What a Joke

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2545175/Households-acceptable-standard-living-fifth-three-years-Rowntree.html

Apparently according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a single person   to have "a decent standard of living" requires them to have ... £185 a week disposable income after meeting housing costs  ://?roflmao?/: 

Now I actually have had to go back and re read that statement multiple times to check I am not hallucinating or getting mixed up. Is that really for a single person? Is that really in a week? Is that really after housing costs.

I hope others find that as highly amusing as I do - hell its almost enough to make one vote labour  ://?roflmao?/: 

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2545175/Households-acceptable-standard-living-fifth-three-years-Rowntree.html

Apparently according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a single person   to have "a decent standard of living" requires them to have ... £185 a week disposable income after meeting housing costs  ://?roflmao?/: 

Now I actually have had to go back and re read that statement multiple times to check I am not hallucinating or getting mixed up.  Is that really for a single person?  Is that really in a week?  Is that really after housing costs.

I hope others find that as highly amusing as I do - hell its almost enough to make one vote labour  ://?roflmao?/: 

...care to give us a figure that YOU think that affords folk to have a decent standard of living Sphinx?...

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2545175/Households-acceptable-standard-living-fifth-three-years-Rowntree.html

Apparently according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a single person   to have "a decent standard of living" requires them to have ... £185 a week disposable income after meeting housing costs  ://?roflmao?/: 

Now I actually have had to go back and re read that statement multiple times to check I am not hallucinating or getting mixed up.  Is that really for a single person?  Is that really in a week?  Is that really after housing costs.

I hope others find that as highly amusing as I do - hell its almost enough to make one vote labour  ://?roflmao?/: 

...care to give us a figure that YOU think that affords folk to have a decent standard of living Sphinx?...

If a single person cannot be comfortable on half that there is something badly wrong.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...care to give us a figure that YOU think that affords folk to have a decent standard of living Sphinx?...

If a single person cannot be comfortable on half that there is something badly wrong.

See Sphinx, you never take into account a persons's location...

They could well be fritter from shops , in an area more remote and prone to colder weather , which would put the cost of their heating up...

The shops in their area may be higher priced goods, etc etc...


...but I must remember that one...comfortable on £90 a week.  

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

If a single person cannot be comfortable on half that there is something badly wrong.

See Sphinx, you never take into account a persons's location...

They could well be fritter from shops , in an area more remote and prone to colder weather , which would put the cost of their heating up...

The shops in their area may be higher priced goods, etc etc...


...but I must remember that one...comfortable on £90 a week.  

After housing.

Sphinx likes to keep people down. I think she is also inferring that it would be double that for a couple, it wouldn't, because they would have the same heating costs etc. In fact, the larger the unit becomes, the less it becomes per person.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


See Sphinx, you never take into account a persons's location...

They could well be fritter from shops , in an area more remote and prone to colder weather , which would put the cost of their heating up...

The shops in their area may be higher priced goods, etc etc...


...but I must remember that one...comfortable on £90 a week.  

After housing.  

..yes , I know, I mean higher costs in certain areas for shopping , heating bills etc.

Sassy wrote:Sphinx likes to keep people down.   I think she is also inferring that it would be double that for a couple, it wouldn't, because they would have the same heating costs etc.   In fact, the larger the unit becomes, the less it becomes per person.

No no no sassy.

Sphinx does not like keeping people down. Sphinx likes seeing people reaching higher and achieving and experiencing the rewards.

What sphinx recognizes is the bottom is set too high it severely restricts the number of people who can or will be able to do so. If you make people think that that much money is a minimum then the entire time they are achieving below that they will see as failure. The single person gets a promotion and goes from £100 a week disposable to £125 and instead of thinking "wow I have so much more" all they can see is "I am still in poverty so what is the point"

The people who like to keep people down are the ones who put the bottom so high in the first place. They especially deny young people the joy of their first place away from mum and dad, their first independent transport, their first proper meal out paid for by themselves. Someone gets a bedsit instead of the wonder of being independent they have the failure of not affording a flat. They get an old banger its no longer their first beloved car its the failure of not being able to afford something decent.

Things and purchasing power are not what makes a standard of living decent - peoples perceptions of value are what makes a standard decent.

Does this amount of pounds include essential costs associated with living such as, heating, cooking fuel, water supply, council tax, food, and clothes?

How many applicants are there for each job opening in the U.K. lately? I know in the U.S. it's three people applying for every job opening.

