Can it be true? Are there really as many as 2.2 million households in Britain scraping by on as little as £41,000 a year? And having to feed two children on that as well?

£41,000 a year, a mere £788 a week, how you could you possibly put nutritious food in your children’s bellies, and buy an iPod, and pay your Sky subscription? No wonder the Guardian describes them as ‘teetering on the edge of penury’. They are but one step away from not being able to afford to go to their friend’s hen party in Croatia.

Perhaps, like B & Q, the government should urgently enlist the help of ‘oldies’, people with experience of living on the basic pension of £102.15 a week.

Did you know that whilst there are people in Blackpool getting £320 a week for honest labour, there are some in Kensington, London getting £1,305 for working for exactly the same time? (and many in Westminster getting that much or more for pontificating about this inequality).

Did you know that in Middlesborough you get £320 a week for emptying the rubbish once a fortnight, whilst in Guardian Towers you might get £4,000 a week for spouting rubbish?

This inequality has to stop. Nobody (Nobody, that includes you Polly) should be allowed to earn more than the minimum wage – and the surplus to be applied to the national debt. There you go, two problems solved.

Whilst I am about it, I have another ‘equality’ solution. According to today’s Independent, 50% of children are unhappy being bullied at school. So the other 50% are either the bullies, or so pathologically masochistic that they don’t mind being bullied.

Ipso, if your child is happy at school, he must be in the second 50%, natch? Therefore I prescribe corporal punishment for anyone claiming to be happy at school, either they deserve it, or they will enjoy it and be even happier. The bullied ones will love the spectacle.

‘Right, you, Mukherjee Minor, reckon you’re happy in Modern Day Britain do you, soon whack that out of you’…

Just out of interest, how many of you have experience of ‘teetering on the edge of penury’ on £41,000 a year? How do you manage?

1
Elena ‘andcart
June 19, 2012 at 10:54

Thank you for a good laugh, Anna. I do so enjoy laughing at those in penury on £41,000 a year, while I sail happily along on my more than generous State Pension. £102. 15 a week?. As much as that? But please don’t forget the extra £7.00 Earnings Related. This should give you all some idea of how much I earned during my long and and illustrious career cleaning toilets and engaging in other such worthwhile professions, on which I raised three children. Oh what fun we had camping in the back yard once a year instead of jetting off to boring old Europe.
Thank God for the Black Economy is all I can say.

PS. What’s an iPod?

2
Robert the Biker
June 19, 2012 at 11:20

Well, I suppose I am one of those ‘filthy rich capitalist swine running dogs’ you hear about as I earn £65 per hour. Of course, between tax, two lots of NI, corporation tax, VAT and yet more tax on dividends (just paid the thick end of 20K), I dont have quite that for ME.
So, to all the Guardianistas and Occupy scum:
Do you like haveing fuel for cars and busses? Oils and Plastics? How about those wind turbines you think are a good idea?
You’re Welcome.

3
Caedmon’s Cat
June 19, 2012 at 12:01

I can categorically declare that I’m earning less than half of the Guardy-Ann’s ‘penury’ threshold – and apart from a few months of generously-paid contracting, which helped keep me through the lean time of redundancy I subsequently faced – have done so all my working life. I’m quite happy with that. I can only surmise that those who regard this mythical subsistence wage are far from content – and are fuelled by overblown expectations (and magic mushrooms, of course)…

4
wassname
June 19, 2012 at 12:43

My income was much less than that throughout my three score and a few years and I’ve teetered on the edge, but not of penury. I’ve teetered on the edge of wondering how the hell my forebears managed. The fact that they were mainly labourers, miners and factory workers humbles me. Most were well educated when the term meant something. ‘Poor’ in those days didn’t mean uneducated, thick or useless; it simply meant ‘with little or no money’. Anybody from a poor background lucky enough to be given half a chance of receiving a formal education would have been able to spell ‘impecunious’ as well as feel the bugger. And still be grateful!
Grrr!

Since the war, most people in this country have been blessed with the chance to have a good life. The safety net for unfortunates have been generous. Those who could and did helped those who couldn’t or wouldn’t. Times are changing All fuel for the divide and rule maelstrom. Envy is the most destructive sin.

5
Will Jones
June 19, 2012 at 17:10

wassname,

Your comment reminded me of the Powell and Pressburger film: “I Know Where I’m Going.”
Wendy Hiller tries to pay a Scotswomen with a pound note, and is rebuffed with a comment that she cannot provide change for such a vast sum. Roger Livesey subsequently tells her that said Scotswomen is unlikely to ever see such a sum all at once, Wendy Hiller asks if all the villagers are so poor, Roger responds that “They’re not poor, they just don’t have any money.”

6
Lilith
June 20, 2012 at 23:59

Bloody fantastic film. Roger Livesey plays a penniless Laird.

7
Ed P
June 19, 2012 at 13:06

I’m struggling on a similar amount – I’ve had to cut down the caviar & champagne to only three days per week and have fewer overseas holidays per year. ‘Snot fair! Gimme more!

