit

Whether it is through work or through benefits I feel everyone in society should be able to have a lifestyle that is dignified, basically comfortable and with room for treats. Not just subsistence level.

What do you think the minimum should be?

I haven't RTFT but I see it like playing The Sims and not using that money cheat code. You move into a house, have very little money so you afford the basics. My basics in Sims are a bed, fridge, computer to get a job, TV to get my entertainment need met, wash and toilet facilities. All else becomes luxury when I get paid first 😂Then I use the cheat codes when I get bored and splurge on a swimming pool.

The harsh fact is, people in the UK reducing their standard of living to give money to other countries would not benefit the poor in those countries. It would simply lead to the elite in those countries lining their own pockets while the poor remain as poor as ever. We cannot affect economic decisions or policies in other countries, so I find it reasonable to just focus on inequality within our own country.

And talking about how the rich should share their money but those who are poorer don’t - surely it’s about the amount of excess you have? The rich have more than they need - everyone else doesn’t. Ok maybe the average person has a tiny bit more than they need, but not much.

It goes back to the basic acceptable standard of living. Not many people have much beyond that. Those who do are quite rightly expected to be charitable.

Disability benefits shouldn’t be classed as benefits. As someone else said it’s expensive being disabled. I receive LCWRA and PIP and work part time but live in fear of my LCWRA being taken away because I wouldn’t be able to afford my rent / the additional things that make it possible for me to work.

I can’t work full time because of my health something which I didn’t plan on happening.

I also didn’t plan on becoming a single mother of two

I do agree that you should be better off working than on benefits.

I think if we had a universal basic income or similar approach, it should be enough to cover:

• rent approximate to that which covers a 2 bed flat
• decent provision for groceries
• decent provision for utilities
• enough to cover a monthly public transport ticket
• enough spare to cover a basic phone/internet provision and odd extras like new clothes.

A lot of people wouldn't work if all that was covered by the government.

You can't give an average standard of living to everyone and then an above average living to those who are prepared to work for it. It just doesn't work. You'd bankrupt the country within a few years.

I don't think anybody should collect more thana minimum full time wage in benefits unless they have extra expenses because of a disability.

This has been answered umpteen times.

1. First you have to look at the reason 1% of the population have been able to acquire more wealth than 70% of the population combined. Then you implement polices that seek to prevent this from continuing to happen, along with one's that begin to redress that balance. For example, if the richest in society are making their money predominantly through selling shares & assets you would raise capital gains tax, not income tax and then add in a wealth tax to equalise the levels of disparity between top and bottom. This also isn't an all or nothing scenario that people who oppose increase taxes seem to think it has to be. We are trying to target a very select few individuals who have acquired obscene levels of wealth, not everyone who earns £100k, £200k, even £1m pa.

In the case of the UK you are talking about around 68,000 individuals who have more wealth than 47,500,000 people. We already have a graded/banded tax system in place and there's absolutely no reason we couldn't extend this to target UHNW individuals without impacting on everyone else (other than the UHNW individuals don't want this and have the ear of the government).

2. In short no, the link between wealth and health is well established, with poorer people suffering more ill health than wealthy people. This is particular acute for children raised in poverty, who go on to suffer from a wide range of health-damaging impacts, negative educational outcomes and adverse long-term social and psychological outcomes. Providing a universal good standard of living for everyone would increase the health and education of the nation, reduce strain on public services, including the NHS, freeing up budget and resources to tackle other issues, and in the long-term would improve the overall wealth of the country. Helping people to a better standard of living, even if that means giving them money for Netflix or Holidays, would be a better long-term investment than just putting more money into trying to deal with the after effects of poverty.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953616307201

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776221002659

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617307347

https://adc.bmj.com/content/101/8/759.short

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/3/e032376.abstract

(You might need to request permission to view some of those papers).

I don't think anyone should collect more than half of a minimum full time wage in benefits! Full stop. People who work full time should significantly better off than those that don't work at all. Even people that work part time should be somewhat better off than those who don't work at all.

@Florenz Full time minimum wage is barely enough to live on these days and you think benefit should pay half of this? So have half as much food as they need, pay only half their bills... that is a disgusting attitude. Benefits should cover all the basics - if you want people in work to be 'significantly better off' then the minimum wage should be much higher than it is.

Taxing the wealthy more raises very little tax because the ladder curve really does exist. People do leave if you increase their taxes, mainly cause the very wealthy are more likely to be international workers. If we want to raise this sort of money we cannot do so by raising taxes paid for by ‘people that are not me’ (ie the wealthy, or corporation tax). If we want to provide free Netflix to the world and cinema etc we would have to increase the basic rate of income tax by approx 10% and ditch the nil rate band. Still want to give everyone Netflix and a gym membership?

That's an easy get out clause for not giving money to other countries. If you gave to a cause like Give Directly that pays cash directly to the people in need then you would bypass many concerns about corruption etc. So if you can't hide behind the corruption argument, how else can you morally justify focussing on British citizens only?

Also the idea of 'excess' isn't as clearcut as you imply. Compared to poorest in the world, the poorest in the UK enjoy excess in many areas of life. Many on this thread are suggesting that Netflix, holidays and gym memberships are a basic standard of living whilst to other people they are luxuries that they choose to go without. My point is there is no objective measure of what is 'enough' and what is 'excess

I also think this thread ignores the fact that people have autonomy over the money they are given. Just because you are poor it doesn't mean that you are frugal or make smart choices with the money you have. Plenty of people prioritise their spending in a way that affords them luxuries but means they can't afford the basics e.g. fags over food. The only way you could ensure everyone has a universal basic standard of living would be if the state spent the money on behalf of the recipients but this would go down like a lead balloon.

It's all very complicated and messy!

Yes and babies didn't die she we didn't offer free nursery hours and we worked it out in the past but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it does it?

What do you have against offering public leisure centres with gym and pool. I don't think this concept is completely outrageous.

I don't think anybody should collect more thana minimum full time wage in benefits unless they have extra expenses because of a disability.

And if a couple on full time minimum wage isn't enough to afford even one child? Should those who care for our elderly (for example) not be allowed to reproduce?

How would those of us who need equipment fund it? I also wouldn't be able to pay someone to help me for a few hours a week.

I'd much rather see properly funded services. And more support to allow disabled people to work where possible.

I agree more support is needed to make work accessible, it’s ridiculous that there are people who could work but for the lack of flexible, accessible employment. It doesn’t however address the question of living standards for those who cannot work either because of caring responsibilities or due to their own disability.

Affordable and more available childcare so that those of us who receive top ups can work more and therefore not need those top ups.

Waiting for the "well you shouldn't have had children" comments. 😊

The issue of childcare is also a complex one.

Children aged under two in nursery have a ratio of one adult to three children. Add in the cost of premises, utilities, insurance, materials etc and unless you are paying nursery workers absolute peanuts (which to be fair we are doing this as a society already) then it is easy to see that childcare for those children is inherently expensive.

Not everyone has careers that will be adversely impacted by cutting hours for a few years and it could reasonably be more cost efficient in the short, medium and long term for many families to actually have the benefits topped up for a while and one parent look after the children for at least some of the working week rather than the state massively subsidising childcare only for a parent to go and stack shelves in a supermarket for a few extra hours.

It is nuanced and not one size fits all but it is important the people realise that heavily subsidised childcare still costs money and whilst the individual parents may feel like they are supporting themselves the financial burden they place on the state could actually be the same or greater.

I honestly don’t think you appreciate just how big the gap between the top 1% and the rest is. You could absolutely, 100%, no questions asked, raise that sort of money from people who “are not me” or you for that matter. It’s this very consistently perpetuated myth that has allowed the situation to develop the way it has in the first place.

Since 2020 there has been around $42,000,000,000,000 worth of new wealth created globally. Of that $42,000,000,000,000; $28,000,000,000,000 has been captured by the top 1% of people or around 66%. That’s reflected across nations. In the UK the number of billionaires has increased by over 20% over the same time, and those billionaires have seen their total wealth increase by over 1000% since 1990. We now have a situation in the UK where 68,000 people control enough wealth to eradicate the entire UK national debt of £2,400,000,000,000 and STILL have enough money left over for each of them to have £15,000,000 (that’s more than someone on £30,000 pa will earn in 500 years by the way).

