Uk's First 'social Supermarket' Opens To Help Fight Food Poverty

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

You seem very touchy about this, are you experiencing "food poverty"?

I'm irritated by poor reasoning.

[dances with sheeple]

I'm irritated by poor reasoning.

No I think you irritate yourself by OVER reasoning, the context as I took it of "soup kitchens" was MASS soup kitchens, like in the Great Depression, not kitchens dishing out food to the street homeless or whatever which obviously goes on all the time. My point was that the miners communities being literally starved out of their strike would have not been something that most people saw coming when Thatcher came to power (CON`s Dad called it right) same as most people a few years ago would have laughed if someone said "There will be massive use of food banks in a few years".

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

No I think you irritate yourself by OVER reasoning, the context as I took it of "soup kitchens" was MASS soup kitchens, like in the Great Depression, not kitchens dishing out food to the street homeless or whatever which obviously goes on all the time. My point was that the miners communities being literally starved out of their strike would have not been something that most people saw coming when Thatcher came to power (CON`s Dad called it right) same as most people a few years ago would have laughed if someone said "There will be massive use of food banks in a few years".

When Thatcher came to power Britain had recently had the 3-day week, so why anyone would think Britain would be a land of milk and honey in the years after is a mystery to me.

[The Knimbies who say No]

When Thatcher came to power Britain had recently had the 3-day week, so why anyone would think Britain would be a land of milk and honey in the years after is a mystery to me.

The three day week was a Conservative action of the early 70s under Heath. The Winter of Discontent was Labour's problem immediately prior to Thatcher's election.

Edited December 10, 2013 by The B.L.T.

[SarahBell]

So it's a pay for it foodbank?

The give it away foodbanks are missing a trick

[awaytogo]

This country is a mess.

Them at the top fiddle while we burn.

I've said this before but as far as I can see Osborne's solution to the problems caused by the bankers is to make everything as expensive as houses were ion 2007 ( including houses ) so the bankers balance sheets look solvent.....bankrupting the rest of us in the process.

Something has got to give...soon.

Just another reason it makes working a waste of time for some people.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

The three day week was a Conservative action of the early 70s under Heath. The Winter of Discontent was Labour's problem immediately prior to Thatcher's election.

Right, so the UK's struggles did not start with Fatcher.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Right, so the UK's struggles did not start with Fatcher.

Indeed, I only replied as people often confuse the timings of the 3 day week and Winter of Discontent. I had to look it up myself so thought I'd post it. It doesn't undermine your point!

[Self Employed Youth]

I assume/hope these places do not sell alchohol and fags, and more so reduced priced alchohol and fags.

They don't.

And even if they did, alcohol and fags with 70% off would only be a few % cheaper as the majority of the price is tax, and that cannot be reduced.

[wonderpup]

The question the beer and fags brigade have to answer is why now?

People have been smoking and drinking for a long time- how does this explain the sudden upsurge in food banks ect? Clearly something has changed and given that we have just gone through the biggest financial disaster since the great depression is it really such a feat of imagination to conclude the two might be connected?

[crashmonitor]

The question the beer and fags brigade have to answer is why now?

People have been smoking and drinking for a long time- how does this explain the sudden upsurge in food banks ect? Clearly something has changed and given that we have just gone through the biggest financial disaster since the great depression is it really such a feat of imagination to conclude the two might be connected?

Knowing quite a few people who are recipients of charitable help, without exception they are smokers. As we have the excise duty escalator and a packet can cost as much as £7, it is indeed the cost of cigarettes that is generally impoverishing the poor and not the fall out from the recession.

Many of the very poorest have a higher discretionary spend per week on cigarettes than many people do on everything, though the biggest users I know need DLA to achieve that level of spend..A modest habit of 30 a day can cost over £100 a week.

During the summer Ripon Council postponed permission for a food bank, they were concerned about killing out of kindness.....it would be an enabler for food bankers to smoke even more........

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10506449.Ripon_food_bank_grant_decision_delayed_over_alcohol_and_cigarettes_fear/

Edited December 12, 2013 by crashmonitor

[wonderpup]

Knowing quite a few people who are recipients of charitable help, without exception they are smokers. As we have the excise duty escalator and a packet can cost as much as £7, it is indeed the cost of cigarettes that is generally impoverishing the poor and not the fall out from the recession.

Many of the very poorest have a higher discretionary spend per week on cigarettes than many people do on everything, though the biggest users I know need DLA to achieve that level of spend..A modest habit of 30 a day can cost over £100 a week.

During the summer Ripon Council postponed permission for a food bank, they were concerned about killing out of kindness.....it would be an enabler for food bankers to smoke even more........

http://www.thenorthe...igarettes_fear/

My point was that we can't blame the recent increase in the use of food banks on smoking if people have been managing to both smoke and eat in the past- smoking is not the variable that has changed- maybe the biggest recession in 100 years might be somewhere in the frame?

Yes we can argue that people addicted to smoking should not receive help- similar arguments could be made that the obese should not receive treatment for their weight induced conditions or heavy drinkers should be refused help for the health outcomes of their lifestyle.

The problem with this line of thought is where do we draw the line? For example should a keep fit fanatic be barred from receiving treatment for injures he might inflict on himself in his effort to remain fit and healthy? Or should a person whose hobby is rock climbing be barred from casualty if he falls off a mountain he foolishly chose to climb?

[SarahBell]

Yes we can argue that people addicted to smoking should not receive help- similar arguments could be made that the obese should not receive treatment for their weight induced conditions or heavy drinkers should be refused help for the health outcomes of their lifestyle.

We shulld argue that anyone wanting to live beyond their means should be enabled to do so as long as possible?

