food prices to rise

[The Bloop]

The pingdemic bollocks was used as a smokescreen, maybe the most obvious excuse ever used.

Covid has been a very useful distraction for how shite brexit has actually been.

You can try and defend is as much as you want but it without doubt on of the worst decisions ever made by a wealthy nation.

It's not just the UK that's experiencing HGV driver shortages either according to reports

The HGV driver shortage is due to a combination of factors, including both Covid and Brexit.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

It's not just the UK that's experiencing HGV driver shortages either according to reports

Indeed. Germany's 'Die Welt' website reports a shortage of between 45,000 and 60,000 HGV drivers.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/artic...kw-Fahrer.html

[Citizen's Nephew]

But should we subsidise people's poor choices?

I'm from a poor background. I have poor family and family on benefits.

I have family that already could not afford to provide adequately whilst on benefits but still chose to have more kids, continued to smoke and continued to make choices that puts them in a worse situation that they should have been.

As for providing food - it does take away the independence and I do appreciate Citizen's Nephew's posts. But on the flip side (if it was food boxes or vouchers instead of food banks) it not only shields people from the inflation of food we can also ensure that the families particularly the kids can have more nutritious and beneficial food rather than sacks of chicken nuggets and crispy pancakes.

This is really valid and I struggle with the personal choices of individuals and the consequences of those choices. I think it's all about the choice of words and our responsibilities as a society. Subsidise, to me, is a monetary term, and whilst I don't think for one minute you are personally doing it, if we're not careful 'subsidise' will become a derogatory term and used against all poor people in the way the term 'benefits' has been e.g. benefits scrounger.

I've made some awful choices in my life, choices I look back on and think 'who was that person?' However, we go through periods of education, learning and we are allowed to change our minds and hopefully make better choices. If we're lucky we're educated or have mentors or even come on message boards and learn new ways of doing things or new information. I don't want to see people punished for bad choices. Is it fair to criticise people for not feeding their kids properly when they are bombarded with images of gleeful, happy, healthy-looking families feeding those same nuggets or bargain buckets to happy smiling children?

Should we 'subsidise' people's healthcare when they are earning massive salaries but still feeding themselves junk food or are over-drinking and not looking after their own health? It starts to get difficult.

I don't want to see people punished for poor choices. I do want to see people helped and educated properly. But in a free market, advertisers lie and our governments support them. We then end up with food banks in wealthy societies.

I don't think we're on different pages here and I've said many times I'm big on personal responsibility. As a society, I'd like to see us forgive people's poor choices and help them.

[Feedback]

of course we allow business to pay less.

there are people in this country who work full time, sometimes more than one job but still require help from the government to get by.
this is effectively subsidising the businesses to allow them to pay a wage that is less than what is required to live on.

isn't this chicken and egg. Business having only so much they can pay staff because they have to pay up to half of all cash received in taxes. Lower taxes will mean more money available to pay staff. The more you tax business, the more business will look to pay lower wages.

[Croesy Blue]

Being in a bad situation can be caused by personal choices but there’s also a lot of luck involved. I only did well because I had good parents, found school easy and got lucky that I didn’t get involved with anyone dodgy at school.

It only takes one bit of bad luck or one poor choice to **** up your life. I’m happy to pay tax to support people who weren’t as lucky as I was. But there shouldn’t be a need for it, the majority of people would rather be working and earning.

[Feedback]

It’s getting worse by every measurable metric.

I don’t live in wales, how much of an effect do the welsh government really have? The Welsh labour party don’t seem to have done a great job but I think Westminster is just as much to blame if not more. It seems to just be party political point scoring from you which seems ironic after what you’ve said in this thread.

its not about party politics, its about those on the left quick to criticise Westminster (vis a vis the Tories) but appear to be looking the other way when any kind of analysis regarding Welsh Labour is needed.

Since Welsh Labour are responsible for economic development of Wales, and since they have more power and more funding than any other English region, we need to hold them accountable in the same way we need to hold Westminster accountable. however for most, accountability is not about holding the government to account, its about bashing the other side.

