Cost of living crisis.

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I just had a email from nationwide to say they are sharing their profits with their members and therefore in June I'll be getting £100. 

 

Imagine a world where this could be the model, and not a pleasant surprise. 

 

It doesn't mean profits are made, and I'm sure not all of nationwide profits are going back to members, but a cap on shareholder profits, an allowance for investments and the rest being diverted back to customers. 

 

Profit isn't bad, but the insane amounts of profit some companies make, and the fact that they then get distributed to those who are already in the top 1% means that inequality continues to grow at the expense of the other 99%. it's immoral and completely unfair. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-18/singapore-air-hands-staff-eight-months-salary-bonus-after-record-results

[dsr-burnley]

23 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I just had a email from nationwide to say they are sharing their profits with their members and therefore in June I'll be getting £100. 

 

Imagine a world where this could be the model, and not a pleasant surprise. 

 

It doesn't mean profits are made, and I'm sure not all of nationwide profits are going back to members, but a cap on shareholder profits, an allowance for investments and the rest being diverted back to customers. 

 

Profit isn't bad, but the insane amounts of profit some companies make, and the fact that they then get distributed to those who are already in the top 1% means that inequality continues to grow at the expense of the other 99%. it's immoral and completely unfair. 

The practical difficulties are huge.  For example, a company which is making profits at the cap and which can expand even further to make more and more profits, will still do the expansion; but they will make sure that they do it via an overseas company employing people abroad, because then they'll be allowed to make a profit.  As the North Sea "windfall tax" has shown, once you start taxing profits at extreme levels (75% in that case) you certainly achieve them having less to pay the shareholders, but you also encourage them not to employ any new staff.  However much we might feel people are being exploited by their employers, most people would rather have a wage than not.

[RobHawk]

14 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The practical difficulties are huge.  For example, a company which is making profits at the cap and which can expand even further to make more and more profits, will still do the expansion; but they will make sure that they do it via an overseas company employing people abroad, because then they'll be allowed to make a profit.  As the North Sea "windfall tax" has shown, once you start taxing profits at extreme levels (75% in that case) you certainly achieve them having less to pay the shareholders, but you also encourage them not to employ any new staff.  However much we might feel people are being exploited by their employers, most people would rather have a wage than not.

Personally I'm not all about taxing profits, the main reason being is that I don't think the government can be trusted to spend it well enough. 

 

So I'm not talking about taxes, I'm talking about sharing profits with customers. Like a dividend but to a user rather than a shareholder. 

 

But the world is set up so that this will never happen, not will taxes, the rich will keep getting richer and we will keep getting poorer. **** knows what the end game will be but I don't think it will be pretty. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

The practical difficulties are huge.  For example, a company which is making profits at the cap and which can expand even further to make more and more profits, will still do the expansion; but they will make sure that they do it via an overseas company employing people abroad, because then they'll be allowed to make a profit.  As the North Sea "windfall tax" has shown, once you start taxing profits at extreme levels (75% in that case) you certainly achieve them having less to pay the shareholders, but you also encourage them not to employ any new staff.  However much we might feel people are being exploited by their employers, most people would rather have a wage than not.

A couple of comments on the bolded:

 

- Absolutely correct, but this is a reason to close such tax loopholes, rather than forego the problem entirely

- More and more folks may feel like they have precious little to lose if the current trend continues, especially if vital resources begin to become strained (which they might, depending on action taken).

[filthyfox]

4 hours ago, RobHawk said:

I just had a email from nationwide to say they are sharing their profits with their members and therefore in June I'll be getting £100. 

 

Imagine a world where this could be the model, and not a pleasant surprise. 

 

It doesn't mean profits are made, and I'm sure not all of nationwide profits are going back to members, but a cap on shareholder profits, an allowance for investments and the rest being diverted back to customers. 

 

Profit isn't bad, but the insane amounts of profit some companies make, and the fact that they then get distributed to those who are already in the top 1% means that inequality continues to grow at the expense of the other 99%. it's immoral and completely unfair. 

