




| The poverty level |
|
|
| Written by Dr Madsen Pirie | |
| Thursday, 03 July 2008 | |
|
A Joseph Rountree Foundation team headed by Jonathan Bradshaw, professor of social policy at the University of York, has published a report which sets out the sum required for a minimum standard of living in Britain. The headline figure is £13,400, but in fact the report sets out different sums for people in different circumstances. The study, which took more than 2 years to complete, defines a minimum acceptable standard as including "more than just food, clothes and shelter." For example, a single person is reckoned to need "walking boots, a pay-as-you-go mobile phone and a bicycle." A pensioner couple's sum covers "an occasional carvery meal and a bird feeder." Wine is included, but no tobacco, and a car is not deemed essential. Comments (3)
![]()
...
written by Andrew Roocroft, July 03, 2008
"One might quibble over the details of what should or should not be included, but the exercise itself is a laudable one. It is useful information for us to know what level of income is needed by specific groups to sustain a minimum acceptable standard of living."
One might quibble, since the notion of "a minimum acceptable standard of living" has no objective basis. That the compilers of this report consider wine but not tobacco as necessary is a perfect manifestation of their attempt to disguise their arbitrary subjective preferences as objective necessities. Insisting that various luxuries are "part of living a decent life" may be your opinion, but it has no more basis in fact than a claim that attending church or enjoying opera are part of living a decent life, and should not be used in the formulation of public policy. Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Keep up-to-date with the latest events, reports and information from the Adam Smith Institute by joining our fortnightly email list. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any point. Just enter your email address here:
The above sounds like a wonderful opportunity to create yet another institution at taxpayers expense.
Why not leave it to the Joseph Rountree Foundation??
The real plus of this report is it gives us a target at which income tax should start and not include so many low wage earners