[Croesy Blue]

Mad that the U.K. government are blamed for the U.K. economy and levels of poverty.

Shows you just want an argument and to defend your party, transparent as ****.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Lower taxes will mean more money available to pay staff.

Or provide cheaper goods/services, or to end up in owner's pockets etc.

[Citizen's Nephew]

when I said income I meant wealth, the ability to feed yourself etc, and not necessarily disposable cash. you have also missed the point being made - why is it ok to receive benefits but not parcels from foodbanks? or let me put it another way, why is the use of benefits seen as being acceptable when we know the use of foodbanks is not?

read up about the orphan crushing machine, its a well-known trope on social media.

With respect, I feel I've missed your point because I feel you're giving mixed messages. You're asking rhetorical questions but coming up with no solutions. You say all the right things and imply that we, as a society, shouldn't have food banks, benefits, etc. which, to me, is like wishing for world peace, but at the same time, I've no idea what you're advocating as an alternative?

If we're going to have capitalism and the disproportionate accumulation of wealth by individuals who have obscene amounts of money and all the benefits that that wealth can give them, then we must, as a caring society, have a social means of security for the workers who help the employer accumulate those obscene amounts of personal wealth. We could call it......social security.

The real 'benefits' are the benefits that obscene amounts of personal wealth can bring the individual e.g. being able to perform a pointless vanity journey to space whilst other people are pointlessly dying because they didn't go to the right school and therefore they end up with substandard healthcare.

I checked out 'orphan crushing machine' and its meaning and context as I don't do Twitter, Facebook et al and haven't, for just over a decade now so it's not one I've read about or seen used in other media. I think you're citing it incorrectly though in your posts.

Like I said, I'd be more interested in your solutions.

[Feedback]

Mad that the U.K. government are blamed for the U.K. economy and levels of poverty.

Shows you just want an argument and to defend your party, transparent as ****.

my party? The Tories? are you for real, the sooner we see the back of this shower the better.

The Welsh government is (partly) responsible for development of the Welsh Economy, and therefore should be held (partly) accountable. Ditto Westminster.

Manchester and Andy Burnham are doing well, with fewer resources and powers at their disposal. maybe we could take a leaf out of their book.

[Feedback]

Or provide cheaper goods/services, or to end up in owner's pockets etc.

well yes, of course. that's why you tax the drawings of the business, and allow better tax relief on staff costs.

[Feedback]

With respect, I feel I've missed your point because I feel you're giving mixed messages. You're asking rhetorical questions but coming up with no solutions. You say all the right things and imply that we, as a society, shouldn't have food banks, benefits, etc. which, to me, is like wishing for world peace, but at the same time, I've no idea what you're advocating as an alternative?

If we're going to have capitalism and the disproportionate accumulation of wealth by individuals who have obscene amounts of money and all the benefits that that wealth can give them, then we must, as a caring society, have a social means of security for the workers who help the employer accumulate those obscene amounts of personal wealth. We could call it......social security.

The real 'benefits' are the benefits that obscene amounts of personal wealth can bring the individual e.g. being able to perform a pointless vanity journey to space whilst other people are pointlessly dying because they didn't go to the right school and therefore they end up with substandard healthcare.

I checked out 'orphan crushing machine' and its meaning and context as I don't do Twitter, Facebook et al and haven't, for just over a decade now so it's not one I've read about or seen used in other media. I think you're citing it incorrectly though in your posts.

Like I said, I'd be more interested in your solutions.

I never said I had solutions, my point was that the claim is that foodbanks are bad but welfare is good seems to be at odds with each other. Neither should be required in our society yet here we are. If you're claiming a handout what does it matter if its called welfare or foodbank? Its still a handout.

