Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Options
Replies
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
. . . . . they're still taxed in the US
And the uk...where biscuits are taxed and cake isn't. ....
Cake isn't taxed? Is this compensation for the tampon tax?3 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
That wasn't the point I was making.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Right. And there are laws and rules about how to access those things and how funds are allocated to them.
I'm not making any kind of nasty judgment -- just pointing out that any big system has limitations/restrictions/rules/etc etc.
For example, the roads are 'free,' but there are laws regarding their use. There are laws about schools and how money for schools is to be spent. Infrastructure isn't built and maintained willy-nilly, but according to government-determined priorities.
I don't see much difference when it comes to food assistance; the government has some say in how the money will be used.
I am not arguing that SNAP should be administered without laws and rules. That wouldn't make sense, as the program itself was created via legislation.
Literally nobody in this thread is arguing for "willy-nilly" access to food stamps.0 -
So this thread has been enlightening for me, because it seems what it really comes down to is how different each person's idea of what is and isn't acceptable as a minimum quality of life is. And how different our ideas of what the point or end goal of a social program or subsistence payments are. Soda is just the sweet and bubbly gateway. Really fascinating. And frustrating
I still say that all this law tweaking and think-tanking and outrage would be better focused on stuff that really is weighing on government budgets, rather than food programs that are a tiny drop in the bucket. But politicians are gonna politics...12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.
There is some welfare. It varies between provinces
Up here in Alberta (Canada) a family of 5 could get just under $500 for a month's worth of groceries, and just over $500 to cover other bills like shelter, electrical, and and water bills, and transportation. It is something of a joke. I spend about $300 a week on food for us, over $1200/month, and that excludes some of our meat that we get from a family member's farm. Property taxes are well over $3000 a year. Heating is ridiculous in the winter. Renting would be impossible too as a below average 2-bedroom rental is over a $1000 and may not cover all bills.
One NEEDS to rely on charity to get by up here. Our food banks and drop in centres are charities.
Surprisingly, it looks like the States gets better benefits for their needy.
Based on what?
Edit: here's a pretty good comparison that indicates for poor families there's a lot more available in Canada than in the US. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/hoynes_stabile_submission_04272017.pdf
I started to scan that but it is 52 pages long and mind numbing. It doesn't appear to address Canada's higher cost of living... What would you like me to read in it?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
So is it or is it not as you said above "enough to feed shelter and transport yourself". If it is... then it is in fact a living wage..VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
It's not. Living wage is something calculated each year by some body somewhere as to show what it costs to live in the UK. Minimum wage is what is the actual legal minimum and is less than the living wage. Thus not a living wage. Vast majority of our welfare budget goes to those in work but low paid or under-employed.
I've never looked into living wage vs minimum wage. In my city a living wage is $18.15 which is close to double the minimum wage. Wow.
1 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
. . . . . they're still taxed in the US
And the uk...where biscuits are taxed and cake isn't. ....
Cake isn't taxed? Is this compensation for the tampon tax?
I'd rather have tax free sanitary ware. We had a manufacturer go to court to prove their snack was a cake and not a biscuit so it wouldn't be classed as a luxury item
Edit....chocolate on a biscuit makes it taxable but not on a cake.....still.confused.
Why would a cake not be considered a luxury item if a biscuit is? A cake seems more of a luxury item to me (based on US usage and reading biscuit as a cookie). I see a cookie as a commonly available food easy to bake at home and available in lots of packaged versions, and a cake more of a special occasion thing (although of course there are not that good packaged versions of those too).
Just curious/puzzled if it's a cultural difference.0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
. . . . . they're still taxed in the US
And the uk...where biscuits are taxed and cake isn't. ....
Cake isn't taxed? Is this compensation for the tampon tax?
I'd rather have tax free sanitary ware. We had a manufacturer go to court to prove their snack was a cake and not a biscuit so it wouldn't be classed as a luxury item
Edit....chocolate on a biscuit makes it taxable but not on a cake.....still.confused.
I'm in the UK
And I agree, I was being facetious. 1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.
There is some welfare. It varies between provinces
Up here in Alberta (Canada) a family of 5 could get just under $500 for a month's worth of groceries, and just over $500 to cover other bills like shelter, electrical, and and water bills, and transportation. It is something of a joke. I spend about $300 a week on food for us, over $1200/month, and that excludes some of our meat that we get from a family member's farm. Property taxes are well over $3000 a year. Heating is ridiculous in the winter. Renting would be impossible too as a below average 2-bedroom rental is over a $1000 and may not cover all bills.
One NEEDS to rely on charity to get by up here. Our food banks and drop in centres are charities.
Surprisingly, it looks like the States gets better benefits for their needy.
Based on what?
Edit: here's a pretty good comparison that indicates for poor families there's a lot more available in Canada than in the US. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/hoynes_stabile_submission_04272017.pdf
I started to scan that but it is 52 pages long and mind numbing. It doesn't appear to address Canada's higher cost of living... What would you like me to read in it?
The difference in the extent to which lower incomes are adjusted up appears inconsistent with the claim that the US provides more income support/aid for lower income people.
Also hard to say Canada, as a whole, has a higher cost of living than the US, as a whole. I'd be curious how my housing costs compare to yours, for example.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
. . . . . they're still taxed in the US
And the uk...where biscuits are taxed and cake isn't. ....
Cake isn't taxed? Is this compensation for the tampon tax?
I'd rather have tax free sanitary ware. We had a manufacturer go to court to prove their snack was a cake and not a biscuit so it wouldn't be classed as a luxury item
Edit....chocolate on a biscuit makes it taxable but not on a cake.....still.confused.
Why would a cake not be considered a luxury item if a biscuit is? A cake seems more of a luxury item to me (based on US usage and reading biscuit as a cookie). I see a cookie as a commonly available food easy to bake at home and available in lots of packaged versions, and a cake more of a special occasion thing (although of course there are not that good packaged versions of those too).
Just curious/puzzled if it's a cultural difference.
Because British and Great British Bake Off? I'm joking. I honestly don't know. Bureaucracy.1 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »I'm sure the composition of library committees varies from community to community - the one thing I would daresay they all have in common is that no one is elected to these committees. Yet as appointed bureaucrats, unanswerable to an electorate, they are able to pick and choose which books, authors, or perspectives are made available.
I've generally been a bit sceptical of media reports about libraries refusing to hold a book, rather than spending the available money on other things.At its barest, my point is that governmental paternalism is governmental paternalism. In my state, the law says I have to wear a seatbelt if I drive on the public roadways. Much like the proposed soda restriction, the government has taken away my agency as an adult human person to make that decision for myself. Was my dignity taken away? Or do I need to be in a specific socio-economic strata to claim victimhood?
I'm not entirely convinced that's a valid comparison. The requirement to wear a seat belt applies to everyone, rather than just a segment of the population.
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Actually, the problem is that the definition of "living wage" has changed. In most of the US, minimum wage is sufficient to provide food, shelter, transportation, and a small entertainment budget for the employee. Just as it was designed and intended to do.
I think @VintageFeline has largely covered the application in the UK, but the key thing here is that living wage <> minimum wage. As the UK economy has subsided recently it's creating some challenges.
London is a bit of a deviation, with the excessive cost of property leading to some quite extreme travel for lower earners. Even higher earners are travelling ridiculous distances and spending a lot of money to do it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »How is this? I do think we ought to have a minimum wage and it should be pegged to what a living wage is, but not having regulations (or having different regulations that are less costly) is not the same thing as a subsidy. (Or, redo the whole thing and just have a minimum guaranteed income and that replaces minimum wage.)
We've had this debate in the UK, as highlighted above much of the social security budget goes to those who are employed, but not earning enough to be viable without some form of support. Essentially it starts to get into the debate around how an employer can afford to pay a low enough wage because people will get a top up from the state. There is a bit of no mans land where one no longer qualifies for assistance, but start to qualify for taxation, that slightly skews the calculations.
