At last the REAL rise in the cost of living is revealed!

[Longcol]

To quote the Telegraph article

 

"Hard-up families, getting by on £20,000 a year, saw their costs increase by 4.6 per cent — almost twice the national average and well above the annual rate of wage increases, 3.9 per cent."

 

So if my sums are correct hard up families ( a new concern for the Telegraph) are down £140 per annum or £2.69 per week - the equivalent of a pint of guiness / ten fags / not quite a fish and chip supper.

 

Not really the "massive" differences the article is making out.

 

By the way, I like shoeshines selectivity - he has quoted almost all the article except;

 

"The figures indicate that middle class families, with a combined income of £100,000 and outgoings on school and university fees, are seeing their cost of living increase at an annual rate of 5.8 per cent"

 

- at last the Telegraph showing it's true colours........

 

The real concern has to be for pensioners on a fixed income - especially those above the threshold to claim benefits for housing / council tax but far from comfortably off and who are likely to be hardest hit by gas / electric increases.

 

Interesting story fron today's Mail;

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=420369&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

[Bartfarst]

To quote the Telegraph article

 

By the way, I like shoeshines selectivity - he has quoted almost all the article except;

 

"The figures indicate that middle class families, with a combined income of £100,000 and outgoings on school and university fees, are seeing their cost of living increase at an annual rate of 5.8 per cent"

 

- at last the Telegraph showing it's true colours........

So, are you saying that you disagree that middle-income families should be facing 5.8% rises compared to 4.6% for those on lower incomes? What is the point you are making about the Telegraph?

[em2007]

Ha! I should be so lucky!

 

i was thinking exactly the same thing! those getting by on £20,000 a year.......lucky rich people!

 

if they're classed as hard up, what the hell are we classed as, trying to pay out everything from half that!?!?

[em2007]

So if my sums are correct hard up families ( a new concern for the Telegraph) are down £140 per annum or £2.69 per week - the equivalent of a pint of guiness / ten fags / not quite a fish and chip supper.

 

£2.69 a week to me is more like, half a pack of nappies/10 jars of baby food/a few pints of milk...

 

when you've got nothing to start with, £2.69 a week could have gone a long way, especially when you say it as £140 a year!

[Longcol]

So, are you saying that you disagree that middle-income families should be facing 5.8% rises compared to 4.6% for those on lower incomes? What is the point you are making about the Telegraph?

 

The difference appears to be the rise in school fees - entirely their choice to use them - but hardly a concern of the vast majority of us.

 

And £100,000 pa family income quoted in the original article isn't middle income by any means - so I suspect for the majority of us inflation is nearer 4.6%.

[Cyclone]

It didn't say middle income, it said middle class.

 

You have to wonder why anyone starts a family if their combined household income is 10k/annum. It's barely enough for a single person to live on, never mind two adults and at least one child.

[Bartfarst]

The difference appears to be the rise in school fees - entirely their choice to use them - but hardly a concern of the vast majority of us.

 

And £100,000 pa family income quoted in the original article isn't middle income by any means - so I suspect for the majority of us inflation is nearer 4.6%.

Two points. First, their choice to use private education releases places - and therefore funds - from the state education system. That should be of interest to everybody whose children benefit from the state system being subsidised by families who choose private education.

 

Secondly, £100,000 is very much middle-income - it's only £50k per head for two people for goodness' sake, and that's hardly big bucks. That's only about what an Army Major earns, or a Police Chief Inspector, or senior teachers.

 

Or look at it as one earner in the house. Doctors, dentists, architects, lawyers are all likely to earn more than 100k – does that mean they are beyond middle class? A head teacher will be on around £75k, or a Police Commissioner, or an Army Colonel. Are they not middle class occupations?

[em2007]

It didn't say middle income, it said middle class.

 

You have to wonder why anyone starts a family if their combined household income is 10k/annum. It's barely enough for a single person to live on, never mind two adults and at least one child.

 

so should i have aborted my child!?! reason being that as we are only on 10K and wouldn't be able to live the life of luxury!!? just because we have to spend all our money on food, bills, bloody gas and electric, that doesn't mean we're not happy! and our daughter is happy too, even better that she grows up not to take money for granted!

[Bartfarst]

It didn't say middle income, it said middle class.

 

You have to wonder why anyone starts a family if their combined household income is 10k/annum. It's barely enough for a single person to live on, never mind two adults and at least one child.

A very good point. In previous generations, a husband and wife would save and plan to have a family, not doing so until they could afford it and had put in place the security and backing to do so. It required responsibility, pride, and dedication to each other.

 

Today we have scrotes who simply see it as their right to have as many kids as they want at the expense of the taxpayer.

[fox20thc]

A very good point. In previous generations, a husband and wife would save and plan to have a family, not doing so until they could afford it and had put in place the security and backing to do so. It required responsibility, pride, and dedication to each other.

 

Not true.. in previous generations families got by because they had to. There was no welfare state, no health service which meant that children and families in the low income bracket suffered terribly and died young.

 

Never, has a generation practised disciplined family planning as a whole. Maybe the middle classes, but a working class family either began producing children as soon as the ring was on her finger (my grandmother was one of 13) or the lower working class (if thats a correct term) didnt even bother with a wedding and just churned out children.