[News] Food Poverty figures in Worthing

[Guinness Boy]

Skip food? yes, but skip the latest iphone, Tattoos, nails, Starbucks and McFlurries? No.

Ah, the deserving and undeserving poor argument. Surprised it took that long.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

err, why do you need a smart phone to get a job ?

Employers use emails,and text messages. A lot of first interviews are by telephone now.

 

[Simster]

and i cant believe Germany has no charity. for a start they have food banks that 1.7million use.

I didn’t say Germany has no charity, they say there should be no need for charities.

Clearly there IS charity in Germany, but we give over 3 times as much as they do, per head (and 5 times as much as France).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation

We rely far too much on charity donations here, primarily because Conservative governments don't tend to do sensible taxation.

 

[schmunk]

We rely far too much on charity donations here, primarily because Conservative governments don't tend to do sensible taxation.

Do you mean higher earners should be taxed more, or lower earners taxed less?

 

[beorhthelm]

Clearly there IS charity in Germany, but we give over 3 times as much as they do, per head (and 5 times as much as France).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation

We rely far too much on charity donations here, primarily because Conservative governments don't tend to do sensible taxation.

there was a 13 yr period recently without a Conservative government - were charity or taxation significantly different? as i recall tax as % of GDP is fairly constant going back decades.
its an interesting contrast, that apparently we'll happy donate money but reluctant to have it taken.

 

[Simster]

Do you mean higher earners should be taxed more, or lower earners taxed less?

I mean that across the board, we don't pay nearly enough tax. I have given up trying to see my GP, they are so swamped and impacted by covid, sports facilities at state schools are not good enough and class sizes are too high, the state of our roads is getting ever worse, the government lies about the number of police and NHS workers it is going to add because they won't admit they've slashed numbers over the past decade in cutting taxes, and of course we are now reliant on food banks in a way we've never been in my lifetime - the graph here says it all:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8585/

there was a 13 yr period recently without a Conservative government - were charity or taxation significantly different? as i recall tax as % of GDP is fairly constant going back decades.
its an interesting contrast, that apparently we'll happy donate money but reluctant to have it taken.

I knew you'd say that. 75% of my life has been under Tory rule. The simple fact is that charity is habit forming. Nobody stops their £5 direct debit to the World Wildlife Fund just because Labour have been elected do they?

And as "we'll happy donate money but reluctant to have it taken" doesn't sound right either, seeing as this government has hiked VAT more times than I care to remember and have never ever lowered it. All those juicy contracts for Tory chums won't just pay for themselves I guess.

What you should probably have said was "we'll happy donate money but reluctant to have it taken directly from our pay packets, but people are too thick to realise that our government tends to take it when you buy stuff anyway"

 

[zefarelly]

Do you mean higher earners should be taxed more, or lower earners taxed less?

I'd go with a bit of both and a more linear sliding scale . . . . . very personally, taxing over 50% up to say £200k ( a very nice income) is a bit of a disincentive . . . thereafter tax higher . . . anyone over 25 earning less than say £25k isn't earning a proper living wage . . . . so tax should be negligible . . . . NI needs to go up and everythone pays the same 10% or whatever to ensure decent services, for all.

 

[Happy Exile]

That's a pretty accurate (and depressing) summary of the problem but there's no solution in that post. We can't just increase wages and, even if we could, there would be huge inflationary pressure as a result, meaning interest rates would rise and no one would be able to afford property.

Any property price decrease would also be largely artificial while interest rates are low and many people now only have their equity as their pension. It's as much a vote loser as winner, both to the current older generation and the young people hoping to inherit or borrow from the bank of Mum and Dad.

Yep, I don't have a solution that works. I'm not sure there is one in terms of property. Working out a fairer system of council tax and making the basic utilities necessary for life much cheaper would help reduce some of the burden on people though. Property is the biggest chunk of expense for most people I'm guessing, but the accumulation of regular annual cost increases outstripping real wage growth can perhaps be addressed.

 

[zefarelly]

Employers use emails,and text messages. A lot of first interviews are by telephone now.

I went back to being an employee nearly 2 years ago . . . you need email and a phone agreed, but not a smart phone, and definitely not text.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Yes, you are right. There is little point arguing about who owns the existing stock, except to say that perhaps those who are sympathetic to right-wing market economics would do well to admit that those policies created the problem in large part. Letting people buy council owned houses at a massive discount without replacing that stock has been a disaster.

So why doesn't more housing stock ever get built? Well the answer is simple - home owners tend to vote Tory, but building more houses in the vicinity of those people tends to upset those very same people. Therefore, the Tories do nothing for fear of upsetting their core support - they are like rabbits caught in headlights.

