O/T - general election 2019

[howdydoo]

Yes, regularly

But I give on the hope that it ends up in the right places, but who knows?

That's the spirit Grist either give unconditionally or not at all[/QUOTE]

How grateful.

[Timbertop]

What is the qualifying criteria for using a food bank ? Or can anybody take advantage ?

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

What is the qualifying criteria for using a food bank ? Or can anybody take advantage ?

If any food banks exist that allows people to walk in off the street then they need shutting down.
The better ones have a referral system, Charities, Social Workers, Income etc.
The system can be abused the same as everything else, it’s catching the ‘ scammers’

[great_fire]

Wouldn't need food banks if people prioritised their spending better that's true.

Some of the poorest people I know are chain smokers.

Fags are over £10 a pack now.

[great_fire]

A Tory councillor said the exact same thing twelve months ago and then had to eat humble pie when invited to do the job.
Bit like spending millions on foreign aid ( not necessary) and we don’t know what it’s all being used for.

Some of it goes to India, who have a space programme but millions of people in abject poverty and thousands of homeless children.

Priorities wrong again.

[ragingpup]

Stock answer when people don't want to contribute

Have you ever given to a food bank Grist?

Yes, regularly.

A friend of mine used to volunteer one.

He gave it up because he saw too many receiving the benefit that didn't need it. He had one guy once say hello to him in the local store. The needy guy was buying lottery tickets.

But I give on the hope that it ends up in the right places, but who knows?[/QUOTE]


Most food banks (Trussell Trust) operate with vouchers given from local services. Not sure about others that might have been set up locally around the country. In my experience, there is a vast number of people who fall back on these and whilst they are largely quite chaotic people, much mental illness and drug addicts, there are a significant minority of working people on low or unreliable pay, especially single mums. Similiar picture at Stratford watery stew distribution point (soup kitchen) - large numbers of chaotic people who eat and stay there over night, but you'd be amazed at the number of people who have their work clothes next to them and arise in the morning to go to work.

There are of course some who abuse it and do as your friend said. Folk can be incredibly random. But great that you continue to support them despite this. It is really crucial to so may of folk in genuine need and it'd be awful that they lose out on support that they can't get anywhere else due to some tossers.

[animallittle3]

I am completely getting the economics. Unlike you however I am accepting the IFS warnings but also weighing them up with alternative viewpoints from other economists (dress it up all you like but the three people I linked to are all economists) and balancing a whole picture which I find risky but on balance of the risks that we know are inherent in taking the conservative manifesto approach, keeping the same track and continuing to underfund essential services and in turn leading to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of countless more UK citizens, I am (despite my stated reservations on how Labour have over reached) hoping that voters opt to try something different. Whereas you are simply presenting the IFS findings as the whole picture and as a certainty.

I think it quite possible that tax hike on business could result in a mixture of some firms taking hit on profits and protecting customers/employees/shareholders, some will do a mixture of all of these. Some that are able to will move to wherever they can find where they can retain their present profit rates. But corporation tax would still, at the maximum increase, be where it was in 2010 and companies traded then. WE have in recent years (40 years) traded business profits at the expense of social services and infrastructure and we need to redress the balance. There will be winners and losers under these proposals, and it is likely that there will be impact in jobs/shares/pensions/prices as the balance is re-addressed. But the market will still operate to create wealth and jobs, keep prices competitive and keep employees happy. For those that lose out to whatever extent in shares/pensions/prices we have the benefits of vastly improved services, health and social care, technology and transport infrastructure etc. We can holler questions and arguments at each other til we’re blue in the face. We aren’t going to convince each other. The bottom line is that I am willing to take the risk for change (and it isn’t just taking risks with other people’s money, this affects my job too) but you feel the risk is too foolishly big to take. That’s fair enough. But that does mean that you will be left with the same deterioration as before as services struggle to keep up with demand. Maybe you could join Fire’s side and argue to remove immigrants? I can’t think of anything else that you could do. You’re repeated failure to tell me what you would like to see happen, from any party, to improve public services and care suggests that you have no idea, that it isn’t politically solvable and therefore you support doing nothing? I know a party that supports that!

It's another one of those today's economy speaks for ALL .

It's an assumption that companies will put prices up and pass the tax on to consumers or depress workers pay .

