Eating on Benefits

[Marmora Man]

I don't know what the current benefits system allows for a unemployed couple to live no. Can anyone advise?

Reason - I am one of many contributors to threads on the forum about the quality of food available in ED and an equal number on the advisability of using good ingredients, good cooking and so on.

Question - is it possible to eat well on benefits? To answer this requires first a knowledge of the benefits available, then setting of a budget to determine what is left for food after paying utilities, housing, travel and putting something aside for clothing, occasional treats.

Armed with this knowledge I would be happy to take part in a challenge to the EDF gourmets / gourmands to try to live on the money for a week.

[Asset]

a week is easy, try a month. Much more realistic.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Approximate couple income on benefits (excl any rent allowance) is, I believe, capped at around ?100 a week. Between them. And to think I go out to work everyday and bust my chops to keep people in luxury like that

I agree with Asset - a month would be much more realistic to start to see/feel the true impact of living on benefits. It's a problem when Jamie et al fly in with gimmicky programme . And that doesn't even begin to factor in the fact that on benefits you don't necessarily live in a nice gaff, get to have a warm office every day etc

that said I think the original post is well-intentioned (but it might appear to some as poverty-tourism?). It's a good excercise anyway given how much food is wasted generally

The problem with the reluctance of many to buy good food at a good price isn't with those on benefit - anyone on as little as that (or minimum wage) do what they can just to get by .. it's more those on decentish money who refuse to pay more than ?2 for a chicken. What's decent-ish? One example is if your child is subscribing to those ring-tone lines at ?30-?40 a month then I reckon there is money to be spent on decent food. (every time those ring-tine ads come on I read the disclaimer at the end and can NOT believe what I'm reading)

[Cassius]

I'm sure I could eat well enough on the money available - being a vegetarian no matter what the arguments for and against, is definitely cheaper than eating good quality meat and fish, however I don't think the money would cover our wine habit!

[Asset]

This is the Daily Mail (sorry couldn't find another version) shopping basket by which the cost of living is measured. Quite interesting, not a pulse to be seen either (baked beans notwithstanding).

basket

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

That said I think the original post is well-intentioned (but it might appear to some as poverty-tourism?). It's a good exercise anyway given how much food is wasted generally

It certainly was well intentioned. While I agree a month is a better test / taste of the issues involved I doubt many would rise to the challenge. It could be a charity fund raising effort if anyone taking part donated the savings made by the difference between their usual week's housekeeping and the benefit level.

I believe I could feed Mrs MM & I for a week for ?100 - It would be an intriguing task and would undoubtedly feature less inch thick W Rose sirloin steaks, less wine & whisky and more cheap protein such as chicken plus interesting ways with leftovers and mince. Might even lose me a few pounds weight - which would be helpful.

Regarding Asset's Daily Mail basket - I wonder what the prices would be if bought along Lordship Lane rather than a supermarket. I believe it would be less - or at least better quality for same price.

[macroban]

> I believe I could feed Mrs MM & I for a week for ?100

That's not ?100pw for food alone. There's gas, 'lectric, water, council tax, insurance etc, before your first loaf.

[Marmora Man]

My original question was how much was left for food after such costs - the answer was ?100.

If there's a more accurate figure I'd try to live on that. It would also be necessary to discount the weekly sum by about 10% to account for less regular purchases such s flour, oil, rice etc.

[Asset]

It's ?100 for EVERYTHING not what's left for food.

A single person on Income Supoprt gets around ?50 per week to live on, a couple gets slightly less than double.

You say you believe you could feed the two of you for ?100 per week if you tried. Blimey, I feed a family of four on not much more than that per week and I think we eat fairly well!

[macroban]

Well, let's be accurate: ?92.80 per week.

[macroban]

Price of a meal for two in Franklins?

[spadetownboy]

and what is the point,to make one feel good about ones self,to wonder why are these scrouging bastards whinging on about why they cant survive on this pittance while i can for a week/month. let me know because at the ,moment i cant see it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I hear you STB - that's why I said I thought it could be misconstrued - but I belive the intent to have been good. That said MM, I haven't seen much in the way of you grasping just how little that amount of cash is

MM said:

The ?100 answer you got was the total a couple was allowed as a maximum benefit - before anything else

let's take ?30 away from that if they need to travel (that's 2 weekly bus passes - can't afford full travelcard)

Another ?30 away for electricity/gas/water - v conservative estimate I think

?10-20 for council tax

Whatever else for clothes, general maintenance of house etc

How much does that leave for food?

None of this negates the desire for good food/restaurants or any of the things in life that do cost money and make life worth living - but it should reemphasise and rebut arguments about scrounging welfare populace. Not that anyone on here HAS made any such comment but one only has to read the Mail/Telegraph/Sun for, oooh - 10 syllables before stumbling across the general gist. Ditto liberal/leftie middle class types have a tendency to say they have it hard as well.... mmm mmm

All very bleedin' heart of me I know but did anyone who knows me expect anything less?

(and yes I am aware there are unemployed people who play the system and get much more than that - they are fewer in number than one would think and possess enough determination and cunning to suggest that companies should be beating a path to THEIR door)

[Marmora Man]

spadetownboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and what is the point,to make one feel good about

> ones self,to wonder why are these scrouging

> bastards whinging on about why they cant survive

> on this pittance while i can for a week/month. let

> me know because at the ,moment i cant see it.

The question and subsequent personal challenge arose out f a discussion with an elderly Telegraph reading person who was bemoaning the fecklessness and poor eating of a single mother of my acquaintance. I wanted to understand how difficult it was / is to get by on benefits - but having no personal experience turned the the EDF for advice.

Yes - it smacks, a little, of poverty tourism but trying to experience the reality - even for just a week - would help me both understand and respond more fully.

[Asset]

You can eat perfectly well on a low income, it is not necessary to resort to frozen and poor quality cheap food from say, Iceland. It involves a little imagination; eating less meat, more pulses and sourcing veg locally. Obviously the bottle of wine a night has to go.

Sean, your budget was a little out. Council Tax allowance would be given so you can add that back and I don't think weekly bus passes would be necessary. Pay as travel is required is more likely. I think that the utilities cost is a little high also. I would estimate around ?18 per week (?80 per month.

[mockney piers]

All in all it rather backs up the likes of Delia having a pop at Jamie & Co with their free-range ivory towers. With such small budgets you can't really expect many to realistically avoid budget items in the supermarkets or shopping in Primark.

Perhaps morals are for those who can afford them.

Let us know how you get on MM, whether poverty tourism or not it's admirable to see someone at least try to understand the genuine day to day issues of the many millions in this country for whom life has more on its plate than the quality of service in Mon Ciel Franklinsdelier.

[bawdy-nan]

Of course you can manage to eat "well" on not very much money its just that it is extremely labour intensive, requires immense and ongoing efforts on planning and it gets very very very boring.

Making your own flatbreads, ekeing out mashed potato and carrots and lentils, wondering if you can afford a garlic bulb, having vegetable curry again, making that leftover pizza slice do another meal, having "fun" with breadcrumbs, and mince and eggs (preferably not in the same meal). Recipes with more than a couple of ingredients become recipes to avoid becasue you're often starting from scratch each time you think about cooking.

If you've got spare cash you've usually got "spare" interesting cupboard items with which to jazz up the monotony. Even if you've got "nothing in" if you've had money for a while there's usually the odd tin of anchovies, some pasta, tinned tomatoes, decent oil, some flour, some cheese etc to rustle up a meal.

After a while food becomes a chore and a challenge not a pleasure.

[Asset]

pasta and tinned tomatoes are pretty cheap and when I lived on benefits, which I did for quite a long time after leaving school in the Thatcher years, were one of my staples - along with mashed potato, carrots, lentils and veggie curry. (actually that was once I got a cooker, prior to that all I had was a Breville Toastie machine - those were the days)

My point was that it is not necessary to eat poor quality, cheap, mass produced food all the time. It is possible to eat fresh, natural ingredients that are not necessarily boring

[mockney piers]

Actually thinking about it, my first 4 years in London I was earning very little, not on benefits, and had less to spare than described above, though at least I had no dependants.

I do somehow wonder how I coped, but yes, ate a lot of pasta, onions, tinned tomato, tuna, cheap bacon etc (all with garlic and chilli obviously) and eating out was a great rarity.

Strangely I remember them as fun and happy times, barring the constant drip drip of money worries, no real stresses as compared to today, just an overall sense of a life getting nowhere.

Funny how quickly one forgets.

[david_carnell]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All in all it rather backs up the likes of Delia

> having a pop at Jamie & Co with their free-range

> ivory towers. With such small budgets you can't

> really expect many to realistically avoid budget

> items in the supermarkets or shopping in Primark.

> Perhaps morals are for those who can afford them.

I know where you're coming from MP but Delia then goes and puts her foot in her mouth with her "cheats" series where you have to trawl supermarkets for all these jarred and pre-made meal substitutes which cost a fortune. Her shepherds pie came in at something close to ?15 ffs! ?15! For shepherds pie!

I have no idea how to budget for food, I'm ashamed to say, and spent more of my student loan on food than on nights out if I remember rightly. Sad though that makes me I always had a good time and a steady supply of dinner guests.

You have to be able to "afford" morality? I don't know about that though. Seems an easy get out. I'm poor so I can forget about anyone else? I need a new t-shirt and if some poor 3rd world child lost a finger making it so be it? I know that's a touch over-dramatic but you see my point.

I don't think poverty can be an excuse for a lack of morality. That's a slippery slope.

[lozzyloz]

I'm obviously extremely immoral (as noted on countless other threads).

I was never on benefits but when I left home at a tender age I had to find a way to feed myself. I did get a job but it barely covered my rent so the odd bottle of milk and loaf of bread did get long term loaned from someone's doorstep post the milkie's delivery. Apart from turning up at friends' houses, coincidentally just in time for dinner, it was sometimes necessary to augment stocks by utilising the storage capacity of the sleeves on my parker coat in Tesco's freezer cabinet. Sometimes I'd survive on a packet of cornflakes (breakfast, lunch and dinner) a loaf of bread and a packet of cheese. By the end of the week the remaining bread and cheese would be slightly mouldy, but nothing a quick blast under the grill couldn't cure (and yes I was fiddling the gas meter so that 10p coin was recycled infinitely).

I'm just about a reformed character now.

[Jeremy]

I think you can eat OK on a small budget - maybe ?10 per person per week. Basic veg like carrots, onions, (tinned) tomatoes, etc are very very cheap. Pasta, rice, potatoes can all be bought cheaply, especially if you shop around (eg Asian cash & carry places for rice).

[macroban]

Has no-one noticed the massive price increases in pasta and rice this year? Guess not.

[*Bob*]

Don't forget to factor-in the cash-in-hand job on a building site / as a glass collector / window cleaner etc - just to make sure it's truly realistic.

[Cassius]

Pasta has almost doubled in price but still represents a cheap and relatively healthy way of filling oneself up. I lived for ages on pasta and broccoli with no ill effect, ditto rice - more expensive but still cheaper than a ready meal. However I do wonder about factoring in the cost of cooking. I don't own a microwave but presume that the several minutes heating up a ready meal would cost less in energy than having several pans on the go at once.