Gransnet forums

News & politics

Too many British families are hungry!

(552 Posts)
CvD66 Tue 27-Feb-24 13:55:32

According to Food Foundation tracker, 15% of UK households, approx 8m adults and 3m children, experienced food insecurity in January, as food prices continued to hit low-income families. (Today’s Guardian).
The report states that 60% of households bought less fruit and 44% less vegetables. Already the NHS has recorded an increase in hospital admissions for nutrition deficiency. Cancer UK has estimated there are 33,000 extra cases of cancer in UK associated with deprivation.
In contrast to this, the UK has 171 billionaires.
Is this really a country we can be proud of?

Eloethan Thu 07-Mar-24 23:33:11

There is no point in raising the minimum wage, usually by a paltry amount, when, at the other end of the spectrum the very wealthiest continue to receive disproportionately huge increases in their income year on year. The gap continues to grow. We see the result now - ever-declining public services, resulting in an increasingly sick population and a reduction in life expectancy, a dissatisfied and demoralised workforce, an education system on its knees and decent housing - whether owned or rented - a distant dream for increasing numbers of individuals and families.

MissAdventure Tue 05-Mar-24 14:15:31

A living wage is no good if three quarters of it is taken up in rent.

It means people who earn decent pay are then having to claim benefits to line the pockets of people who may (or may not) have 120 such properties.

GrannyGravy13 Tue 05-Mar-24 14:12:33

Doodledog I think we both agree that the minimum wage should be increased to a living wage.

MaizieD Tue 05-Mar-24 14:06:07

Germanshepherdsmum

There are people in this country and on this forum who will never be satisfied until nobody is, by their definition, wealthy or has, by their definition, more than they need.

Money is a resource, GSM, not an end in itself. As such it has the ability to finance decent living standards for far more of the world's inhabitants than it does.

Also to provide resources to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, if this resource is increasingly monopolised by a small but powerful section of the global population the future looks grim for the rest of us and our children and grandchildren.

Like Dd, I have no problem with differentials, so long as they don't encompass excessive wealth and absolute poverty.

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 14:02:44

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog you posted

unnecessary items become more difficult for higher earners to afford, then so be it

I assume you do not want people to be aspirational, easy way to kill off any entrepreneurial activity.

No, I don't - wrong assumption. I have said more than once on this actual thread that I believe in differentials and reward for work. I am a notorious opponent of means testing, and far from being communist, but people seem determined to misinterpret what I say. I have pointed out (again on this thread) that IMO having more than necessities is a basic human need.

I agree that 'unnecessary items' is a poor choice of phrase, but I mean that it is immoral for some people to work all week and be unable to afford the essentials of life so that others don't suffer from price rises on things which are not essential to life. When everyone has enough to eat, society can move towards ensuring that more of the Maslow triangle is covered. There will always be those at the top with more, and that's ok with me, but it should not mean that the needs of those at the bottom are not met, particularly if they are working.

Either we subsidise food (earlier written off as a bad idea) or we increase wages, but something has to happen, surely?

GrannyGravy13 Tue 05-Mar-24 13:39:52

Sorry posted to soon.

Most work does pay a small percentage of employers do not pay the going rate. It’s these employers who need to be targeted, not the wealthy just because they are wealthy.

I totally agree with a safety net for those who are unable to work for whatever reason.

GrannyGravy13 Tue 05-Mar-24 13:36:52

Doodledog you posted

unnecessary items become more difficult for higher earners to afford, then so be it

I assume you do not want people to be aspirational, easy way to kill off any entrepreneurial activity.

Germanshepherdsmum Tue 05-Mar-24 13:29:08

‘Unnecessary items’. You’re really going to encourage captains of industry to bother working in this country.

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 13:24:23

Work does have to pay. But currently it doesn't. Increasing the living wage to a realistic level is morally and politically the thing to do. If that means that 'unnecessary' items become more difficult for higher earners to afford, then so be it.

Flexibility is good, too. Not zero hours, though - it has to be a two way street, so that workers can rely on earnings being consistent.

Germanshepherdsmum Tue 05-Mar-24 13:17:33

Precisely. Asking for more tax to be paid is simply asking for benefits to be increased. If you’re comfortable enough on benefits and are able to do a full week’s work, where’s the incentive? Work has to pay.

GrannyGravy13 Tue 05-Mar-24 13:07:56

Doodledog

*The wealthier should be capable of taking care of themselves.*
Oh, they are - and of taking care of one another. they should also be taking care of those in need (which some, of course, do voluntarily), by paying more into the system that underpins the stability of the country. The wider the gap between rich and poor, the wobblier the foundations on which we all depend.

Constantly focusing on the wealthy does not help those who are lower paid.

Companies should pay their employees a decent wage (preferably above the minimum so called living wage) and they also need to be more flexible hours wise. Flexibility is easier in a big organisation but can also with forethought and careful planning work in smaller companies.