[crashmonitor]

I'm sorry but I just don't get the concept of food banks. If they were fruit and vegetable banks I would get that. That is an expensive choice, unaffordable to the poor (five packets of biscuits at Poundland or three apples, I get that). Most of the users will be overweight and they will die from being overweight. The poorer you are the fatter you are likely to be. Having calorie stations for the already overweight makes no sense.

If they concentrated on unaffordable healthy food like apples and greens I would be 100% behind that. Surely a bank that supplements an unhealthy diet every week would be more beneficial than one that supplies emergency help once in a while.

Edited December 13, 2013 by crashmonitor

[wonderpup]

We shulld argue that anyone wanting to live beyond their means should be enabled to do so as long as possible?

No-but we should not pretend that their declining living standards are not a real problem either just because they try to cling on to them.

So yes- we could house the poor in camps and feed them gruel twice a day- it would certainly be more cost effective than the current system- but I suppose the question is where we draw the line. I don't like smoking myself and would agree that people struggling to feed their families should not be spending money on smoking- but this is not the same as saying that smoking is the cause of their poverty- which is the argument being made by some on here.

There is a long tradition in this country of blaming the poor for their poverty- but I'm fairly sure that the global banking system was not brought to it's knees by chain smoking single mothers- so I'm inclined to look further up the social food chain for those responsible.

[eightiesgirly]

We shulld argue that anyone wanting to live beyond their means should be enabled to do so as long as possible?

Only if their means is enough to live on.

It is not, which is why we have tax credit top ups, winter fuel payments, free school meals and food banks.

[Mrs Bear]

Is it really "food poverty", or just plain old "poverty"?

I always wonder why they talk incessantly about 'child poverty' , as if it were somehow separate from parent poverty, i.e the plain old common or garden variety.

[SpectrumFX]

No-but we should not pretend that their declining living standards are not a real problem either just because they try to cling on to them.

So yes- we could house the poor in camps and feed them gruel twice a day- it would certainly be more cost effective than the current system- but I suppose the question is where we draw the line. I don't like smoking myself and would agree that people struggling to feed their families should not be spending money on smoking- but this is not the same as saying that smoking is the cause of their poverty- which is the argument being made by some on here.

There is a long tradition in this country of blaming the poor for their poverty- but I'm fairly sure that the global banking system was not brought to it's knees by chain smoking single mothers- so I'm inclined to look further up the social food chain for those responsible.

Cigarettes are only expensive because of the tax.

20 Marlboro lights @ £7.98 are £6.17 tax and only £1.81 for the fags.

On those prices a 20 a day smoker is paying tax of £43.19 a week, that's £2,246 a year, which is not far off 10% of the average wage.

So we've priced the poor out of smoking (for their own good) and now are attacking the very poor that still smoke for being amoral because we've taken all their money.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Cigarettes are only expensive because of the tax.

20 Marlboro lights @ £7.98 are £6.17 tax and only £1.81 for the fags.

On those prices a 20 a day smoker is paying tax of £43.19 a week, that's £2,246 a year, which is not far off 10% of the average wage.

So we've priced the poor out of smoking (for their own good) and now are attacking the very poor that still smoke for being amoral because we've taken all their money.

"Help alleviate child povety- cut tobacco excise duty" doesn't exactly cut it as a manifesto promise.

[SpectrumFX]

"Help alleviate child povety- cut tobacco excise duty" doesn't exactly cut it as a manifesto promise.

The truth rarely does

[The Knimbies who say No]

The truth rarely does

Nicely put.

There's a hole in the market for a website where a person can put in their spend on various things and get a calculation of tax paid out of it, but done in greater depth than just the visible taxation at point of sale, eg Harry's fuel duty on supermarket products etc.

[John51]

I remember a Denis Healey interview where he talked about his first job, a milk round, aged 14.

One morning a mother approached the milk float carrying a jug. His superior broke the top off a bottle and poured the milk into the jug. Seal was still in place so got returned as breakage.

Later the guy says to young Healey, I never know whether I should do that or not because she smokes. In the interview, Healey said this was the first time he came across the concept of the 'un-derserving poor'.

[SpectrumFX]

Cigarettes are only expensive because of the tax.

20 Marlboro lights @ £7.98 are £6.17 tax and only £1.81 for the fags.

On those prices a 20 a day smoker is paying tax of £43.19 a week, that's £2,246 a year, which is not far off 10% of the average wage.

So we've priced the poor out of smoking (for their own good) and now are attacking the very poor that still smoke for being amoral because we've taken all their money.

Here's some more maths to ponder.

Someone on minimum wage who works 40 hours a week would be on a gross wage of 6.31*40*4.33*12 = £13,115 per annum.

On that figure their income tax and NI is a total of £1,445 per annum.

For our example of a 20 a day smoker given above that would mean his fag tax is £801, or 55% higher than his employment related taxes, and that the fag tax takes up 19% of his £11,670 net income.

If he smokes 50 a day that's half his net income gone in tax on cigarettes.

My grandfather used to smoke 60 a day. A minimum wage employee who did that now would be spending £6738 a year, which is 58% of their net income on tax on their cigarettes.

Edit to add: looking again at the figures. It appears we can apply a simple rule of thumb that applies at current minimum wage and tax rates.

Broadly speaking if you work full time on minimum wage each extra cigarette you smoke per day is an extra 1% of your net income paid in tax.

Edited December 15, 2013 by SpectrumFX

[Rain'ard]

Would Thatcher have bailed out the banks? Forget anything else, just answer that question to yourself.

If the banks told her to, Yes

[John51]

She bailed out British Leyland right after saying 'no dead ducks'.

So yeah, I think she would have bailed out the banks but in a Hell and Brimstone manner including gaol for many of the fraudsters. Then she would have nailed them up tight and let house prices crash.