It does make you wonder where the profits went before,  doesn't it?  I've been a member for 34 years and this is the only thing I've ever got out of them!

[FoyleFox]

3 hours ago, filthyfox said:

It does make you wonder where the profits went before,  doesn't it?  I've been a member for 34 years and this is the only thing I've ever got out of them!

I've been a member for 45 years and the tight bastds aren't giving me anything!

[dsr-burnley]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

A couple of comments on the bolded:

 

- Absolutely correct, but this is a reason to close such tax loopholes, rather than forego the problem entirely

- More and more folks may feel like they have precious little to lose if the current trend continues, especially if vital resources begin to become strained (which they might, depending on action taken).

Except that people have far more than they used to.  The poor aren't getting poorer in the sense of having fewer possessions.

 

The problem with closing tax loopholes is that what I suggested barely counts as a loophole.  If a rich person sees a way to get richer by selling loads of goods around the world, he or she can set up a factory in this country where he wouldn't get any benefit from it, or could set it up abroad where he would benefit.  Unless there is to be a global tax rate, that loophole can't be closed.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Except that people have far more than they used to.  The poor aren't getting poorer in the sense of having fewer possessions.

 

The problem with closing tax loopholes is that what I suggested barely counts as a loophole.  If a rich person sees a way to get richer by selling loads of goods around the world, he or she can set up a factory in this country where he wouldn't get any benefit from it, or could set it up abroad where he would benefit.  Unless there is to be a global tax rate, that loophole can't be closed.

- Is that's true, then there's no real "cost of living crisis" at all and this is all fabricated because....reasons, perhaps. Is that what's being implied here?

 

- A global tax rate is exactly what it would take, yes. Sadly, the world is still too disparate, distrustful and nationalistic for that to be anywhere near a possibility for the time being.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

- Is that's true, then there's no real "cost of living crisis" at all and this is all fabricated because....reasons, perhaps. Is that what's being implied here?

 

- A global tax rate is exactly what it would take, yes. Sadly, the world is still too disparate, distrustful and nationalistic for that to be anywhere near a possibility for the time being.

OECD countries are literally planning the introduction of a 15% minimum tax rate, whereby the parent country will tax any profits from countries with below 15% tax rate at 15%.  So anything you make in say Panama, Australia will be able to tax at 15%.  Also worth noting the zero corporation tax nations like UAE are being strongly encouraged to bring in those rates.  It takes time, but the appetite it there and progress is being made.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

OECD countries are literally planning the introduction of a 15% minimum tax rate, whereby the parent country will tax any profits from countries with below 15% tax rate at 15%.  So anything you make in say Panama, Australia will be able to tax at 15%.  Also worth noting the zero corporation tax nations like UAE are being strongly encouraged to bring in those rates.  It takes time, but the appetite it there and progress is being made.

That's good to know, perhaps some progress is being made, then.

[dsr-burnley]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

- Is that's true, then there's no real "cost of living crisis" at all and this is all fabricated because....reasons, perhaps. Is that what's being implied here?

 

- A global tax rate is exactly what it would take, yes. Sadly, the world is still too disparate, distrustful and nationalistic for that to be anywhere near a possibility for the time being.

The cost of living crisis is because people are spending or have spent more money than they are getting in.  I've asked more than once, not just on here, for a proper case study of someone who is receiving all statutory benefits and still has no room in their budget to cut costs, and still has no option to visit food banks.  I've never seen one.  

 

I'm not denying that people haven't as much money as they want to spend on food.  But unless the government literally gives away food in the way that charities do now, or unless the government issues a blank cheque for anyone to receive all the benefits they want, there will always be people who will want to use or need to use food banks.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The cost of living crisis is because people are spending or have spent more money than they are getting in.  I've asked more than once, not just on here, for a proper case study of someone who is receiving all statutory benefits and still has no room in their budget to cut costs, and still has no option to visit food banks.  I've never seen one.  

 

I'm not denying that people haven't as much money as they want to spend on food.  But unless the government literally gives away food in the way that charities do now, or unless the government issues a blank cheque for anyone to receive all the benefits they want, there will always be people who will want to use or need to use food banks.