8
Robert the Biker
June 19, 2012 at 13:11

I would have no problems whatever if the money I pay went to some of the contributors on here, but why does it all seem to be spent on Unicorn farms and on complete and utter dicks?

9
Paul Brown
June 19, 2012 at 13:38

If as the Guardian would have us believe we’re all one step away from subsisting on coal and grass, its not because people don’t earn enough, its because everything in this country is so fucking expensive.

You cannot move but you’re taxed, charged or fined for it.

10
john77
June 19, 2012 at 15:00

You have forgotten the cost of the Volvo/Audi which is compulsory for Guardian readers and costs much more to run than the MG Metro (the MG version had better brakes, which made it well worth a few extra £ for someone with slower reactions) I owned during the brief period that I paid higher rate tax. During the first thirteen years that we had two children we had to rely on a single earner, whose erratic earnings only exceeded the inflation-adjusted equivalent of £41k in three years: during that time we lived a decent middle-class existence, paying off our mortgage, moving to a larger house when the garden got too small for the kids, paid off the new mortgage, contributed towards a pension in the good or middling years, even went on occasional holidays. I cannot believe that not having an iPod of Sky made that much difference: the Volvo costs much more than either.
Or maybe it was because, unlike Guardian journalists, we could buy fresh food and cook meat, fish and vegetables without having to pay a cook which made a difference.

11
Surreptitious Evil
June 20, 2012 at 15:45

The MG Metro had much, much better brakes – they were the 4-pots off the old Mini Cooper single-class racing series cars. Complete bugger to change when they jammed, though. The pots were chrome-plated – but the plating hadn’t really been engineered to sit on a BL parts shelf for 20-odd years.

12
microdave
June 19, 2012 at 15:47

I’m struggling to recollect the last time I saw a child in ragged clothes, with no or holed shoes, begging for a morsel of food on the streets. The ones I see are usually shouting “I WANT”, or tapping away on their £25 per month “smart phones”.

Destitute – don’t make me larf…

13
Elena ‘andcart
June 19, 2012 at 16:12

I am so glad you said that, Microdave as I did not wish to appear insensitive, and in case there are hidden pockets of these starving and rag clothed children that The Government don’t want us to know about, although God knows where they are hidden as The School Board would soon be on to them, as would The Social Services. Although perhaps not in the case of the latter as they appear to be more interested in half decent children who don’t need help, but might be damaged because they haven’t got a Smart Phone.

14
microdave
June 19, 2012 at 18:42

Me insensitive? What ever gave you that idea! I’m just judging things based on my particular outlook. One that has me making do with a modest private pension and income from savings, along with some “as & when” work for a friend (which I have to invoice and pay tax on). No expensive holidays for me, (not since 1996, anyway), a 21 year old car, 6 year old laptop, etc, etc. I’m also faced with the dilemma of needing a hip replacement, yet having to look after my elderly mother since father died last year.

Then, in a moment of reality, I look down the road and see the weekly Sainsbury’s delivery van drawing up at the family of 7 who clearly don’t have to pay for the dozen or more bags of shopping on board. Or the regular daily assortment of BMW’s, Audi’s and Mercedes bringing sundry spoilt brats to the nearby infants school.

Destitution, what bloody destitution???

15
Anna Raccoon
June 19, 2012 at 18:50

You get income from your savings? Where, where? I need to know!

16
microdave
June 19, 2012 at 19:32

I meant “Investments”. They’re a variety of funds which are supposed to be reasonably secure, and build up surpluses in the good times, to cover the bad times. For how much longer is anyone’s guess….

I think it’s time I booked an appointment with an independent financial advisor – actually, several of them!

17
Brian
June 19, 2012 at 16:16

Holed shoes like these? £24.99 a pair! No wonder people are destitute.

18
john77
June 19, 2012 at 16:41

@ microdave
When I started school, many (my memory suggests most, but it’s probably just that they were more noticeable, hence memorable) of the boys had patched clothes and shoes – Glasgow under Attlee. But for poverty, Albania in the 1990s as it started to recover from the Hoxha communist dictatorship: the Roma children aggressively begging in the streets in ragged outer clothes were a pest but many of the peasants were *really* poor – I can still visualise a late-middle-aged man in patched clothes supervising one scrawny cow grazing on the grass in the middle of a double-carriageway. Start with the idea that the Albanian median annual income was lower than the minimum for those on benefit with no earnings in New York, or for a single mother in the UK (or a week’s hotel bill for someone working on a World Bank contract in Tirana – fortunately my team was led by a Christian and we got *permission* to use cheaper accommodation as soon as we found that out); then project downwards. The only really poor people in the UK are those disentitled to benefits, some of the genuinely homeless because they have no address and asylum seekers who are forbidden to work in paid jobs and given food stamps at HALF the rate of UK citizens. Yes, David Blunkett thought that people could live on half the level of state benefits for UK citizens but the Grauniad thinks that those of £41k are teetering on the edge of poverty.

19
Brian
June 19, 2012 at 16:12

About a decade ago I bought a copy of this book from the office charity book recycling box and it changed my life. I realised that my life was already downshifted and that buying second-hand, looking after stuff, repairing, saving up to buy things and saving for rainy days wasn’t how the majority of people operated. Most people at my school wore swapped or bought at school jumble sale uniforms – it was an independent school so our parents were paying up to twice for our education (working hard to win scholarships was part of the deal). Of course we holidayed in the UK instead of abroad and didn’t buy the latest betamax vcrs etc when they came out. As a result of this habit, I always have enough money to buy what I need.

20
Anna Raccoon
June 19, 2012 at 16:19

Snap Brian! One of the delights of this area of France is the complete absence of shops full of ‘things you don’t really need’.

21
Ian R Thorpe
June 19, 2012 at 18:30

After reading St. Polly’s rant about how we should tap the wealth of Europe to solve the debt crisis I am waiting to hear that she has sold two of her homes and is converting the London one into affordable accomodation for the poor, and that she has dissolved her offshore trust fund and repatriated the proceeds so she can pay higher rate tax on the income.

But I won’t hold my breath.

BTW wots appened to your sidebars Anna, if you’d like any help from an old pro to fix it just email me.

22
Anna Raccoon
June 19, 2012 at 18:32

Sidebars are currently down the bottom of the page – I am using the full width page right now, so not unhappy about that, we will see how it goes.
Very kind of you to offer though….

23
Joe Public
June 20, 2012 at 08:31

My preference is for sidebars at the side.

“Full width” means I have to scroll left>>right on many lines to read the rightmost characters on some words. It’s a PITA.

24
Michael
June 19, 2012 at 22:33

Yep, that just about describes me. About £41,000 per year. Four kids. Well into the overdraft at the end of this month.
The problem is that you don’t actually get to keep your £41,000. About 25% disappears before it even sees the bank account. 13% of it is spent at Iceland and ASDA on food (we don’t drink). At least 10% goes on petrol and diesel. 22% to the landlord. 5% on gas and elecricity. The other 25% has to keep two ageing cars in tax and MOT. Council Tax. Four kids in school uniform (unbelievably expensive with mandatory personalised blazers, bags and sports kit) and clothes. Subs for scouts. Bus fayres to school. Water rates. A couple of cheap UK camping holidays. Everything else.

I was under threat of redundancy last year. I worked out that if I was on the dole I could sell the second car and probably come out better off. (Crazy situation, I know). I’m not complaining. By global standards we’re exceptionally wealthy. We’ve been able to pay for my wife’s degree without taking out a loan, which should hopefully help as the kids are getting older as there’s the opportunity for her to return to work.

25
bella gerens
June 19, 2012 at 23:20

In a two-earner household, that is £20,500 per earner (average) which, though below the median wage, is well above the minimum wage. I feel for people living in London on £41k before tax, because without housing benefit or working tax credits, that is one earner’s post-tax income just paying the rent for anything bigger than a 1-bed flat in Zone 3.

Mind, given that with that income, you can get a 3-bed detached on shared ownership in Wolverhampton for about £550/month, I’m less appalled.

Why don’t the Guardian take up the cause of some actual poor people for a change? For almost 50% of households in Britain, £41k per annum is a fucking princely income.

26
Woodsy42
June 20, 2012 at 01:17

Sadly I do not have experience of ‘teetering on the edge of penury’ on £41,000 a year so cannot answer your question. But I would welcome the opportunity to try it. So if you could just organise a fundraising to supply the difference between my pension and £41,000 I will be happy to write a report about it this time next year.

Welcome back Anna, and I like the lack of ‘stuff’ cluttering up the sides of the page, makes it much less distracting to read.

27
Ed
June 20, 2012 at 15:47

Is that £41,000 before tax, or £41,000 after tax, which would need (counts on fingers) £60,000+ before tax? If I remember (can’t be bothered to check) that £60k plus would put our paupers in or about the top 10% of the country’s earners.

For me this is not so much of a problem. I never could afford to have kids anyway, so the snip was an investment of sorts.

28
Brian
June 20, 2012 at 23:47

It is probably £41,005 before Jimmy Carr Tax. Child poverty could be cured by having everyone’s pay funnelled into the Jersey K2 scheme, albeit at the expense of turning the country into Greece without the sunshine. On reflection, we’re pretty close already to third world without the aid payments anyway.

29
Surreptitious Evil
June 20, 2012 at 15:52

I have to say that I am one of the “at risk” categories …

Self-employed tradespeople living in small communities.

Okay, the “self-employment” is via a limited company, and the locale is, although definitely small and rather poor, probably wouldn’t meet the Guardian’s standards for “community”. Apart from the corner-shopkeepers (one of whom was a local councillor until last election) and a couple of the local restaurants’ staff, we’re appallingly non-ethnic (but, note, they do specify “ethnic communities” in the next line – there’s hope for us yet!) But, yes, we did pay ourselves somewhat less than £41k last year. This year we’ll be trying to work out whether we need the money enough to crack the tax barrier or whether it is better being invested in the business.