That's fairly easily solved. There are only a few Tories on Brighton council, and there must be quite a number of available spaces to build. If additional houses are needed, and it's only the Tory voters that are stopping more, then build them in Brighton where there aren't enough Tory voters to stop it.

Or perhaps we might find that Green and Labour voters don't like houses in their back yard either?

 

[Acker79]

I went back to being an employee nearly 2 years ago . . . you need email and a phone agreed, but not a smart phone, and definitely not text.

Wouldn't the people complaining people have phones, they should be using that money on food, be complaining more if they also have a separate internet account and laptops or PCs? Smart phones allow them to communicate by email (and video chats) without the need for an expensive internet service at home or laptop/pc/tablet etc. A smart phone allows them access to online job vacancy sites, it allows them access to word processors and cloud storage from where they can store and send their CVs and application forms.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

That's fairly easily solved. There are only a few Tories on Brighton council, and there must be quite a number of available spaces to build. If additional houses are needed, and it's only the Tory voters that are stopping more, then build them in Brighton where there aren't enough Tory voters to stop it.

Or perhaps we might find that Green and Labour voters don't like houses in their back yard either?

With Brighton, a national park and the sea to the north and south have meant there's very little space for development. The brownfield sites which exist are largely snapped up.

 

[Simster]

That's fairly easily solved. There are only a few Tories on Brighton council, and there must be quite a number of available spaces to build. If additional houses are needed, and it's only the Tory voters that are stopping more, then build them in Brighton where there aren't enough Tory voters to stop it.

Or perhaps we might find that Green and Labour voters don't like houses in their back yard either?

It's home owners that don't like homes built on their doorsteps, and the percentage of home owners voting Tory is much higher than the national average. I thought I'd made that point pretty clear.

Brighton & Hove is already built up, what with it being a city and all that. The issue is more prominent in country areas (where the home owners really do vote Tory), and where there is land available but the pressure on schools and amenities as well as fear of general overcrowding and traffic leaves people very non-plussed when houses are built.

 

[Gwylan]

That's fairly easily solved. There are only a few Tories on Brighton council, and there must be quite a number of available spaces to build. If additional houses are needed, and it's only the Tory voters that are stopping more, then build them in Brighton where there aren't enough Tory voters to stop it.

Or perhaps we might find that Green and Labour voters don't like houses in their back yard either?

There's some truth in this. I live in Coldean (two Green councillors and one Labour) and the residents are up in arms about some low cost housing being built on the edge of the estate. However, there have been many other proposed housing developments in the city (King Alfred's, Benfield, Ovingdean) that are in pre-dominantly Tory areas and they have met with even more objections.

The real problem is that everything is geared towards London and the south-east. If the entire civil service moved to Birmingham, say. And the media and advertising industry moved to Manchester and the finance sector moved to Leeds, there wouldn't be so much demand for housing.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That's fairly easily solved. There are only a few Tories on Brighton council, and there must be quite a number of available spaces to build. If additional houses are needed, and it's only the Tory voters that are stopping more, then build them in Brighton where there aren't enough Tory voters to stop it.

Or perhaps we might find that Green and Labour voters don't like houses in their back yard either?

Brighton can old build on brownfield because it has a National Park to the north (South Downs), and the sea to the south.
The coastal strip either side belongs to other councils.

Buildings like the old Coop, are being converted to student housing. There is nowhere to build on.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Get down the beach with your inflatable and you're guaranteed three meals a day
Regards
DF

Not funny old boy, even by your own high comedic standards.

 

[Randy McNob]

This could also help explain the inbalance in the system

[tweet]1420759299542851588[/tweet]

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

This could also help explain the inbalance in the system

[tweet]1420759299542851588[/tweet]

Your point is a bit unclear. Those property interests are lobbying to build more houses. This would constrain property prices…You can’t complain about insufficient house building then oppose developer attempts to do just that.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Brighton can old build on brownfield because it has a National Park to the north (South Downs), and the sea to the south.
The coastal strip either side belongs to other councils.

Buildings like the old Coop, are being converted to student housing. There is nowhere to build on.

Fair enough. I suppose what we need is a Labour government that can build a Brighton-sized city in a solid Tory area where they don't care how many votes they lose.

We don't have anything like the same house price problem up here. Fortunately.

 

[stewart12]

That's fairly easily solved. There are only a few Tories on Brighton council, and there must be quite a number of available spaces to build. If additional houses are needed, and it's only the Tory voters that are stopping more, then build them in Brighton where there aren't enough Tory voters to stop it.

Or perhaps we might find that Green and Labour voters don't like houses in their back yard either?

there's pretty much nowhere to build in Brighton