National News Conservative Party

[OUFCwaffle]

Oh, so you can't say Brexiteers didn't know what they were voting for but you can say people are poor because they can't cook. I'm glad that's clear.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524385813525667841

To an extent he has a point, my partner and I can usually survive comfortably on £20-30 in food for the week because we don't buy meat, ready meals or snacks, waste nothing, cook in bulk and have leftovers for lunches.

But I know people who spend 4-5x more than we do because they can't be bothered to learn how to cook some simple ingredients together.

That said many do not even have that £20-30.

 

[chuckbert]

To an extent he has a point, my partner and I can usually survive comfortably on £20-30 in food for the week because we don't buy meat, ready meals or snacks, waste nothing, cook in bulk and have leftovers for lunches.

But I know people who spend 4-5x more than we do because they can't be bothered to learn how to cook some simple ingredients together.

That said many do not even have that £20-30.

There's two things going on here, however. It is extremely admirable and testament to your life skills that you can do this, and it would outstanding if more people were able to apply the same motivation and skills to live sustainably. I remember doing weekly shopping with my mum, going round 5 or 6 shops because she knew where the best prices for everything were - probably saving 10% on the weekly bill, and sharing her pride in the fact.

The other side of the coin, however is that there is a substantial part of the UK who spend more like 20-30 quid per day, and enough to make you cry that spend over 20-30 quid per meal. Where one sits on this is political: at one extreme, complete redistribution of wealth regardless of value; at the other, unregulated market-based economy.

I think that food banks represent a signal lurch towards the latter, and it is unacceptable in a civilised country. What leads the UK to having foodbanks is market pay rates being too low. During the 80s, 90s, you could see how this puts more profits in the pockets of business owners and shareholders, and puts a greater burden on taxation, which is critical for the economics of less-well-off households. As if that situation wasn't bad enough we have gone the extra step where taxation can no longer shoulder the burden of underpaying people such that charity takes over. That is morally bankrupt, and the UK should hang its head in shame.

The UK's plutocratic government makes its next play again, slamming anyone who says taxation is the solution, because they know that people who struggle to balance the weekly budget are scared shitless of losing more income to the exchequer. It's a false argument, because the taxation simply needs to be of the rich. By rich I don't even mean "people who may get to the end of their lives and still be in a financial position to pass on their property to the kids", which is quite high up the foodchain. I mean the people who literally can't spend it fast enough - there are a lot, and they can be taxed harder.

They'll leave the country if we ask them to pay a fair tax? Bye-bye!

 

[chuckbert]

Another thought. I'm not an economist, but surely every extra penny you give someone on marginal income is guaranteed to go straight back into the local economy and probably generate some VAT too. Even if you are of the mind that people are feckless and shouldn't be buying ready meals and fast food, if they are basically guaranteed to be spending extra money on that, they will be directly supporting their local economy and providing jobs for their peers.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I'm not sure food banks stock ready meals in any case. It is all ingredients to actually make meals.

So his ridiculous point is doubly stupid.

He's been an embarrassment wherever he's been, whatever he's said and whatever he's been involved with. He likes the idea of forced labour camps, co-signed a letter coining the phrase "cultural marxism" and has been investigated for antisemitism. He's a rabid Brexiteer and Covid denier, voting against many of the Governments lockdown measures.

And yet the Conservatives welcomed him with open arms, made him candidate and he won an election as an MP. He's a modern Tory, red in tooth and claw and just another example of how low the bar is and how desperate they are to win at all cost. Sod any decency, morals or proberty....it's the W that counts. If there is anyone who deserves to be branded as feckless, it is not people forced into using food banks, it is people like him.

 

[QR]

To an extent he has a point, my partner and I can usually survive comfortably on £20-30 in food for the week because we don't buy meat, ready meals or snacks, waste nothing, cook in bulk and have leftovers for lunches.

But I know people who spend 4-5x more than we do because they can't be bothered to learn how to cook some simple ingredients together.

That said many do not even have that £20-30.

There's two things going on here, however. It is extremely admirable and testament to your life skills that you can do this, and it would outstanding if more people were able to apply the same motivation and skills to live sustainably. I remember doing weekly shopping with my mum, going round 5 or 6 shops because she knew where the best prices for everything were - probably saving 10% on the weekly bill, and sharing her pride in the fact.

The other side of the coin, however is that there is a substantial part of the UK who spend more like 20-30 quid per day, and enough to make you cry that spend over 20-30 quid per meal. Where one sits on this is political: at one extreme, complete redistribution of wealth regardless of value; at the other, unregulated market-based economy.

I think that food banks represent a signal lurch towards the latter, and it is unacceptable in a civilised country. What leads the UK to having foodbanks is market pay rates being too low. During the 80s, 90s, you could see how this puts more profits in the pockets of business owners and shareholders, and puts a greater burden on taxation, which is critical for the economics of less-well-off households. As if that situation wasn't bad enough we have gone the extra step where taxation can no longer shoulder the burden of underpaying people such that charity takes over. That is morally bankrupt, and the UK should hang its head in shame.