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 13:03:48

The wealthier should be capable of taking care of themselves.
Oh, they are - and of taking care of one another. they should also be taking care of those in need (which some, of course, do voluntarily), by paying more into the system that underpins the stability of the country. The wider the gap between rich and poor, the wobblier the foundations on which we all depend.

TinSoldier Tue 05-Mar-24 13:01:58

SeaWoozle: Is it legal to avoid tax?

It is illegal to evade tax but not to avoid tax as sanctioned by tax law.

Closing tax loopholes can sometimes be seen as tinkering around the edges of tax reform but small reforms add up.

Here’s an example from Tax Justice UK.

Video Games Tax Relief (VGTR) cost a record £197 million in 2022. Despite being designed as a relief to help independent developers produce “culturally British” games, evidence shows it is large, often multinational firms that are benefitting. HMRC data shows that claims over £500,000 account for 88% of the total amount paid out. And one big company in particular seems to benefit from the lion's share: US-owned company Rockstar, who produce Grand Theft Auto, revealed it obtained almost £80 million in VGTR in 2021-2022 - 41% of all VGTR paid out in the UK.

Maybe £197 million doesn’t sound a lot in the great scheme of things. But my local council has had to budget £800 million for 2024/25 to pay for 16,000 people needing adult social care.

Abolishing VGTR could pay for the care of 4000 vulnerable people. Rockstar’s tax break for 2021-2022 alone would have paid for the care of 1600 people.

thegamer.com wrote under the heading The 15 Most Despicable Acts Committed In Grand Theft Auto … Even among the violent video games out there, theGrand Theft Autoseries stands in a class all its own. One feature of the game is paying for sex and then murdering the sex worker to take the money back. Another is walking up to a person or group of people and start swinging a bat, shooting, swinging a blade, or whatever. You can rack up quite a body count.

Whether playing violent video games impacts on real life behaviour is much debated and a subject for a separate topic but one can’t help wondering why the Treasury is giving special tax breaks to makers of this kind of stuff?

TaxWatch reported that Rockstar Games has not paid any corporation tax in the UK in ten years, despite making billions in profit.

The staggering amounts paid out to Rockstar Games was raised by Lord Prem Sikka in February 2022, speaking during a debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, he said:

According to its accounts, it has claimed £136.6 million in total in tax relief over the years. It has paid no corporation tax at all but has paid £67.5 million in dividends. Where exactly did those dividends come from? They came from picking the pockets of the British taxpayer. There is no other explanation for this. It does not seem to me that these kinds of tax reliefs are monitored. No evidence is provided by any government department to show what exactly the benefit to the UK economy is of this American company receiving all these tax reliefs.”

www.taxwatchuk.org/rockstar_games_tax_relief/

Baron Sikka is a British-Indian accountant and academic author of The pin-stripe mafia: how accountancy firms destroy societies.

Tax revenues are the life-blood of all democracies. Without these no state can alleviate poverty or provide social infrastructure, healthcare, education, security, transport, pensions and public goods that are necessary for all civilised societies. All over the world tax revenues are under relentless attack from a highly organised tax avoidance industry dominated by four accountancy firms: Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG and Ernst & Young. They employ thousands of individuals for the sole purpose of undermining tax laws which does not create any social value, but enables corporations and wealthy elites to dodge corporate tax, income tax, National Insurance Contributions (NIC), Value Added Tax (VAT) and anything else that might enable governments to improve the quality of life. ...

Despite judges outlawing their tax dodges, successive governments have failed to investigate the firms, or prosecute their partners. Instead, the partners of major accountancy firms are given peerages, knighthoods, public accolades and government consultancies, all funded by taxpayers. The same firms have colonised regulatory bodies, fund political parties and provide jobs for former and potential ministers. This penetration of the state has bought them political insurance and their anti-social practices continue to inflict enormous social damage.

GrannyGravy13 Tue 05-Mar-24 13:00:45

I think it would be best to focus on raising the wages of the lower paid. A happy and well paid workforce is far more productive.

The wealthier should be capable of taking care of themselves.

SeaWoozle Tue 05-Mar-24 12:59:40

Germanshepherdsmum

There are people in this country and on this forum who will never be satisfied until nobody is, by their definition, wealthy or has, by their definition, more than they need.

Untrue.

Who on earth NEEDS billions of pounds which they could never spend in a thousand lifetimes?

THAT'S the point I'm making.

What they choose to do with it is their prerogative.

BUT

Do I think they're morally corrupt to just allow so much money to sit idle, earning even more interest/money that most people wouldn't see in a lifetime?

Absolutely.

If you really have trouble seeing such inequality then, well, I don't know what else to say!!

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 12:59:18

Germanshepherdsmum

There are people in this country and on this forum who will never be satisfied until nobody is, by their definition, wealthy or has, by their definition, more than they need.

If that's a dig at me, then you're wrong.

I believe in pay differentials, and in work being rewarded. I think that there should be incentive for people to look after themselves and to save for the future, and have been castigated on here for saying so. At the same time, I think that in a rich country there is no excuse (never mind a reason) for people who do work (or who are unable to do so) to be unable to afford to eat. If the only way to stop that is to ask those who have a lot to give up some of it then yes, that is what should happen.

Germanshepherdsmum Tue 05-Mar-24 12:53:03

There are people in this country and on this forum who will never be satisfied until nobody is, by their definition, wealthy or has, by their definition, more than they need.

growstuff Tue 05-Mar-24 12:30:54

Chocolatelovinggran

The Norwegian perspective, shared by most that I have met , is interesting. It is, as most people know, a high tax country, with virtually no tolerance for the black economy , and a commitment to a living wage for all. Benefits are generous.
The consensus is that it is not good for anyone to be very poor, nor very rich. The tax paid by everyone is of public record and may be posted in the village hall for all to see.

It appears that in Norway most tax is on wealth and on purchases. Until recently, my partner worked 20% of his time for a Norwegian employer and only aid 11% of his income on tax. He doesn't live in Norway, so didn't pay the infamous high taxes at all.

MaizieD Tue 05-Mar-24 12:23:47

I don't think you're being controversial at all, Greta. I think there is great admiration for people who are wealthy, whether they have inherited wealth or 'made' it.

You'll notice on this forum that there is always a rush to defend 'wealth' while there is an equal rush to condemn 'the poor'.

Statistically, those who aspire to wealth are far more likely to end up poor than to end up wealthy grin

I came across an interesting interview this weekend; James O'Brien talking to someone called Gary Stevenson (it's just possible that there may be some people reading this who have heard of him, or even follow his youtube videos). Anyway, he's an Ilford born working class boy 'made good'. Hwas very good at maths, did economics degrees at the LSE And Oxford and ended up in The City where he became a top trader, earning £millions. But he jacked it all in some 20 years ago to campaign for a more equal distribution of wealth. His conclusion was that wealth attracted wealth and that the wealthy just sucked up all they could from the less wealthy, basically from consumers... Which confirmed what I have pointed out on several occasions..

He also says that most Economic theory bears little resemblance to real life, being based on learning sets of formulae based on unsubstantiated assumptions..

His interview with O'Brien is worth watching (or rather listening too because he has some irritating mannerisms which distract from what he is saying..)

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/full-disclosure-with-james-obrien/id1454408831?i=1000647605303

His youtube channel is called 'garyseconomics.

It's interesting...

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 12:09:26

The Chancellor of the Exchequer? They make those decisions now, surely? It's never going to be possible to legislate for what individuals want (or need, really) but budgets announce taxation strategies on a regular basis, so it's pretty clear who is to say what the deal is.

And no, of course it's not communism, as I am sure you are well aware. If not, maybe google 'Communism' for more information?

Germanshepherdsmum Tue 05-Mar-24 12:05:19

Who is to say at what point someone earning a high salary has all they need and most of what they want Doodledog? That is entirely subjective and certainly won’t encourage aspiration. It smacks of communism to me.

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 12:04:58

I'm not sure how a public tax record would go down here. Imagine the busybodies and the gossip - it's bad enough now that they can look up house prices on Zoopla 😂

Otherwise, I think that sounds very sensible.

Chocolatelovinggran Tue 05-Mar-24 11:58:58

The Norwegian perspective, shared by most that I have met , is interesting. It is, as most people know, a high tax country, with virtually no tolerance for the black economy , and a commitment to a living wage for all. Benefits are generous.
The consensus is that it is not good for anyone to be very poor, nor very rich. The tax paid by everyone is of public record and may be posted in the village hall for all to see.

Doodledog Tue 05-Mar-24 11:46:56

Germanshepherdsmum

Paying in what you can is a difficult concept, surely entirely subjective and most unlikely to be enshrined in law. I expect many of us could pay more tax, but who is to be the arbiter of how much that is for each individual or company? The word proportionate suggests to me that you would favour a return to the extremely high taxes of the past - around 90% in the 50s and 60s - for high earners.

I would, yes. Only above a certain level though. A level after which you have everything you need and most of what you want. It can't be right to have people working all week and still not having enough to eat when others have more than they can spend. It's immoral, and bad for society.

Greta Tue 05-Mar-24 11:38:26

This may be controversial but I think in this country many admire people who are wealthy. I have always found it strange that people in detached houses (even if that 'detachment' is only negligible) are more worthy than those in a terrace house or, heaven forbid, a flat. As a secondary school teacher I often talked to pupils about their aspirations. Many boys wanted to play for England because "you can earn millions. Girls often just wanted to be 'famous'. Perhaps ambitions have changed since then. I hope so.