I think that's totally fair to ask.

 

However, likewise I think it might be fair to ask for similar proofs regarding your first sentence here, unless the deductive reasoning is that absence of evidence for the former proves the latter?

 

My personal take is that while personal responsibility is a factor as it always is, there most certainly are other factors at work to create the current problems, some of which are bigger in magnitude.

[dsr-burnley]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

However, likewise I think it might be fair to ask for similar proofs regarding your first sentence here, unless the deductive reasoning is that absence of evidence for the former proves the latter?

Does Mr Micawber count as definitive proof?  The first sentence to me is self evident.  People are short of money because they are spending more than they have available; if they spent less they wouldn't be short of money.  

 

Where it gets complicated is when we drill down to the reasons.  I'm not necessarily making any judgement as to why they are spending more than they have got.  Maybe commitments from brought forward debts, maybe desire that their children shouldn't miss out on what other children get, maybe they have so little that no-one could get by on it.  Maybe they don't know how to save money by cooking fresh food, maybe they can't be bothered or don't have time.  Maybe a higher proportion than ever before are attempting the difficult task of bringing up children as single parents.  All sorts of reasons.

 

Mortgage rates going up must be a beggar, but food banks pre-date that.  Availability of credit and the lack of stigma of being in debt is definitely a factor; if you're borrowed to the hilt and your income (or other expenses) take a hit, then you've no wriggle room.  There will be some people who have cut all reasonable costs and still can't cope, there will be others who are not budgeting properly or who don't know how to save or who simply can't stop themselves from spending and that's why they can't cope.  

 

One stat that was in the Daily Telegraph but I can't find it on the internet - in the 1950's, one third of the average household income went on food.  As of about 5 years ago, it was 8%.  It will have gone up since, I dare say, but only to 10% or so.  Food prices, regardless of food bank usage and so on, are cheaper than ever.  It's not the high price of food in comparison with the past, that is causing suffering.

[Samilktray]

Super Noodles on offer for £1 in asda

 

A POUND

 

ON OFFER

 

One great British pound for a farty packet of super noodles is an offer

 

this country is broken and I am truly sick

 

(I did not, and do not buy super noodles) 

[Parafox]

If you're on means tested benefits or any qualifying occupation take a look here:

 

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=1ed3e6b07d391438JmltdHM9MTY4NDU0MDgwMCZpZ3VpZD0zOWYwYjUxYS1jZWYwLTZmMGEtMjE1YS1hNzdjY2ZkNzZlOTgmaW5zaWQ9NTIwNw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=39f0b51a-cef0-6f0a-215a-a77ccfd76e98&psq=the+company+shop&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY29tcGFueXNob3Bncm91cC5jby51ay8&ntb=1

 

I qualify as NHS worker, albeit retired. We got the card today and went for a look. As long as you aren't too picky there's some decent stuff to be had. It's a bit hit and miss it seems, as they don't have regular rotational stock. It's whatever they get given or buy from surplus, I think. There's M&S and Waitrose Morrison's food products among other names. As an example, we bought a 7 kilo bag of dry cat food for £18. We worked out that the equivalent weight in the bags from Asda would have cost £35.

 

A 24 box of Peroni, £18.

 

8 pork loin steaks £3.50. 

 

Got a decent Merlot that would have cost £15 for £9.

 

The place is on the old British Shoe on Scudamore Road industrial estate.

[filthyfox]

Went over Swinford Bridge today.... is a toll bridge.

 

Cost me 5p in my car

[Bellend Sebastian]

In today's episode of "Are they taking the piss? I suspect they are", standard size jar of Douwe Egberts now £9.25 at Morrisons.

 

I'm sure they've done their sums and this makes sense to them, but I used to buy it all the time and now I simply won't

[Foxdiamond]

5 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Does Mr Micawber count as definitive proof?  The first sentence to me is self evident.  People are short of money because they are spending more than they have available; if they spent less they wouldn't be short of money.  