The UK's plutocratic government makes its next play again, slamming anyone who says taxation is the solution, because they know that people who struggle to balance the weekly budget are scared shitless of losing more income to the exchequer. It's a false argument, because the taxation simply needs to be of the rich. By rich I don't even mean "people who may get to the end of their lives and still be in a financial position to pass on their property to the kids", which is quite high up the foodchain. I mean the people who literally can't spend it fast enough - there are a lot, and they can be taxed harder.

They'll leave the country if we ask them to pay a fair tax? Bye-bye!

Excellent post.

I would add that I beleive the rot starts with a society that accepts that it's OK for a working person to be paid so low a wage that they are entitled to benefits. What people often miss is that this is actually subsidising the employer, many of whom will be large multinationals making billions in profit, some of which is allowed by this government (and previous ones) to be off shored for, ahem , "tax efficiency reasons". The system is designed to benefit the rich and hammer the poor.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

And don't forget this:



The full report can be viewed here: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/publi...ities-across-socio-economic-groups-data-story

What ignorant Anderson said was the modern day version of "Let them eat cake" with the added twist that they have to make the cake for themselves.

And I wonder if he said this after his heavily subsidised breakfast in one of several top notch HoC restaurants, or after a Gove style long lunch in one of the said Restaurants followed by a few sharpeners in the heavily subsidised HoC bar?

Or maybe he went out for lunch and claimed it all back on expenses

 

[Berliner]

Let's also not forget the story from the Red Wall before the past election where someone said they would vote Tory because "there were no food banks here when Labour was in power, so the Tories are doing a good job in setting them up".

Thick as (value-brand) mince!

 

[QR]

Let's also not forget the story from the Red Wall before the past election where someone said they would vote Tory because "there were no food banks here when Labour was in power, so the Tories are doing a good job in setting them up".

Thick as (value-brand) mince!

That's offal.

 

[MC Yellow]

At last, a perfect visual representation of this threads title.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524144670959411202

I can’t get over the irony of that picture.

Really struggling to see what there is to celebrate about opening another food bank.

Cutting a bloody ribbon ffs.

 

[MC Yellow]

Tax rich people properly.

What tax rates and thresholds would you set?

 

[QR]

To an extent he has a point, my partner and I can usually survive comfortably on £20-30 in food for the week because we don't buy meat, ready meals or snacks, waste nothing, cook in bulk and have leftovers for lunches.

But I know people who spend 4-5x more than we do because they can't be bothered to learn how to cook some simple ingredients together.

That said many do not even have that £20-30.

I'm not sure Tory MP Lee Anderson was espousing enforced vegetarianism. We know how our own local Tories insist on meat being part of meals (check out Oxon CC)

But I'd love to know how you can comfortably eat on your average i.e £25 pw. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, liquid refreshment, etc for two. That's 60p per meal. Enlighten me and I'll pass it on to Mrs QR.

 

[Marston Road yellow]

A banker a politician a worker and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 biscuits on a plate. The banker takes 19 and slips 3 to the politician. The politician says to the worker vote for me before that immigrant nicks your biscuit.

I know it’s old but it’s still very, very true.

 

[chuckbert]

A banker a politician a worker and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 biscuits on a plate. The banker takes 19 and slips 3 to the politician. The politician says to the worker vote for me before that immigrant nicks your biscuit.

I know it’s old but it’s still very, very true.

At the moment I'm not sure the distinction between banker and politician applies ...

 

[Marston Road yellow]

What tax rates and thresholds would you set?

What do you think taxing the rich actually means?

Rich means different things to different people.

Apparently only 5% of the world population have a a bank account. This ins generally seen as the first benchmark.

For me I would think large companies posting massive profits, and individuals earning millions.

There are groups of these people demanding that they be taxed more.

The difference with previous systems is weath distribution.

For example Lord Nuffield became rich by making a product and because he had to employ lots of people to make that product, lots of people made a living from it and whilst he became rich it wasn’t obscenely so.

Bill gates made a world wide product and initially needed relatively few people to develop it and therefore became obscenely rich, without the need to share much if any of it.

I get that bill has his foundations and stuff and others (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos )maybe better examples.

Any criteria is bound to be woolly, however a government needs to start with any sort of intent to tax people that “earn” more money than they’ll ever need.

This one has none of that intent

 

[OUFCwaffle]

I'm not sure Tory MP Lee Anderson was espousing enforced vegetarianism. We know how our own local Tories insist on meat being part of meals (check out Oxon CC)

But I'd love to know how you can comfortably eat on your average i.e £25 pw. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, liquid refreshment, etc for two. That's 60p per meal. Enlighten me and I'll pass it on to Mrs QR.

Lots of rice and pasta based dishes. You can buy that stuff in bulk and it lasts forever, so you only need to top up with the fresh stuff.

Buy your veg loose as it's cheaper, otherwise you're paying 2 or 3x more for a plastic wrapper. When you get tins of stuff look around for the non-branded stuff. In Aldi you can get chopped tomatoes for 20p a tin, and other stuff like beans and chickpeas for around 40p per tin. You'll be surprised how many different dishes you can make with beans, peppers, courgettes, mushrooms, onions etc. All of which are dirt cheap.

