Minimum cost of living ‘up almost 20% since 2020'
cost of living
has jumped by almost 20 per cent since 2020, with the spike leaving many struggling to make ends meet, according to research published on Tuesday morning.
The annual
Minimal Essential Standard of Living
(MESL) study compiled by the Vincentian Research Centre at the
Society of Saint Vincent de Paul
(SVP) measures what people need for a basic standard of living and highlights a 1.8 per cent jump in prices last year, with a climb of 18.8 per cent since 2020.
It looked at the average weekly cost of goods and services such as food, clothes and energy for a socially acceptable minimum standard of living.
[
Cost-of-living rise outstrips social welfare increases, report finds
Opens in new window
]
The report highlights how the weekly cost of a child over 12 is higher than any other age group at €158, with social welfare meeting just 64 per cent of that. The cost of the needs of a primary school-age child is €98, while the needs of a preschool-age child cost €72 per week.
READ MORE
The costs for infants are 15 per cent lower than an inflation-adjusted estimate, with prices falling as parents swapped higher-cost items such as nappies and infant formula with own-brand options
Costs for a preschool-aged child are 31 per cent higher than estimates, as the higher cost of pain relief medication, cold treatments and clothes are among the factors driving costs up.
Costs for primary schoolchildren were 2.1 per cent higher than estimates suggested, with increased allowances for activities, birthdays and Christmas forcing prices higher, while the school and book rental schemes significantly reduced potential education costs.
For second-level age children, costs were put at 4.8 per cent higher than inflation-adjusted estimates, with social pressures facing teenagers as well as the need to replace children's clothing frequently, due to the rate at which they grow, highlighted by parents.
[
The Irish Times view on tackling child poverty: if not now, when?
Opens in new window
]
Food costs decreased for this age group compared to last year, while the extension of the Free Schoolbooks Scheme to post-primary schools has contributed to a significant reduction in the 2025 education cost for a second-level child.
The MESL needs for a one-parent household with a primary and second-level child cost €555 per week, and when dependent on social welfare supports, income only meets 82 per cent of this household's minimum needs.
While employment generally improves household income, the adequacy of the National Minimum Wage continues to be a concern.
'The analysis demonstrates the crucial role of in-work supports, affordable childcare and affordable housing in enabling income adequacy for households in employment,' the report says.
The cost of the minimum baskets for an urban single adult in minimum wage full-time employment has risen by 5.6 per cent due to higher rents and an increase in energy and food costs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
We need to face up to the fact that not all middle-earners are squeezed
While we have all been focusing endlessly on the latest Truth Social post from Donald Trump, the Coalition has been having backroom rows about its budget plans . Serious ones. A key document which sets the framework for the budget – the Summer Economic Statement – will be published next Tuesday. And alongside it will be the Government 's updated investment spending plans in the revised National Development Plan (NDP) . The game, in other words, is on. When you see the Independents who support the Government being filmed for the RTÉ News going to talk to senior ministers, you realise there is some good news coming and kudos to be sought for a new road or rail upgrade. But there will be tough calls, too. And it is no exaggeration to say that Tuesday will be a key moment for the Government as it signals a change of budgetary direction. The Coalition is going to go all in on State investment – energy, water and housing in particular. The catch is that to afford this, it is going to have to keep much tighter control on day-to-day spending and also end the once-off giveaways which have been a feature of the last few budgets. It will sell the message of restraint now allowing for investment for the future. Bread tomorrow is never an easy strategy to sell to voters – but that is what the Coalition is going to try to do. There will still be some extra cash in the budget for State services and welfare and – probably – a modest tax package. Talk of a 'tough budget' is nonsense – look at France where spending cuts, tax hikes and cutting two bank holidays were put on the table this week. But Irish voters have become accustomed to their budget day goodies – and there is going to be one heck of a political row when the penny drops that they are not going to feature this October. READ MORE Given the risks ahead and the State's reliance on tax payments from a few multinationals, the brakes do need to be put on. Spending has soared and Departmental targets set in the budget are regularly exceeded. Central Bank researchers estimated in June that permanent Government spending has risen by a hefty 37 per cent since 2021. Had the 'rule' to limit State spending growth to 