BBC are saying you need a joint salary of 70,000 to avoid poverty

[bridgetjonesmassivepants]

I find this such a high sum. How are most families meant to reach this figure? It doesn't include pension contributions so you would probably need 80,000 by their reckoning.
They are saying that you are in poverty if you can't manage a UK holiday every year and 70 a month on cultural experiences.

Thank you for the replies.

I'll say it again I really feel for the younger generation who are going to be starting families, buying houses etc. Especially the ones who have lived in the more expensive areas all their life with their parents.

Central London has quite a lot of social housing. Also if you are renting a room, the cost of a cheap small room in zone 2 could very well be the same as a room in zone 5 as a travel card is £250 per month. Moving further out can be a false economy; I found that buying a 2 bed flat in zone 3 was much cheaper than buying in home counties due to cost of commuting X2. And if I was willing to buy ex council, I could have bought a 2 bed flat in Camden for same price and actually that would have been more cost effective due to lower commuting costs.

It's the 3 bed + houses that really cost more but someone on a low income can't afford the big house whether in zone 1 or anywhere in the SE as the middle classes have basically bought up all the family homes in any town with transport links to London.

We earn 47k combined and I don't feel in poverty at all. We have a roof over our head, food in our bellies, run a car, have heating and water. The DCs do a few clubs and we eat out a few times a year. We manage a little UK break once a year, but we are lucky enough to live in an absolutely beautiful part of the country. Most of our entertainment is outdoorsy and free.

We only managed to buy our flat in London because we live in our parents' home rent free for 3 years. That is 1 advantage of being born in an expensive area (with jobs). We can later choose to sell our london property when we retire and move to a cheaper part; probably Manchester.

It is a big advantage having london parents as it enables you to build your career and then when you have saved enough money, you can choose to move to wherever you want, hopefully with equity earned from london property.. .

The people who are screwed are the people in expensive areas with no jobs like Cornwall. The former Londoners will price them out, usually after attaining senior WFH type jobs and also ability to survive on lower earnings due to equity from london property.

@Lovinglife45 so on around £90k you can’t afford a school trip or meals out occasionally and no savings? Are you in London?

I genuinely don't understand how if not. Our take home on 90k is about £5k per month, and would be more if it wasn’t for the huge student loans we have, which if you’re 10-15 years older you wouldn’t have as much as us. Even in an expensive area, with a mortgage for 4 bed house at over £1300, and private nursery fees of around £700 for 3 days a week we still have £2k left over after bills and food for saving and fun money. I’m not saying you’re wrong as obviously it’s your own experience I’m just trying to understand how this is possible!

@Overthebow

My thoughts too. When I was married we earned £75k combined (but heavily weighted in his favour which means you pay more tax than half and half) and managed multiple holidays, university rents, saving etc. He now earns that alone and pays me £900 a month maintenance plus affords a great lifestyle from his Facebook/kids comments. I pay for the university costs out of my maintenance mostly though he has tipped me up when needed. Mortgage was £950, I believe that's his rent too now house is sold.

Dp earns far more so not a fair comparison to this study.

You just can't compare things. Most people earn far less than the figures here and live good lives, I'm guessing this survey factored in huge childcare costs whereas I stayed home until they went to school then worked pt (hence the hefty maintenance!)

Not having a holiday every year does not mean you are in poverty nor does not having cultural experiences. What utter rubbish.

In London you can easily spend 4k just on rent/mortgage and childcare alone with two kids. 90k only leave you with 1.5k for everything else like bills, council tax, travel, food etc etc etc

@orangeisthenewpuce its quite sad though. even when DH and i first married and we didn't have 2 coins to rub together, we had a little holiday (brussels on budget flights, bought groceries from Lidl to cook in our apart hotel and ate macdonalds). also went to museums in berlin. And later when we moved back to london, the museums were free.

I do believe we were in technical poverty then, but we never went without food, used gas and electricity without thinking, had meals out at nordsee using vouchers, rented our own little studio flat which was higher spec than the 1930s 2 bedroom flat we eventually bought in london 4 years later (honestly to get that kind of spec in the UK, you need to be a millionaire even outside of London). Lucky that we were poor in Germany rather than in the UK. It is easier to get a job (and therefore out of poverty in London) though I suppose that doesn't help you if you don't have the qualifications or good health, but it is much better to be poor in Berlin! I think thats what it means when they say the UK has a poverty crisis. In scandinavian countries or even Germany, poverty means something very different! Shouldn't we be aspiring to such standards rather than comparing ourselves to the third world.

