I found a Sainsbury's receipt from 1981 in a second-hand bag - people can't believe how much prices have changed
A receipt dating back to 1981 was found inside a vintage bag bought by a charity shopper.
The anonymous shopper took to Reddit, where they shared their fascinating find with others.
They posted an image of the now 44-year-old sales slip in the r/CasualUK forum, accompanying it with a short post.
Their post simply read: 'Got a vintage bag from a charity shop, got more excited about the sainsbury receipt left inside from 1981.'
The receipt was a fascinated throwback, and a good reminder of how much everyday items have changed over recent decades.
One Reddit commenter pointed out how well the item was maintained - despite being around 44-years-old.
They wrote: 'I'm impressed at how well the ink held up and they were still using the half penny.'
Another noted that this is because the retro receipt was printed with traditional ink (as opposed to the thermal ink now used on receipts).
They explained: 'It's proper ink, will last forever if properly stored. Not like the thermal receipts you get now which fade after a few years or less if exposed to sun or heat.'
A further commenter was intrigued by the use of old currency.
They wrote: 'Love the fact stuff appears to be be priced in some cases at a half penny.'
In response, another Redditor said: 'Because there were 1/2 pennys then.'
This observation prompted a conversation about new currency.
February 15, 1971 is known as 'Decimal Day', as it marks the day British currency changed from the old system of pence, shillings and pounds, to the decimal system of pennies and pounds.
However, as another Redditor pointed out: 'It's half a new pence, different from an old pre decimal ha'penny. They're what you bought sweets with in the 70s.'
Half pennies were phased out after decimalisation - in 1984 - as inflation and the cost of production meant they were no longer considered economically viable.
Meanwhile, another Reddit user was shocked that the sales bill only dated back to the 80s, as they initial thought it was much older.
They wrote: 'It's like we are looking at a war time receipt. It's 1981 for God's sake lol. I was born a year after this was printed. I was reading the post thinking "do they mean 1940's receipt?". I thought currency was in its current form at this point with maybe the old pound coin and bigger 50 and ten pence coins. That's what I remember from my childhood, but I guess the change happened when I was very young.'
Others noted that the total bill came to a considerable amount of money when converted to reflect how much it would be worth now.
One said: '£41 in today's money is around £205.'
Another was curious about the purchases made, which are not identified on the receipt.
They wrote: 'Ahh right. Would be even better if we could see what they actually bought to confirm value but that's no small amount of cash. Thank you.'
'There are some pretty expensive things on there. I'm guessing that they are meat. I can't think of anything else that would be over £5 in a supermarket. It's not as if they sold clothes or household appliances then,' one mused.
Other suggested the more expensive items could be alcohol.
'Bottles of spirits would have been 5 or 6 quid,' one commenter suggested.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
41 minutes ago
- Sky News
The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms
When push comes to shove, the question of whether British industry faces crippling tariffs on exports to the US or enjoys a unique opportunity to grow may come back to three seemingly random words: "melted and poured". To see why, let's begin by recapping where we are at present in the soap opera of US trade policy. Donald Trump has just doubled the extra tariffs charged on imports of steel and aluminium into the US from 25% to 50%. In essence, this would turn a painfully high tariff into something closer to an insurmountable economic wall (remember during the Cold War, the Iron Curtain equated to an effective tariff rate of just under 50%). Anyway, the good news for UK steel producers is that they have been spared the 50% rate and will, for the time being, only have to pay the 25% rate. But there is a sting in the tail: that stay of execution will only last until 9 July - on the basis of President Trump's most recent pronouncements. 1:00 For anyone following these events from the corner of their eyes, this might all sound a little odd. After all, didn't Sir Keir Starmer announce only a few weeks ago that British steel and aluminium makers would be able to enjoy not 25% but 0% tariffs with America, thanks to his bold new trade agreement with the US? Well, yes. But the prime minister wasn't being entirely clear about what that meant in practice. Because the reality is that every trade agreement works more or less as follows: politicians negotiate a "heads of terms" agreement - a vague set of principles and red lines. There then follows a period of horse-trading and negotiation to nail down the actual details and turn it into a black and white piece of law. In this case, when the PM and president made their big announcement 28 days ago, they had only agreed on the "heads of terms". The small print was yet to be completed. Right now, we are still in the horse-trading phase. Negotiators from the UK and the US are meeting routinely to try and nail down the small print. And that process is taking longer than many had expected. To see why, it's worth drilling a little bit into the details. The trade deal committed to allowing some cars to pass into the US at a 10% rate and to protecting some pharmaceutical trade, as well as allowing some steel and aluminium into the US at a zero tariff rate. When it comes to cars, there are some nuances about which kind of cars the deal covers. Something similar goes for pharmaceuticals. Things get even knottier when you drill into the detail on steel. 2:13 You see, one of the things the White House is nervous about is the prospect that Britain might become a kind of assembly point for steel from other countries around the world - that you could just ship some steel to Britain, get it pressed or rolled or worked over and then sent across to the US with those 0% tariffs. So the US negotiators are insisting that only steel that is "melted and poured" in the UK (in other words, smelted in a furnace) is covered by the trade deal. That's fine for some producers but not for others. One of Britain's biggest steel exporters is Tata Steel, which makes a lot of steel that gets turned into tin cans you find on American supermarket shelves (not to mention piping used by the oil trade). Up until recently, that steel was indeed "melted and poured" from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. But Tata shut down those blast furnaces last year, intending to replace them with cleaner electric arc furnaces. And in the intervening period, it's importing raw steel instead from the Netherlands and India and then running it through its mills. Or consider the situation at British Steel. There in Scunthorpe they are melting and pouring the steel from iron made in their blast furnaces - but now ponder this. While the company has been semi-nationalised by the government, it is still technically a Chinese business, owned by Jingye. In other words, its steel might technically count as benefiting China - which is something the White House is even more sensitive about. 👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Anne's wherever you get your podcasts 👈 You see how this is all suddenly becoming a bit more complicated than it might at first have looked? This helps to explain why the negotiations are taking longer than expected. But this brings us to the big problem. The White House has indicated that Britain will only be spared that 50% tariff rate provided the trade deal is finalised by 9 July. That gives the negotiators another month and a bit. That might sound like a lot, but now consider that that would be one of the fastest announcement-to-completion rates ever achieved in any trade negotiations in modern history. There's no guarantee Britain will actually get this deal done in time for that deadline - though insiders tell me they think they could be able to finalise it in a piecemeal fashion: the cars one week, steel another, pharmaceuticals another. Either way, the heat is on. Just when you thought Britain was in the safe zone, it stands on the edge of jeopardy all over again.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Wales' papers: Grandparents on trial and cat flap burglar