You cannot seriously sit here and seriously argue that a) this is a good or desirable situation to be in and b) that those poor UHNW individuals can’t possibly afford to have some of their wealth removed.

And this idea that if you try to recapture some of that wealth and redistribute it to the population, they’ll all just leave is also complete nonsense. Only about 5% of UHNWI relocate after they become successful and 84% of all billionaires live in the country of their birth. Yes, the Laffer curve provides a theoretical representation between taxation and government revenue but the impact of tax rates on UHNWI differs massively from the impact on other income groups due to their unique financial circumstances and ability to take advantage of tax planning strategies. Policies that seek to ensure UHNWI’s pay more into the system will not result in a mass exodus, especially if you implement said policies properly.

Just look at America, an American UHNWI (and all US citizens for that matter) is required pay US taxes no matter where they reside in the world or where that wealth is earned. If they want to stop paying US taxes, they first need to renounce their US citizenship and deal with all the implications that incurs (especially when trying to run a business in the US). Even then the US have inserted specific clauses in their tax law that seeks to ensure anyone who does relinquish their citizenship for tax purposes may still be subject to certain tax and reporting obligations including being subject to an exit tax as if they’ve sold all assets and being required to file certain tax returns for up to 10 years.
The net result of that policy is that so few UHNWIs have left America that it doesn’t even register. A similar policy in the UK would take care of the tiny portion of UK citizens who would want to leave to avoid tax.

Spot on @Thebestwaytoscareatory. As you say, if the US can do it so can we.

Great post@Thebestwaytoscareatory
and thank you for taking the time to make it 🙏

And this idea that if you try to recapture some of that wealth and redistribute it to the population, they’ll all just leave is also complete nonsense
They don't want to give up all the advantages that the UK gives them ...if they did that they'd lose even more of their wealth and income!

Just look at America, an American UHNWI (and all US citizens for that matter) is required pay US taxes no matter where they reside in the world or where that wealth is earned. If they want to stop paying US taxes, they first need to renounce their US citizenship and deal with all the implications that incurs (especially when trying to run a business in the US). Even then the US have inserted specific clauses in their tax law that seeks to ensure anyone who does relinquish their citizenship for tax purposes may still be subject to certain tax and reporting obligations including being subject to an exit tax as if they’ve sold all assets and being required to file certain tax returns for up to 10 years.
The net result of that policy is that so few UHNWIs have left America that it doesn’t even register. A similar policy in the UK would take care of the tiny portion of UK citizens who would want to leave to avoid tax.

This is flawed. UHNWIs don’t fall into the category of citizenship and taxation like other people do. They strike individual deals with the IRS and government (directly or through lobbying) in order to pay less tax as a % than the middle classes and retain the same privileges as the rest of us (I live in the US).

Renouncing citizenship is for the “hoi polloi”: it takes a little time, the exit tax is around $30,000 last time I looked, and it’s meant to capture people with tens of millions only. The USA has close by tax havens which tailor bespoke deals for people with more than that but not enough to lobby government: Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cayman, USVI etc.

There was an article in the guardian a couple of weeks ago (sorry on phone, can’t link it) about the relative exodus of billionaires from Finland. Punitive taxes do lead to a brain and wealth drain. If they’re not leaving, it’s because it’s worth their while to stay. The EU will make it very difficult for member states to tailor their legislation like the US. The US is not a comparator for the EU, and the UK, only now coming out of the shadow of the EU, is going to go the way of the US. Almost the worst income (and health and educational etc) disparity of any developed nation in earth.

This is a moral issue. Taxation is just a representation of our beliefs and values. We all get the societies we deserve/vote for.

Benefits are far far too high compared to wages. Benefit top ups have contributed to employers paying lower wages and house price increases.

I agree wages are too low and house prices are too high.
We are now trapped in the situation where we can't recruit people to do essential work because the pay and conditions are not enough to incentivize people to do the work

I got a free Black and White TV from a neighbour in the early 1980s. We weren't all buying £300+ colour TVs - and many people (my parents included) rented their TVs.