And when we fancy having some fish we go to the fish counter because usually they have deals on and it is almost always cheaper than buying the pre-packaged stuff. Go at half 3 on a Sunday and it's half price.

I get the large tubs of peanut butter for £5 that I have with porridge (big bag for about £1) for breakfasts, so I rarely need to restock on that stuff.

Every night we cook enough for 4 so that we have leftovers the next day for lunch.

 

[chuckbert]

What tax rates and thresholds would you set?

Don't honestly know (modelling etc), but instantly switching the top rate from 45% to 60% would make a contribution. Thatcher reduced the top rate from 83% to 60% when she got in so its hardly revolutionary.

 

[QR]

Lots of rice and pasta based dishes. You can buy that stuff in bulk and it lasts forever, so you only need to top up with the fresh stuff.

Buy your veg loose as it's cheaper, otherwise you're paying 2 or 3x more for a plastic wrapper. When you get tins of stuff look around for the non-branded stuff. In Aldi you can get chopped tomatoes for 20p a tin, and other stuff like beans and chickpeas for around 40p per tin. You'll be surprised how many different dishes you can make with beans, peppers, courgettes, mushrooms, onions etc. All of which are dirt cheap.

And when we fancy having some fish we go to the fish counter because usually they have deals on and it is almost always cheaper than buying the pre-packaged stuff. Go at half 3 on a Sunday and it's half price.

I get the large tubs of peanut butter for £5 that I have with porridge (big bag for about £1) for breakfasts, so I rarely need to restock on that stuff.

Every night we cook enough for 4 so that we have leftovers the next day for lunch.

OK if my closest "low priced" supermarket is five miles away or more have you taken into account the cost of petrol/car ownership/taxi into your calculations? It's a real cost for many rural poor.

 

[OUFCGav]

What do you think taxing the rich actually means?

Rich means different things to different people.

Apparently only 5% of the world population have a a bank account. This ins generally seen as the first benchmark.

For me I would think large companies posting massive profits, and individuals earning millions.

There are groups of these people demanding that they be taxed more.

The difference with previous systems is weath distribution.

For example Lord Nuffield became rich by making a product and because he had to employ lots of people to make that product, lots of people made a living from it and whilst he became rich it wasn’t obscenely so.

Bill gates made a world wide product and initially needed relatively few people to develop it and therefore became obscenely rich, without the need to share much if any of it.

I get that bill has his foundations and stuff and others (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos )maybe better examples.

Any criteria is bound to be woolly, however a government needs to start with any sort of intent to tax people that “earn” more money than they’ll ever need.

This one has none of that intent

Microsoft initially needed relatively few people (all of whom became massively rich - most of whom less philanthropic) but does now employ over 180000 people. Average salary in Microsoft is somewhere around $100k
Amazon employs 1.6 million people. Bezos philanthropy averages somewhere around $2bn/year.

The biggest thing that could be done is to bring taxation into line with the modern global economy. The idea that a global company can channel all its income from one country via another country, thus avoiding tax in the country of origin is ridiculous. The fact that they can structure it in such a way that a multi-million pound operation can be "seen" to be making a "loss" in one country because it pays fees to the same organisation in another country, and therefore is able to claim tax relief is bonkers (Starbucks in UK got a £4.4million tax credit in 2020 - they claimed a net loss of £41m despite a gross profit of £32m, the difference being an unspecified "administrative expense" of £70m)

 

[Concretebob]

I can’t get over the irony of that picture.

Really struggling to see what there is to celebrate about opening another food bank.

Cutting a bloody ribbon ffs.

Did not realise so many people would be happy about it too!

 

[MC Yellow]

What do you think taxing the rich actually means?

Rich means different things to different people.

Apparently only 5% of the world population have a a bank account. This ins generally seen as the first benchmark.

For me I would think large companies posting massive profits, and individuals earning millions.

There are groups of these people demanding that they be taxed more.

The difference with previous systems is weath distribution.

For example Lord Nuffield became rich by making a product and because he had to employ lots of people to make that product, lots of people made a living from it and whilst he became rich it wasn’t obscenely so.

Bill gates made a world wide product and initially needed relatively few people to develop it and therefore became obscenely rich, without the need to share much if any of it.

I get that bill has his foundations and stuff and others (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos )maybe better examples.

Any criteria is bound to be woolly, however a government needs to start with any sort of intent to tax people that “earn” more money than they’ll ever need.

This one has none of that intent

It is a massively complex problem and a balancing act between incentivising growth, investment and the general willingness to work harder, earn more money/pay more tax and buy more things (subject to vat) Etc.

Which is why it will never be considered fair for everyone.

I agree that there comes a point where you have so much money what could you possibly spend it on, but as you say, we do also have philanthropists who want to give something back.

But if you remove the incentive to work harder (because all you‘re doing is working for the government coffers) or remove encouragement for businesses to grow, employ more people etc (because all the extra profits go in taxes) what have you got left?