The likes of Bezos and Branson aren't indicative of business owners and whilst they own large amounts of wealth, this is not piles of cash but future earnings. I'm not advocating that the accumulation of such wealth is good for society, just pointing out that this wealth is not liquid.

what is the answer - well governments are starting to co-ordinate the issue of low tax jurisdictions in a global economy, which is long overdue. This should help combat profit shifting/BEPS.

we could also move towards an fully indirect taxation system - a system which targets those who spend on luxuries whilst ensures those who only spend on the basics aren't taxed at all. Indirect taxes are very difficult for the individual to avoid, and thus the wealthiest in society end up paying more tax at the point of consumption, rather than using various legal structures to avoid paying tax altogether.

[ToTaL ITK]

Firstly I didn't vote for brexit so not sure if the royal we at the beginning is relevant

Secondly food prices as well as other basics are already rising and having an impact on those on the poverty line (people who are in "work poverty" is rising as well)

So simply saying the British public need to step up is a bit simplistic

The British public have been doing their bit for decades while politicians took the piss and shat all over them.

[Citizen's Nephew]

I never said I had solutions, my point was that the claim is that foodbanks are bad but welfare is good seems to be at odds with each other. Neither should be required in our society yet here we are. If you're claiming a handout what does it matter if its called welfare or foodbank? Its still a handout.

The likes of Bezos and Branson aren't indicative of business owners and whilst they own large amounts of wealth, this is not piles of cash but future earnings. I'm not advocating that the accumulation of such wealth is good for society, just pointing out that this wealth is not liquid.

what is the answer - well governments are starting to co-ordinate the issue of low tax jurisdictions in a global economy, which is long overdue. This should help combat profit shifting/BEPS.

we could also move towards an fully indirect taxation system - a system which targets those who spend on luxuries whilst ensures those who only spend on the basics aren't taxed at all. Indirect taxes are very difficult for the individual to avoid, and thus the wealthiest in society end up paying more tax at the point of consumption, rather than using various legal structures to avoid paying tax altogether.

Thanks for your reply. I like the suggestions in your last paragraph. There's a lot of merit in what you suggest IMO.

Branson & Bezos are jarring (I kind of think Branson edges it because of him wanting a £500M government bailout for Virgin Atlantic though).

My problem is in your first paragraph though and relates back to the topic of this thread re. food prices. I can agree with what you mean in principle because I think you're saying the right things. It's just the language. Welfare and handouts, particularly handouts. If we could just call them help and support I'd feel more comfortable because it's hard enough for people to ask for help but handouts just feels degrading.

I'm happy to leave it with and agree with you that 'Neither should be required in our society yet here we are'.

[az city]

But should we subsidise people's poor choices?

I'm from a poor background. I have poor family and family on benefits.

I have family that already could not afford to provide adequately whilst on benefits but still chose to have more kids, continued to smoke and continued to make choices that puts them in a worse situation that they should have been.

As for providing food - it does take away the independence and I do appreciate Citizen's Nephew's posts. But on the flip side (if it was food boxes or vouchers instead of food banks) it not only shields people from the inflation of food we can also ensure that the families particularly the kids can have more nutritious and beneficial food rather than sacks of chicken nuggets and crispy pancakes.

Fair play, that's straight from the far right play(story)book. Basically you're demeaning the poor for being too thick for their own good and would curtail their choices. Only the rich may have children, smoke, drink etc?

Ask yourself the more fundamental question - why are these people poor?

[WJ99mobile]

Fair play, that's straight from the far right play(story)book. Basically you're demeaning the poor for being too thick for their own good and would curtail their choices. Only the rich may have children, smoke, drink etc?

Ask yourself the more fundamental question - why are these people poor?

I am far from a far right. In fact I am called the wishy washy lefty in work

All I am saying is that is there should be plenty of safety nets and support but people should be responsible for their actions.

Well why don’t we reduce the tax on smoking and drinking to zero then and improve peoples ‘choice’? Would you be in favour of that?

[the other bob wilson]

I am far from a far right. In fact I am called the wishy washy lefty in work

All I am saying is that is there should be plenty of safety nets and support but people should be responsible for their actions.

