Calls for return of Churchill’s national restaurant service to tackle food inequality

[Still Waters]

In 1940s Britain, at a time before fast food and ready meals were staples of the British high street and in a country struggling to deal with the ramifications of war, a popular new restaurant chain was established.

It served high-quality meals at reasonable prices, attracted customers from the full spectrum of British society, and grew at a rate of 10 new sites a week at its most popular. The brains behind the operation? The British government, led by the prime minister, Winston Churchill.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/31/calls-for-return-of-churchills-national-restaurant-service-to-tackle-food-inequality

[L.A.T.1961]

They would have repressed price gouging at a time when inflation was high.

It was artificial competition and, for the war period, a justified but non free market idea.

 

 

[pellinore]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:44 PM, L.A.T.1961 said:

It was artificial competition and, for the war period, a justified but non free market idea.

We have record high levels of poverty and an ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Brexit is estimated to be twice as damaging as Covid was, and isn't going away unless the Labour govt can do something about rejoining the SM, and the Ukraine war has also caused massive food inflation. I think some sort of food subsidy for the very poor, especially poor children is justified. (I realise WW2 wasn't a choice and Brexit was, but that doesn't make the outcome better.)

[Slugnutty]

Eat out to help out. Have we really reached a point equivalent to the war? How depressing. 

[L.A.T.1961]

17 hours ago, pellinore said:

We have record high levels of poverty and an ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Brexit is estimated to be twice as damaging as Covid was, and isn't going away unless the Labour govt can do something about rejoining the SM, and the Ukraine war has also caused massive food inflation. I think some sort of food subsidy for the very poor, especially poor children is justified. (I realise WW2 wasn't a choice and Brexit was, but that doesn't make the outcome better.)

Ultimately these schemes are not as good as they sound and is a trap the labour party always seem to fall into. Not as this will get off the ground. 

Setting up and operating said scheme would require tax payers money before any subsidized food was eaten.

Much better to reduce tax paid by lower earners and let them have more to spend on food. 

Taking tax off you and then giving it back as burgers and coke, controlled by the state, is typical big brother politics and inefficient.

[pellinore]

On 9/5/2024 at 4:13 PM, L.A.T.1961 said:

Much better to reduce tax paid by lower earners and let them have more to spend on food. 

And @Eldorado you will learn from this. If you are very wealthy, you probably already know this is a con. If you aren't, this is how it works (roughly):

Everyone gets £12,750 of their income tax-free. Agreed? Knock a penny off income tax.

A poor person earning £23,000 per year saves a penny off tax on the £8000 over the tax-free amount, at 20%, so saves £16 per year.

A wealthy person earning £50,000 per year saves a penny off tax on £40,000, at 20%, so saves £80. (Over £50,275 a higher tax band kicks in).

So, a 1penny reduction in income tax benefits the wealthy 5 times more than the poor.

The maths is always the same: reducing income tax always benefits the wealthy. I don't actually care about this; I just get irritated that people don't understand tax. (It's the same with Brexit, the dum-dums who voted to make themselves poorer are the most passionate supporters of it.)

 

 

 

 

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

And @Eldorado you will learn from this. If you are very wealthy, you probably already know this is a con. If you aren't, this is how it works (roughly):

Everyone gets £12,750 of their income tax-free. Agreed? Knock a penny off income tax.

A poor person earning £23,000 per year saves a penny off tax on the £8000 over the tax-free amount, at 20%, so saves £16 per year.

A wealthy person earning £50,000 per year saves a penny off tax on £40,000, at 20%, so saves £80. (Over £50,275 a higher tax band kicks in).

So, a 1penny reduction in income tax benefits the wealthy 5 times more than the poor.

The maths is always the same: reducing income tax always benefits the wealthy. I don't actually care about this; I just get irritated that people don't understand tax. (It's the same with Brexit, the dum-dums who voted to make themselves poorer are the most passionate supporters of it.)

This is just wrong

First appearing around £30,000 and the norm once you get to £50,000, no one pays income tax. If they do, they are an idiot who really needs a chat with an accountant. Income Tax? What is that? lol.

[Setton]

15 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

This is just wrong

First appearing around £30,000 and the norm once you get to £50,000, no one pays income tax. If they do, they are an idiot who really needs a chat with an accountant. Income Tax? What is that? lol.

Interesting approach to admit to tax evasion.

[pellinore]

23 hours ago, pellinore said:

And @Eldorado you will learn from this. If you are very wealthy, you probably already know this is a con. If you aren't, this is how it works (roughly):

20 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

This is just wrong

First appearing around £30,000 and the norm once you get to £50,000, no one pays income tax. If they do, they are an idiot who really needs a chat with an accountant. Income Tax? What is that? lol.

5 hours ago, Setton said:

Interesting approach to admit to tax evasion.

I'm pretty sure I got the maths wrong, but the gist is right. Cutting income tax disproportionately advantages the people who earn the most. Saving 10% of £20k (£2k) is less advantageous than saving 10% of £100k (£10k).

But the Express, Telegraph, and Mail get people on low incomes (£20- £30K) fired up about rising taxes, millionaires leaving the country, and inheritance tax. But these people would be far better off supporting tax rises, as public services such parks, libraries, health care could be improved and give them far more value than £10 a month less tax paid. Trickledown economics doesn't work, it's a con.

 

 

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

I'm pretty sure I got the maths wrong, but the gist is right. Cutting income tax disproportionately advantages the people who earn the most. Saving 10% of £20k (£2k) is less advantageous than saving 10% of £100k (£10k).

But the Express, Telegraph, and Mail get people on low incomes (£20- £30K) fired up about rising taxes, millionaires leaving the country, and inheritance tax. But these people would be far better off supporting tax rises, as public services such parks, libraries, health care could be improved and give them far more value than £10 a month less tax paid. Trickledown economics doesn't work, it's a con.

People on decent wages don`t pay income tax or at least get it right down, they incorporate or Umbrella themselves.

Edited September 8 by Duke Wellington