Yet we still have RWers screaming GET A JOB YOU LAZY SCROUNGERS (or the U.S. equivalent) despite the evidence that the "scroungers" are both applying for jobs and that there aren't enough of them for everyone to have one.

Also, in the U.S., some of the areas with the most people on welfare were won heavily by Mitt Romney, who promised to slash welfare and get those people jobs. Can you believe it? It would seem that welfare is not, indeed, a disincentive to work like the RW would have us believe, that rather, people on welfare would prefer to have a job -- if any were available from our vaunted "job creators," who have been hoarding money rather than actually creating jobs.

Ben_Reilly wrote:How many applicants are there for each job opening in the U.K. lately? I know in the U.S. it's three people applying for every job opening.

Yet we still have RWers screaming GET A JOB YOU LAZY SCROUNGERS (or the U.S. equivalent) despite the evidence that the "scroungers" are both applying for jobs and that there aren't enough of them for everyone to have one.

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

This so called minimum for decent standard of living is way above minimum wage so this is just telling a whole lot of workers that they are failing at providing themselves a decent standard of living for themselves - that they are failures.

Warren Moon wrote:Does this amount of pounds include essential costs associated with living such as, heating, cooking fuel, water supply, council tax, food, and clothes?

It does, and travel lol

Sphinx,while you may think somehow that working for a pittance is good for the soul, others do not...


That 'good for the soul' but it I get, but only if it's actually paying for that person to work.most working people barely or can't afford to keep up with hearing costs, clothing, food and transport costs etc.

And just how do you work out people on benefits get more money or a higher standard of living?...that's just ridiculous ...

What you mean is housing benefit as well as welfare payment...

So should folk not have a home because they are jobless?

You were talking about that a moment ago...how folk should all get their first flat...

So which is it?

Is it only the working people who should have a roof over their heads?

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:How many applicants are there for each job opening in the U.K. lately? I know in the U.S. it's three people applying for every job opening.

Yet we still have RWers screaming GET A JOB YOU LAZY SCROUNGERS (or the U.S. equivalent) despite the evidence that the "scroungers" are both applying for jobs and that there aren't enough of them for everyone to have one.

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

This so called minimum for decent standard of living is way above minimum wage so this is just telling a whole lot of workers that they are failing at providing themselves a decent standard of living for themselves - that they are failures.

If they do get a minimum wage job, can they still get any benefits to bolster their standard of living?

Yes! But what people want is a wage that means they don't have to claim.

Joy Division wrote:Sphinx,while you may think somehow that working for a pittance is good for the soul, others do not...


That 'good for the soul' but it I get, but only if it's actually paying for that person to work.most working people barely or can't afford to keep up with hearing costs, clothing, food and transport costs etc.

And just how do you work out people on benefits get more money or a higher standard of living?...that's just ridiculous ...

What you mean is housing benefit as well as welfare payment...

So should folk not have a home because they are jobless?

You were talking about that a moment ago...how folk should all get their first flat...

So which is it?

Is it only the working people who should have a roof over their heads?

I did not bring work into this someone else did under the impression I was talking about benefits.

Not all people on benefits get more - but a significant number do and people are using this study to call for benefits to be increased.

Where the hell have I said anything about rooves over heads? These figures are all about what is left after housing costs so nobody is supposed to be without a roof.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

This so called minimum for decent standard of living is way above minimum wage so this is just telling a whole lot of workers that they are failing at providing themselves a decent standard of living for themselves - that they are failures.

If they do get a minimum wage job, can they still get any benefits to bolster their standard of living?

Why should they?

What exactly is wrong with their standard of living?

Adding in the average cost of single bed flats this study is saying people should be getting at least £300 a week after taxes - that is $495 per week after taxes - nearly $2000 a month as a minimum.

Now I see nothing wrong with that as a target to reach, to make it a reachable target for as many as possible - but to have it as a starting point?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:How many applicants are there for each job opening in the U.K. lately? I know in the U.S. it's three people applying for every job opening.

Yet we still have RWers screaming GET A JOB YOU LAZY SCROUNGERS (or the U.S. equivalent) despite the evidence that the "scroungers" are both applying for jobs and that there aren't enough of them for everyone to have one.

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

This so called minimum for decent standard of living is way above minimum wage so this is just telling a whole lot of workers that they are failing at providing themselves a decent standard of living for themselves - that they are failures.

If they do get a minimum wage job, can they still get any benefits to bolster their standard of living?

Indeed they do Ben which is just a case of the taxpayer providing a financial subsidy to employers who pay low wages.