Well why don’t we reduce the tax on smoking and drinking to zero then and improve peoples ‘choice’? Would you be in favour of that?

Where do you work, Conservative Central Office?

[Feedback]

Fair play, that's straight from the far right play(story)book. Basically you're demeaning the poor for being too thick for their own good and would curtail their choices. Only the rich may have children, smoke, drink etc?

Ask yourself the more fundamental question - why are these people poor?

Whilst you may view his opinions as far right, to suggest this opinion is far right really does dilute the extremist positions those on the far right actually hold.

[Feedback]

Thanks for your reply. I like the suggestions in your last paragraph. There's a lot of merit in what you suggest IMO.

Branson & Bezos are jarring (I kind of think Branson edges it because of him wanting a £500M government bailout for Virgin Atlantic though).

My problem is in your first paragraph though and relates back to the topic of this thread re. food prices. I can agree with what you mean in principle because I think you're saying the right things. It's just the language. Welfare and handouts, particularly handouts. If we could just call them help and support I'd feel more comfortable because it's hard enough for people to ask for help but handouts just feels degrading.

I'm happy to leave it with and agree with you that 'Neither should be required in our society yet here we are'.

Fair point about the language used. It wasn't meant to be insulting or derogatory, although thinking about it maybe if we accept welfare as a handout, then it won't be so socially acceptable and more might be done to address why we have it and what can and should be done to remove its necessity.

Re: the orphan crushing machine - the Tories laud their achievement of reducing the numbers on welfare all the while ignoring the rise in use of food banks. Conversely Labour will reduce the use of foodbanks while ignoring the rise in those receiving benefits and welfare.

Neither party or its supporters can see that neither situation is desirable, and that we really should be looking to eradicate the need for such support systems in the first place.

[Croesy Blue]

Fair play, that's straight from the far right play(story)book. Basically you're demeaning the poor for being too thick for their own good and would curtail their choices. Only the rich may have children, smoke, drink etc?

Ask yourself the more fundamental question - why are these people poor?

Yep all the hallmarks of someone who’s been reading too much internet propaganda

[Feedback]

Yep all the hallmarks of someone who’s been reading too much internet propaganda

Do you really come to the comments section of a football forum to exact critical political discourse?

[WJ99mobile]

Where do you work, Conservative Central Office?

[JamesWales]

Makes me laugh (and slightly depresses me) when people try to shoe-horn Brexit into everything. It is a factor in lots of good and bad political and economic news, but it's rarely the defining feature, particularly compared to the pandemic.

Food prices are rising across the EU
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-f...-as-inflation/

There's been a huge rise in shipping costs. California has 44 ships waiting to dock
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alifornia.html

Inflation is currently higher in the EU than the UK
https://www.ft.com/content/2af45b20-...f-b4938edbe5c6

Why people don't do a bit of googling before blaming brexit just because they didn't vote for it 5 years ago, is beyond me.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Makes me laugh (and slightly depresses me) when people try to shoe-horn Brexit into everything. It is a factor in lots of good and bad political and economic news, but it's rarely the defining feature, particularly compared to the pandemic.

Food prices are rising across the EU
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-f...-as-inflation/

There's been a huge rise in shipping costs. California has 44 ships waiting to dock
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alifornia.html

Inflation is currently higher in the EU than the UK
https://www.ft.com/content/2af45b20-...f-b4938edbe5c6

Why people don't do a bit of googling before blaming brexit just because they didn't vote for it 5 years ago, is beyond me.

Equally, those who voted for Brexit will always be in denial of any problems it has caused.

[JamesWales]

Equally, those who voted for Brexit will always be in denial of any problems it has caused.

I don't disagree. Some people are stuck in their ways on both sides.

The truth doesn't care how people voted in a one-off referendum five years ago mind.

The point is though that some people point to something negative in the UK and scream brexit, whereas if they spent 2 minutes googling stories from abroad they would very often realise the same issues there, and hence brexit clearly wasn't the cause, although it may have been a contributory factor.

I cant stand it. Move on.