 

Where it gets complicated is when we drill down to the reasons.  I'm not necessarily making any judgement as to why they are spending more than they have got.  Maybe commitments from brought forward debts, maybe desire that their children shouldn't miss out on what other children get, maybe they have so little that no-one could get by on it.  Maybe they don't know how to save money by cooking fresh food, maybe they can't be bothered or don't have time.  Maybe a higher proportion than ever before are attempting the difficult task of bringing up children as single parents.  All sorts of reasons.

 

Mortgage rates going up must be a beggar, but food banks pre-date that.  Availability of credit and the lack of stigma of being in debt is definitely a factor; if you're borrowed to the hilt and your income (or other expenses) take a hit, then you've no wriggle room.  There will be some people who have cut all reasonable costs and still can't cope, there will be others who are not budgeting properly or who don't know how to save or who simply can't stop themselves from spending and that's why they can't cope.  

 

One stat that was in the Daily Telegraph but I can't find it on the internet - in the 1950's, one third of the average household income went on food.  As of about 5 years ago, it was 8%.  It will have gone up since, I dare say, but only to 10% or so.  Food prices, regardless of food bank usage and so on, are cheaper than ever.  It's not the high price of food in comparison with the past, that is causing suffering.

I would think that for some the high housing costs a factor. Not only mortgages but private rents. We need more social housing at reasonable rents that people can afford. Not everybody in council housing for example is on benefits and living rent free. They are working and paying rent but the money is not going into the pockets of private landlords.

[Daggers]

I refused to pay £2.50 for cheesy Doritos in order to make cheesy nacho jalapeños refritos nonsense - so I bought a £30 curry. Fvck you 1Stop, I hope you learn your lesson. 

[dsr-burnley]

23 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I would think that for some the high housing costs a factor. Not only mortgages but private rents. We need more social housing at reasonable rents that people can afford. Not everybody in council housing for example is on benefits and living rent free. They are working and paying rent but the money is not going into the pockets of private landlords.

Especially as the government is determined to drive small private landlords out of business.  There are many tenants going to be put out on the streets in the near future because of the new tenancy act, and the cost of upgrading properties to get the energy efficiency certificate.  So many private tenants will be unable to get mortgages because of age, credit history, or simply because they aren't capable of handling one, and they will presumably have to put up with whatever council house (if any) they can get.

 

I only know one tenant personally, my next door neighbour.  Her property (a 3-room corner terrace) has rating F.  She doesn't care what the rating is, and she doesn't want to be thrown out on the streets because the government disagrees with her idea of what makes a nice home.

 

And I know one landlord, and their tenant is the type who (when the bathroom lights failed) had the bright idea of getting a table lamp and an extension lead, and perching the lamp on the end of the bath.  (Don't try this at home, children!)  They are happy to explain to the landlord that they can't pay the rent this week because they have just booked a holiday, and they can't pay for the next two weeks either because they will be away.  They are amiable idiots, basically.  

 

Has the government even considered that in making war on landlords, they are making their tenants suffer more?  The landlord will have to sell up and take the cash.  The tenant will be homeless.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Does Mr Micawber count as definitive proof?  The first sentence to me is self evident.  People are short of money because they are spending more than they have available; if they spent less they wouldn't be short of money.  

 

Where it gets complicated is when we drill down to the reasons.  I'm not necessarily making any judgement as to why they are spending more than they have got.  Maybe commitments from brought forward debts, maybe desire that their children shouldn't miss out on what other children get, maybe they have so little that no-one could get by on it.  Maybe they don't know how to save money by cooking fresh food, maybe they can't be bothered or don't have time.  Maybe a higher proportion than ever before are attempting the difficult task of bringing up children as single parents.  All sorts of reasons.

 

Mortgage rates going up must be a beggar, but food banks pre-date that.  Availability of credit and the lack of stigma of being in debt is definitely a factor; if you're borrowed to the hilt and your income (or other expenses) take a hit, then you've no wriggle room.  There will be some people who have cut all reasonable costs and still can't cope, there will be others who are not budgeting properly or who don't know how to save or who simply can't stop themselves from spending and that's why they can't cope.  