It surely depends on outgoings. We have a joint income of around 55k with 2 dependent children and manage fine, but then again we have no mortgage. If we were paying 1k a month in rent we might struggle.

Even in an expensive area, with a mortgage for 4 bed house at over £1300, and private nursery fees of around £700 for 3 days a week we still have £2k left over after bills and food for saving and fun money.

As people say, it's all about context. £1300 is not that big a mortgage TBH. How would you cope if the mortgage was £2300?

In London you can easily spend 4k just on rent/mortgage and childcare alone with two kids. 90k only leave you with 1.5k for everything else like bills, council tax, travel, food etc etc

I know it’s more expensive in London, that’s why I asked if they were in London as that’s more understandable!

Overthebow
Yes, we are in SE London
Mortgage will be paid off when I retire
Mortgage is just over £1500 per month
Childcare fees are £600
No student loan
We save in emergency fund and end up dipping into the fund to do a weekly shop just before pay day, pay for unexpected car fixture, other unexpected bill- there is always one! As a result it does not grow.

We can afford a school trip OR family break but not both
We eat out for special occasions and opt for restaurants with £25-30 per head menus
Dc attend one club each week
Dc receive pocket money

I may be getting confused but are you saying your income is around 90K, so at least 4500 a month take home and that after spending 2100 on mortgage and childcare, the other 2400 is not enough to cover transport, clothing, food, one club each a week for the kids whilst still leaving you to have a school trip and a family break?

Food is around £500, clothing maybe £150, so £1750 left for transport and club and other stuff?

I'm thinking either your transport costs are huge, those are some kick ass clubs or you are spending more than you think on little things. Or, I guess, the school trips you're talking about are the £1500 exotic travel/ skiing ones not the £50 day trip ones.

As people say, it's all about context. £1300 is not that big a mortgage TBH. How would you cope if the mortgage was £2300?

The average mortgage monthly payment is about £700. Fwiw, I'd say £1300 is a large mortgage.

£75k is fucking heaps with low enough overheads, less so if you are forking out on childcare and paying a fortune to live in London.

@FourTeaFallOut our combined income is more than £75k and it's definitely not heaps! I don't think £1300 is a huge mortgage, the mortgage for my flat is £1020 and honestly it would not have been that different if I moved 50 miles to the home counties except I would also pay £800 per month for DH and I to commute. In many places in the SE, 400k is a normal sum for a modest home 2-3 bed terraced house. This isn't even in the 'naice towns'. Even in places like Manchester, I see plenty of ordinary looking £400k houses.

I think the definition of poverty is very important, I grew up with an "impoverished" childhood the government definition was a washing machine, we didn't have own, then a shower and dishwasher we didn't have those either.

We always had enough food, the house was freezing and we all went to bed early with a hot water bottle. My DF had grown up in grinding poverty and always was careful with money as there was never enough food for him growing up,

I think if the definition is wrong ie everyone must have a wide screen tv then the important measures are missed. Food, heating and treats as life needs to be worth living.

0. Fwiw, I'd say £1300 is a large mortgage

This it's why it's so distorted. For buyers today 1.3k rent or mortgage is really not that big.

@FourTeaFallOut also we have no DC...

Also not sure how average mortgages are useful. There are plenty of older people with small mortgages which is not indicative of their house value at all perhaps due to divorce or home repairs or helping kids out.

Also do they include BTL landlords who mainly have interest only mortgages.

Reality in the UK - is that between London (9.5m) and SE England (9.1m) - that 18m people who are living in an expensive part of the UK. Not the average no, but not an insubstantial number out of 67m that live in the whole of the UK.

@Hyy4323 yep and also places like Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol, York are not cheap either. Also not technically in the London/SE region...

Yes it is distorted. But £1300 is still almost double the average mortgage payment because most homeowners bought when houses were cheaper and/ or in less expensive parts of the country. Did BBC specifically exclude these people when declaring a £70k minimum for avoiding poverty?

The report the BBC quoted included the measure of two children. Whilst some with two children could have bought years ago, statistically this is also unlikely. We are essentially talking about people in their 30s to mid 40s. Yes, so bought a while back but not all. All those who bought in 90s/2000s are almost naturally excluded.

You see, I'm in the North East and surrounded by families with teen children who bought in the early 2000s who look just like that.