For that to happen ALL companies would have to have a total monopoly so they could force consumers and workers to take the pain .

No such monopoly exists even in this day and age , workers can resist wage cuts and consumers can't be forced in to buying more expensive goods .

So it's yet another view full of flaws .

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I'm told that Germany has as many food banks as we have

[KerrAvon]

Ohhh Kerr a bit of humility wouldn't go a miss.Come on, you must have some faults somewhere. Don't your friends and family get fed up of you always being "perfect"?

I think that you are intellectually above arguments of other poster in that you are bright enough to know that if you swamp them with facts and figures (lifted from dubious sources) and misquoting/ misusing them in a rambling way you will beat your foes into submission eventually. This is largely because after a while you know they will lose the will to live and give up arguing back. A clever tactic to win an argument certainly. I should try it on our lass!. Only raging pup and Wanchai on here have the patience to wade through the nonsense. But it works on me so credit to you for that...I gave in a long time ago.

.and you will still always be a hero of mine ...

WanChai asked the question and I gave him an honest answer. I could have lied in order to appear humble, but what would be the point of that.

We all have different skills. I am quite bright, but can’t play any sport that requires hand/eye coordination and nobody who knows me would ask me to do any DIY for them, but Wan didn’t ask about that.

Do you have examples of me using dodgy sources and misrepresenting them? It’s not me who puts up links to Russia Today, Skawkbox and the Canary and I think you will find that my wordcount is dwarfed by someone who does...

[KerrAvon]

I am completely getting the economics. Unlike you however I am accepting the IFS warnings but also weighing them up with alternative viewpoints from other economists (dress it up all you like but the three people I linked to are all economists) and balancing a whole picture which I find risky but on balance of the risks that we know are inherent in taking the conservative manifesto approach, keeping the same track and continuing to underfund essential services and in turn leading to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of countless more UK citizens, I am (despite my stated reservations on how Labour have over reached) hoping that voters opt to try something different. Whereas you are simply presenting the IFS findings as the whole picture and as a certainty.

I think it quite possible that tax hike on business could result in a mixture of some firms taking hit on profits and protecting customers/employees/shareholders, some will do a mixture of all of these. Some that are able to will move to wherever they can find where they can retain their present profit rates. But corporation tax would still, at the maximum increase, be where it was in 2010 and companies traded then. WE have in recent years (40 years) traded business profits at the expense of social services and infrastructure and we need to redress the balance. There will be winners and losers under these proposals, and it is likely that there will be impact in jobs/shares/pensions/prices as the balance is re-addressed. But the market will still operate to create wealth and jobs, keep prices competitive and keep employees happy. For those that lose out to whatever extent in shares/pensions/prices we have the benefits of vastly improved services, health and social care, technology and transport infrastructure etc. We can holler questions and arguments at each other til we’re blue in the face. We aren’t going to convince each other. The bottom line is that I am willing to take the risk for change (and it isn’t just taking risks with other people’s money, this affects my job too) but you feel the risk is too foolishly big to take. That’s fair enough. But that does mean that you will be left with the same deterioration as before as services struggle to keep up with demand. Maybe you could join Fire’s side and argue to remove immigrants? I can’t think of anything else that you could do. You’re repeated failure to tell me what you would like to see happen, from any party, to improve public services and care suggests that you have no idea, that it isn’t politically solvable and therefore you support doing nothing? I know a party that supports that!

Okay, I’ve spotted your misunderstanding. You say: I think it quite possible that tax hike on business could result in a mixture of some firms taking hit on profits and protecting customers/employees/shareholders. How exactly do you think that is possible? The profits made by a company provides the money for distribution to its shareholders and for investment in the business and so, by definition reducing profits makes it impossible to do both of those things to the same level as before. So if you are protecting pay and prices (how?), you are talking either a hit on pension funds hit or on investment (for which read jobs) or both. And, of course, if you reduce profits then you reduce the tax take...

It’s quite simple, raging. Unless you go full on Socialist and simply print money in order to spend it then the money for services has to come from somewhere. Labour are selling the myth that ‘someone else’ is going to pay and a further myth that the someone else is the rich...

WE have in recent years (40 years) traded business profits at the expense of social services and infrastructure How do you work that out? I think there may be another misunderstanding to be diagnosed...