Copyright 2025 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Bereaved families of dead pensioners could be pursued over winter fuel payments
Bereaved families of tens of thousands of dead pensioners could be pursued by tax officials to recoup winter fuel payments under a new system being explored by the Treasury, the Guardian has learned. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, confirmed on Wednesday that more pensioners will get winter fuel payments reinstated this year after weeks of uncertainty over the government's decision to make a U-turn on scrapping the benefit. Ministers are looking at restoring the payments as a universal benefit and then recouping the money when high-income pensioners fill in their tax returns, as creating a new means test would be a highly complex option. However, government insiders are concerned about a time lag of at least six months between the payment of up to £300 being made and it then being clawed back. It is feared that thousands could have died in that time, leaving grieving families to pick up the bill. One source said: 'We should never have scrapped the winter fuel payment in the first place, but the whole process of reinstating it has been completely chaotic. The optics of us demanding the money back from grieving families are dire.' The chancellor has brought forward confirmation of the change to the £11,500 income threshold over which pensioners are no longer eligible for the benefit to next week's spending review from the autumn budget, after a backlash against one of the most unpopular policies of the Labour government. In a further attempt to win public support and quell Labour backbench concerns, ministers are announcing on Thursday that all pupils in England whose families claim universal credit will be eligible for free school meals under an expansion of the scheme. Hundreds of thousands more children across the country will be able to access means-tested free school meals when the provision is extended from September 2026, after campaigners and school leavers urged ministers to take action on child poverty amid fears of delays. Reeves has already launched a charm offensive to persuade fractious Labour MPs that her spending review will not be a return to austerity, announcing £15bn for trams, trains and buses outside London as part of a £113bn investment in capital projects over the rest of the parliament. The chancellor wants capital spending to be at the centre of the government's narrative at the review next week in an acknowledgment that MPs, many of them in marginal seats, need a better economic story to address rising discontent among the public. Nearly 2.1 million pupils – almost one in four of the total in England – were eligible for free school meals in January 2024. The Department for Education has said more than half a million more children are expected to benefit from the expansion, with nearly £500 put back into parents' pockets every year. It suggested that the expansion will lift 100,000 children across England completely out of poverty, with the move being the most effective way of tackling the issue outside the benefits system. Keir Starmer has said the government will look at scrapping the two-child benefits limit. 'It is the moral mission of this government to tackle the stain of child poverty, and today this government takes a giant step towards ending it with targeted support that puts money back in parents' pockets,' the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said. The expansion of free school meals was almost universally welcomed by anti-poverty campaigners and teaching unions. Nick Harrison, chief executive of the Sutton Trust, said: 'This is a significant step towards taking hunger out of the classroom. 'Children can't learn effectively when hungry, so this announcement not only helps to tackle the effects of child poverty, but will also likely help improve education outcomes for disadvantaged young people.' Kate Anstey, at the Child Poverty Action Group charity, said: 'This is fantastic news and a gamechanger for children and families. At last, more kids will get the food they need to learn and thrive and millions of parents struggling to make ends meet will get a bit of breathing space.' Asked about the winter fuel payment after a speech in Rochdale, Reeves told reporters: 'We have listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means test, and so we will be making changes to that; they will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter. 'We'll announce the detail of that and the level of that as soon as we possibly can. But people should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get a winter fuel payment this winter.' The option of paying all pensioners a winter fuel payment and then asking for wealthier people to repay the money is a similar approach to that taken by the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne when he reduced child benefit eligibility for better-off parents. A senior official at HMRC, Jonathan Athow, confirmed to the Treasury select committee on Wednesday that if the tax system was used to make the changes, it would not be possible until next year. 'We'd have to get to April next year before we knew somebody's income, before we could then make any decisions about how [recouping the payment] would then be implemented,' he told MPs. The government's reversal came despite Downing Street denying that it would make changes to winter fuel payments after the Guardian revealed that it was rethinking the cut amid anxiety at the top of government that the policy could wreak serious electoral damage. The chancellor also hinted at tensions between cabinet colleagues saying she had had to turn down spending requests as she struggled to balance the books. 'Not every department will get everything that they want next week,' she said, 'and I have had to say no to things that I want to do too.' Just two Whitehall departments are still to agree their multi-year budgets with the Treasury before the spending review, the Guardian understands, with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, holding out on policing and social housing budgets. She also ruled out bending her fiscal rules, as some Labour MPs have urged her to do, and which she acknowledged would be the subject of much discussion over the coming days. It means that tax rises or further spending cuts are more likely this autumn.