 

One stat that was in the Daily Telegraph but I can't find it on the internet - in the 1950's, one third of the average household income went on food.  As of about 5 years ago, it was 8%.  It will have gone up since, I dare say, but only to 10% or so.  Food prices, regardless of food bank usage and so on, are cheaper than ever.  It's not the high price of food in comparison with the past, that is causing suffering.

I would certainly agree that food cost is not the only factor here as that seems pretty obvious, and you make good arguments.

 

However, I stand by the idea that this is a systemic problem as well as an individual one, and it and increasing income/wealth disparity are linked, because (as you state yourself) there are people who have cut all reasonable costs and still can't cope. There are people who are having a great deal of trouble just to get the essentials (food, power, accommodation) through little or no fault of their own, and for that a bigger issue requires examination and addressing, I think.

[UniFox21]

10 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I would think that for some the high housing costs a factor. Not only mortgages but private rents. We need more social housing at reasonable rents that people can afford. Not everybody in council housing for example is on benefits and living rent free. They are working and paying rent but the money is not going into the pockets of private landlords.

Rent is honestly ridiculous, everywhere I look is either extremely cheap because the area is awful or highly priced for anything that's in a moderately okay area. 

 

Something needs to be done to alter the amount being charged by private landlords, to make things actually affordable.

[Foxdiamond]

36 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Rent is honestly ridiculous, everywhere I look is either extremely cheap because the area is awful or highly priced for anything that's in a moderately okay area. 

 

Something needs to be done to alter the amount being charged by private landlords, to make things actually affordable.

The housing charity Shelter gives a clear stark argument for more council housing. Their website gives the facts about the housing crisis in this country 

[dsr-burnley]

13 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Rent is honestly ridiculous, everywhere I look is either extremely cheap because the area is awful or highly priced for anything that's in a moderately okay area. 

 

Something needs to be done to alter the amount being charged by private landlords, to make things actually affordable.

Build more houses.

 

At present the population is increasing faster than the housing stock, which makes it inevitable that prices will rise. The government is making it harder and more expensive to be a landlord, and that will drive up prices as well. If they accepted that we need to build a lot more homes and make it easier to be a landlord, then rents would fall. (I'm not advocating the return of Rackman, just that they should take away the artificial discouragements to small landlords like the mortgage restrictions, the stamp duty surcharge, and the environmental grade C rating.)

[Heathrow fox]

On 20/05/2023 at 18:13, dsr-burnley said:

Does Mr Micawber count as definitive proof?  The first sentence to me is self evident.  People are short of money because they are spending more than they have available; if they spent less they wouldn't be short of money.  

 

Where it gets complicated is when we drill down to the reasons.  I'm not necessarily making any judgement as to why they are spending more than they have got.  Maybe commitments from brought forward debts, maybe desire that their children shouldn't miss out on what other children get, maybe they have so little that no-one could get by on it.  Maybe they don't know how to save money by cooking fresh food, maybe they can't be bothered or don't have time.  Maybe a higher proportion than ever before are attempting the difficult task of bringing up children as single parents.  All sorts of reasons.

 

Mortgage rates going up must be a beggar, but food banks pre-date that.  Availability of credit and the lack of stigma of being in debt is definitely a factor; if you're borrowed to the hilt and your income (or other expenses) take a hit, then you've no wriggle room.  There will be some people who have cut all reasonable costs and still can't cope, there will be others who are not budgeting properly or who don't know how to save or who simply can't stop themselves from spending and that's why they can't cope.  

 

One stat that was in the Daily Telegraph but I can't find it on the internet - in the 1950's, one third of the average household income went on food.  As of about 5 years ago, it was 8%.  It will have gone up since, I dare say, but only to 10% or so.  Food prices, regardless of food bank usage and so on, are cheaper than ever.  It's not the high price of food in comparison with the past, that is causing suffering.

The 30% of household income on food stat you keep quoting.Does it take into account that most households were single income?