5 per cent been adhered to, the increase would have been 16 per cent. There has simply been little culture of spending control and reinstating it is not going to be easy at a time when demands on public services are growing. Meanwhile, 'once-off payments' – repeated so often now that the term is an offence to the English language – have a serious budget price, costing more than €2 billion in the last package, which was a reduction on earlier years. The most expensive elements have been the universal payments to all households in areas like energy credits in the annual cost-of-living packages. Budget ministers Paschal Donohoe and Jack Chambers have been saying there will be no cost-of-living package this year ; for now, at least, it seems that the rest of the Cabinet are signed up to this. Ministers will spot the political dangers. Households have started to get used to the annual boost and will feel a bit less well-off. The Opposition will scream. But continuing to throw out the universal once-off payments would be a poor use of money, benefiting many for whom the cash is nice, but not necessary. Better to use what funds are available to build up permanent supports and improved services, focused on those who need them. The cost of living is high , for sure, but it is a farce to portray all households as 'hard-pressed', or everyone in the middle ground as 'squeezed'. Effective policy should help those who genuinely are – like many younger families – through better services in areas like childcare and health, rather than repeating the annual cash giveaways. [ Government 'feckless' with public money, Social Democrats claim in budget row Opens in new window ] Meanwhile, with the sums tightening considerably , the Coalition's 'solemn promise' – as Simon Harris put it – to cut the hospitality VAT rate back to 9 per cent is looking like a 'repent at leisure' moment. Even if this is restricted just to food businesses, it will cost €550 million a year. When other demands are being turned down and 'restraint' is the message , this is not going to be an easy sell for the Coalition. The all-in bet on State investment is driven by a view in Cabinet that housing, water and energy provision have all reached a crisis point – an argument being hammered home to them by big investors. Tariffs and Trump are the most discussed threat to future investment – and do indeed pose fundamental questions. But if Ireland does not put forward a plan to develop infrastructure, then investment is going to drift away, whatever happens in the White House. [ Focus in Budget 2026 has to be on transforming infrastructure, Martin says Opens in new window ] This will be mightily expensive. As well as controlling spending elsewhere, the Government will have to run down its annual budget surplus – and there are some risks here. However, it is still legally obliged – barring a downturn – to keep putting cash away in two funds designed to support future spending and investment. As well as finding the cash, the Coalition has to show it can actually deliver big projects – and more housing – an area where the previous administration performed poorly. And it needs to heed the warnings from the Central Bank and the Fiscal Council that if the State keeps pumping out cash across the board, then it will just add fuel to an economy already at full capacity, making it even harder to deliver on the infrastructure programme. Having had a stumbling and slow start, the Government is about to roll the dice for the rest of its term. Its more serious players will know that threats from across the Atlantic could damage the favourable economic position and budget outlook, and might require mid-flight adjustments in these plans. There will be some reassurance that there is €30 billion in cash and liquid assets down the back of the State couch, but also a realisation that if the trends change fundamentally this only goes so far. But sitting and doing nothing does not look like a clever strategy. Investment is the right direction for the Government to take. It will all come down to delivery. And to a bit of luck that Trump's policies, while inevitably damaging, do not upend things completely.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Planners just cannot win at Dublin Airport
Who'd be a planning commissioner – resigned forever to being pilloried by one side of an application or another? Or in some cases, as with Dublin Airport , both. A decision this week to allow 50 per cent more night-time flights in a shorter 'night-time' window at Dublin Airport alongside a new quota system for noise seemed tailor-made for airlines that have been concerned about maintaining current levels of service at the airport, never mind expansion. But no, they were not happy at all, at least not with the new, higher limit on flights, characterising it as a new, second, passenger cap. They are particularly concerned about limits on flights in the generally busy 5am-7am morning window. Airlines are already fighting a separate 32-million-a-year limit on the number of passengers than can use the airport. Both it and the now-modified night-time limit on flights date back to conditions on the original planning permission for the airport's new north runway. That permission dates back more than 15 years and yet in all that time no one, not the airport operator (the DAA ) nor any of the airlines – especially Ryanair and Aer Lingus for which it is a critical hub – conducted a concerted campaign to address what were always likely to be severely limiting conditions. Only when the runway opened was there any realistic effort to address the new realities of passenger and traffic numbers at the airport. And so here we are. For their part, residents around the airport – or at least one of the residents' associations – were also dissatisfied with the latest decision, saying it will only increase pollution and noise, making their lives more difficult. It's hard to see what would satisfy local residents. The airport authority is already investing millions of euro buying the worst-affected homes and funding increased noise insulation and is, in any case, restricted in its flight paths. And the truth remains that many, if not most, of those living under those flight paths have bought their homes long after the airport was well established as Ireland's big point of entry for air passengers. For now, everyone is threatening to challenge the latest decision in the courts. Meanwhile, in the absence of any political leadership n the issue, the reconstituted planning appeals board, An Coimisiún Pleanála , must resign itself to the view that whatever it decides, the whole mess will be its fault.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Imagine lying on your death bed and thinking - I've had a good run. I went to a lot of meetings
He doesn't use the term himself, but Son Number One is one of those digital nomads : theoretically, he can work from anywhere in the world. Realistically, it's better for him to be in the Americas . He works for a company based in New York , and his working day has to conform to those hours. He's in Ireland at the moment, but because of the time difference, he has to work until 10 or 11 at night. But it's temporary. He'll return to that part of the world soon because he likes living there. The job suits him too – not just because it affords him mobility, but because the company is young with only a handful of employees. It is work, but it has a sense of freedom to it. Or at least, it had. It's a typical story of modern commerce. The small company did well, and eventually the owners were offered irresistible sums to sell. Suddenly, Son Number One found himself as the employee of a much larger corporate entity. Previously, he would communicate with the New York office when it was necessary. Everyone stuck to the point. Now he has to endure the tyranny of regular scheduled online meetings, with as many as 60 people taking part. READ MORE He listens to people he doesn't know, and will never meet, spouting corporate word salads about other businesses that have nothing to do with him. This is not an untypical experience. Most meetings are, at best, a waste of the working day, and at worst, an egregious, soul-sucking waste of life itself; the drone of other voices reflecting the tick-tick-tick of mortality's clock. And it's asking you: what are you doing here? Don't you realise you'll be dead soon? You may have had this experience yourself: there's a regular meeting you have to attend, but it's not clear what the meeting is for. Invariably, there will be one or two people there who will extemporise at length; and not because there is some pressing point they need to make. They just like talking. For them, it's not a functional exchange of information, more like a bit of a chat. Meanwhile, you keep your phone in your lap, and exchange gossipy messages with people at the same meeting. Not that meetings can't be useful, or even necessary. It's just that all too often they are meetings for the sake of it; which can result in a decision to have another meeting. I'm far from the first person to point this out. There's any number of management guru types offering advice on how to make the system more effective. It's become something of a cottage industry, along with studies on how much time and money is wasted going to meetings. According to figures from the US , the majority of employees spend a third of their week at them, which in turn costs the American economy $37 billion (€31.5 billion) a year. [ I was unfazed by a near car crash, so why does a dental visit leave me quivering? Opens in new window ] The higher up the management chain you go, the more meetings you attend: to the point, presumably, when you do nothing but attend meetings. You spend your day discussing work, but you don't actually do any. Management gurus will argue that this is merely the result of dumb habit: all it requires is to take the (supposedly) counterintuitive step of scheduling fewer meetings. You'd wonder why so many large companies, bent on maximising productivity, haven't figured that out already. It could be that meetings have another, unspoken function. Forcing employees to waste their time by attending reminds them who the boss is. And for those bosses, it's a display of status, a function of busyness culture: where being run off your feet is an unquestioned good; a way of marking the worth of a life. Imagine lying on your death bed and thinking: I've had a good run. I went to a lot of meetings.