There are a few other points that some employers can use to minimise costs that can leave employees in a challenging situation.
The principle of objection to it is that if the state didn't top up, then would the employer be able to sustain a workforce? It's difficult to forecast as our employment environment is hideously complex and layering on the availability of supplements makes for a nightmare of qualification and disqualification. The instability can be as much of a cause of hardship as anything else.
I'm not sure that's any clearer, but I am conscious that I'm looking at this from a UK perspective. Most of my appreciation of US culture comes from engagement with the US military, which is a bit special...If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
Yes -- if SNAP was just wage support and not for food, there would be less limitation on how it's spent, which seems to be how it works in Australia and Canada. And that seems like more of a hands off position by the state, which is why I think it's interesting that those who seem more against regulation in some cases seem to want to regulate more.
I'm reading it as whereabouts the complexity lies, as everyone who draws on state support is feckless and can't be trusted...2 -
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »I'm sure the composition of library committees varies from community to community - the one thing I would daresay they all have in common is that no one is elected to these committees. Yet as appointed bureaucrats, unanswerable to an electorate, they are able to pick and choose which books, authors, or perspectives are made available.
I've generally been a bit sceptical of media reports about libraries refusing to hold a book, rather than spending the available money on other things.
2001 & 2002 appear to have been banner years (no pun intended) with works from Maya Angelou, J.D. Salinger, Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, and J.K. Rowling being among the top ten challenged works. If you check out the infographic linked at the end of the page, you'll see that it's estimated that about 10% of all challenges result in a book's removal - though hard stats are difficult to come by.
Not everybody drives - obviously any restrictions placed on a taxpayer funded service can only apply to those utilizing the service.At its barest, my point is that governmental paternalism is governmental paternalism. In my state, the law says I have to wear a seatbelt if I drive on the public roadways. Much like the proposed soda restriction, the government has taken away my agency as an adult human person to make that decision for myself. Was my dignity taken away? Or do I need to be in a specific socio-economic strata to claim victimhood?
I'm not entirely convinced that's a valid comparison. The requirement to wear a seat belt applies to everyone, rather than just a segment of the population.
3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.
Members have the option to reject friends requests.
Noooooo, do they? I thought we had to accept everyone's friend request sent our way. Thanks for letting me know. They say you learn something new everyday.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
ETA: I guess minimum wage in South Carolina is actually $7.25, so that changes the take home to $1,131 per month. They changed minimum wage to $9 in my state a few years back and I forgot that wasn't nation-wide.8 -
juliegilburd wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
I'm going to copy your list and make some adjustments - obviously I'm in the UK so serious pinch of salt required...
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more) I pay £50 ~ $70 in the UK - is it really so much more expensive in the US? I have a big flat with 10ft ceilings, it isn't cheap to heat...
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60 Twice my mobile bill of £15 gives me ~$40
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120 If you work a minimum wage job wouldn't you walk to work/stores/etc? I get the occasional local bus/cab/train, maybe £20/month ~ $25?
Laundry $25 Ehh???
Do you not have any sort of property/local amenity taxes to pay though? Or is it all income tax?
I do often find that people who have never had to live on less don't understand just how little it is possible to get things for. If you've never known any different they might well be happy with that
And they might enjoy the time they have too! 3 -
juliegilburd wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
ETA: I guess minimum wage in South Carolina is actually $7.25, so that changes the take home to $1,131 per month. They changed minimum wage to $9 in my state a few years back and I forgot that wasn't nation-wide.
You're talking about expenses for 2 people. Why isn't the second person working to double the income?
If not married, find a roommate and cut the rent in half.1 -
juliegilburd wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
Why would you rent? Including Insurance and taxes, a 2br starter home in Columbia can be had for around 560(according to Zillow) And there are still low income programs reducing or eliminating the requirement for a down payment.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions