Who is hit hardest by inflation? It probably *isn't* you...

4 August 2011

Tails I winWhen I was a girl*, the tooth fairy used to leave me 10p (one of the old huge, heavy proper ten pees) and my pocket money was £3 a month. How times have changed. Now the tooth fairy leaves you £1 (minimum) and the average pocket money amount among 10-16 year olds is £5.50 a week. They have never had it so good.

Or, apparently, not. New research from Santander and the educational charity Personal Finance Education Group (pfeg) shows that inflation on child-bought products is actually running at well above the headline rate of about 5% per annum. Coupled with the fact that parents are economising on pocket money amounts, there are a lot of unhappy bunnies about.

Children's typical purchases include sweets and chocolates, which have seen a 24% price hike while soft drinks are up by 16.2%. Nearly half of the 500 children questioned listed sweets, snacks and drinks as the most common things they bought, while one in three named going out with friends or family as a regular use of their money. Twenty-five per cent of children spent money regularly on games for games consoles, which are up by 27% and telephony costs, which include mobile phones and text messages, have increased by 10.4%.

Nici Audhlam-Gardner, director of banking at Santander, said: "Inflation is generally considered to be something that only affects adults, but it's evident from our research that children have been impacted too while inflation has been creeping up over the past few years.

"Children are seeing the costs of their everyday purchases rising at a very worrying rate, and parents are also being affected by the costs of children's items apparently increasing by more than the standard adult measure of inflation."

And if that wasn’t bad enough for the little blighters, almost half the parents questioned have either reduced or stopped the pocket money they give to their children. One in 10 have reduced their children's pocket money, and 2% have stopped it completely. Twenty-one per cent are now making their children earn the money but have not reduced it, and a further 13% have reduced their children's pocket money and now make them work for it.

Santander’s research went on to look at how much children save in their piggy banks. In a completely unrelated story, Santander have launched a new e-savings account. Mind you, with this extortionate rise in their cost of living, what hard-working 11 year old can afford to save for the future?

* Shut up. It wasn't that long ago.

TOPICS:   Economy   Home

13 comments

  • Dick
    * when was the op? I thought you were a bloke.
  • The B.
    I believe that Sam is short for Samantha. just like Paul is short for Paula and Dick is short.
  • Eric
    I remember when "Freddos" were 10p. What are they now, 15p?
  • Freddo f.
    I'm all yours for 17p
  • Paul G.
    Kids? Fuck 'em.
  • Richard
    And if that wasn’t bad enough for the little blighters, almost half the parents questioned have either reduced or stopped the pocket money they give to their children. One in 10 have reduced their children’s pocket money, and 2% have stopped it completely. Twenty-one per cent are now making their children earn the money but have not reduced it, and a further 13% have reduced their children’s pocket money and now make them work for it. so 1 in 10 (10%) have reduced pocket money and 2% have stopped pocket money meaning 12% in total have reduced pocket money. Although apparently 13% have reduced pocket money and also almost half the parents questioned have reduced or stopped pocket money. Since when has 12% = 13% ~ 50%. Make your mind up!
  • Tony P.
    Latest research from Shit,Twaddle & Bollocks, the Isle of Sheppey based international marketing company indicate that 23 % of people stopped reading that article after the second paragraph & the remaining 97% didn't make it to the end. A whopping 112.5 % of the 6 people surveyed didn't understand any of the Maths involved (or Math if you're from the colonies) and requested less challenging articles in future.
  • dvdj
    @Paul Gadd - that's how Gary Glitter saw it and look at him now.
  • Tiny S.
    @dvdj - that's a finely honed mind you've got there.
  • Schism
    @Richard Actually the way I took it was: 2% have stopped all pocket money. 10% have reduced the (unearned) pocket money (making 12% with reductions.) 21% have kept the same amount but in now earned. A 'further' 13% have reduced the (now earned*) pocket money. *hence the new category So their "almost half" who reduced or stopped the pocket money include the 2%, 10% and 13% categories - making a grand total of 25% - still not quite almost half. I think they meant to include the 21% of parents - as 46% sounds a far more reasonable "almost half" - but clumsy wording failed them this time. Although I can't myself think of a more eloquent expression to include all blimmin' rules these neo-nazi parents are thinking up ;). My sympathies are with the writer.
  • Schism
    On a side note, my pocket money was 10p a week for every year old i was. I felt this needed a more exponential scale as i grew older, but oh well. And I've just realised that in my essay earlier - it should've been 12% with reductions 'that still don't work for their pocket money'. I'd just mixed up Richard's post with the main article.
  • Jimmy S.
    So the kids have to go without their sweeties? Well shaft me in the proverbial arse with a broomhandle. Cancel all foreign aid, recall the troops, organise a garage sale at Buckingham Palace, this economic apocolypse is worse than we thought. Now thats off my chest, im going down to the local Pic 'n' Mix to dangle my sweaty nuts into the Cola bottle compartment whilst shovelling up dog turds with those handy little scoops they have.
  • Flffy F.
    I wondered why the cola bottles were saltier than usual...

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment