You been doing your share of volunteering then?

We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy

As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.

Is that the same minimum wage that the blues opposed for years saying it would decimate business?

You're a complete w@nker.

Under Labour the number of people sleeping rough on the streets fell from around 2000 to around 500. Under the conservatives that figure has increased ten fold to around 5000.

The number of people homeless, without a place to call home is at a record high of 320,000.

The number of people living in poverty in the UK is also at a record high of 14 million, 4.5 million of these are children.

Yes the minimum wage may have risen, but cuts to in work benefits have more than offset this leaving people worse off.

The number of people smoking is at a record low and the amount people drink has been falling, they are certainly not the reason for the increase in homeless people or people living in poverty in this country.

The biggest cost people face is rent, rents have risen faster than wages for a long period of time. The conservatives sold off masses of council houses and stopped local authorities building new social housing, as a result we don’t have enough to home even the most vulnerable in society, never mind your average zero hour contract minimum wage joe.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"In a capitalist system anyone can rise to the top its about ability and the apetite for risk e.g. Bill Gates, James Dyson, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos etc. - none of these ultra rich individuals came from high society they achieved what they have through hard work, innovation and risk. These individuals would have never prospered and neither would society under a Socialist styled regime. A class war is a myth - anyone with the nerve and an idea can prosper - the toffs have to put their money somewhere to generate a return to run their country pile. One thing is certain if Corbyn gets in personal taxes will rise - the idea that the wealthy who already contribute significant % of all income tax will contribute more will not happen and increases in corporation tax will see more avoidance. So the man in the street will see his/her net income diminish - the money has to come from somewhere to funds all these industries they are going to re-nationalise. You will see a pandering to the unions - they own the Labour party and they will be expecting payback - you think your trains are bad now you haven't seen anything yet. Its a simple choice - do you want the state to make more choices for you i.e. where you buy your gas/electricity or do you want the ability to decide for yourself? Anyone who thinks utility costs will come down when/if they are re-nationalised is delusional. If Labour had a leader like Umanna they would walk the election the only reason they will not trounce the Tories is Corbyn. Back to the original point will a Labour government re-distribute the national income in a fairer way - not a chance in my view because all monies they generate will be wasted on pampering to pet Socialistic ideals like state-ownership and all the negative externalities that brings.'" So, I disagree. You’re using exceptional cases, either implying that they’re representative or ignoring their lack of relevance to the vast majority of most people, and conflating wealth distribution with spending priorities. Those are some raggedy arguments. The use of ‘negative externalities’ is intriguing though. What do you mean by that in this context? Here’s the link I used to check you were just chucking jargon about, if you’d like to retcobble something together. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality Quote ="Sal Paradise"You been doing your share of volunteering then? We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.'" Seriously? You’re going to JAQ off on ‘aren’t the poor really to blame for their poverty, because they’re feckless?’ If you have such a Panglossian view of the current system, then surely the only answer you can have to ‘what is to be done?’, is ‘everybody just needs to get over it, and accept that they’re where they are because that’s what they deserve, and them staying there is for the best.’

Quote ="Sal Paradise"In a capitalist system anyone can rise to the top its about ability and the apetite for risk e.g. Bill Gates, James Dyson, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos etc. - none of these ultra rich individuals came from high society they achieved what they have through hard work, innovation and risk. These individuals would have never prospered and neither would society under a Socialist styled regime. A class war is a myth - anyone with the nerve and an idea can prosper - the toffs have to put their money somewhere to generate a return to run their country pile. One thing is certain if Corbyn gets in personal taxes will rise - the idea that the wealthy who already contribute significant % of all income tax will contribute more will not happen and increases in corporation tax will see more avoidance. So the man in the street will see his/her net income diminish - the money has to come from somewhere to funds all these industries they are going to re-nationalise. You will see a pandering to the unions - they own the Labour party and they will be expecting payback - you think your trains are bad now you haven't seen anything yet. Its a simple choice - do you want the state to make more choices for you i.e. where you buy your gas/electricity or do you want the ability to decide for yourself? Anyone who thinks utility costs will come down when/if they are re-nationalised is delusional. If Labour had a leader like Umanna they would walk the election the only reason they will not trounce the Tories is Corbyn. Back to the original point will a Labour government re-distribute the national income in a fairer way - not a chance in my view because all monies they generate will be wasted on pampering to pet Socialistic ideals like state-ownership and all the negative externalities that brings.'" So, I disagree. You’re using exceptional cases, either implying that they’re representative or ignoring their lack of relevance to the vast majority of most people, and conflating wealth distribution with spending priorities. Those are some raggedy arguments. The use of ‘negative externalities’ is intriguing though. What do you mean by that in this context? Here’s the link I used to check you were just chucking jargon about, if you’d like to retcobble something together. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality Quote ="Sal Paradise"You been doing your share of volunteering then? We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.'" Seriously? You’re going to JAQ off on ‘aren’t the poor really to blame for their poverty, because they’re feckless?’ If you have such a Panglossian view of the current system, then surely the only answer you can have to ‘what is to be done?’, is ‘everybody just needs to get over it, and accept that they’re where they are because that’s what they deserve, and them staying there is for the best.’

The left wing bigot. Always a source of amusement, long may it continue.

So, 39% of people are having to wait 6 weeks for a payment under Universal Credit and you think the numbers are tiny ??
Six weeks with ZERO income and you cant comprehend that the numbers needing foodbanks has risen so significantly, wow.
You also put the "mailesque" slur in your previous post claiming that the people on UC would still be "smoking gambling and drinking", again, WOW

Just imagine if you had no savings, no income for 6 weeks and nobody that could lend you some cash to tide you over.

Any sensible person would be pointing the finger at those who implemented a system where those people with nothing, had to try and survive for six weeks on fresh air. Just be pleased that this isn't you

I thought people could apply for an advance of up to 100% of their entitlement, paid back over 12 months. And yes it has to be paid back as they'll get the same payment at the end of the 6 week wait otherwise the problem would just have been shifted on 6 weeks. What's your suggestion as to how it could be done better, easier, fairer?

Sal Paradise reminds me of Tory Boy from Harry Enfield lol

Are you saying 39% of the population i.e. 24m people or 39% of those on universal credit what is the true size of the problem? Am I correct in my understanding that you can apply for emergency funding so in reality nobody should be out of pocket?

So are you suggesting that after the 6 week wait then the use of food banks should start to drop off and this is simply a temporary blip?

Having been made redundant previously when a business went into liquidation I fully understand what it is like to go six weeks with no income.

The implementation of this system has been appalling and is typical of a government that is out of touch. Its a good idea - simplify the process - just very poorly executed.

Of your increase in homeless how much is related to EU immigration?

Poverty what is your idea of poverty - not having a roof over your head, can't afford clothes or food - how many of your 14m does this apply to. There is a difference between actual poverty and not being able to afford what the average household can have which is my understanding of the government's definition.

In respect of rent isn't housing benefit there to offset excessive costs?

Not anymore.

Sorting this out would help: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... axman.html

Sorting this out would help: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... axman.html

Its wrapped up in universal credit or its disappeared altogether?

Quote ="Bullseye"Sorting this out would help: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... axman.html'" And Labour think increasing the rate of corporation tax will increase the take - bonkers. Unless tax is a universally changed you will never stop companies finding lower tax regimes - it is the duty of directors to protect shareholder funds however unpalatable that is.

Quote ="Bullseye"Sorting this out would help: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... axman.html'" And Labour think increasing the rate of corporation tax will increase the take - bonkers. Unless tax is a universally changed you will never stop companies finding lower tax regimes - it is the duty of directors to protect shareholder funds however unpalatable that is.

You know the answer.

Ah the good old chestnut. Under the Companies Act it is also a director's duty to act fairly between members, employees, suppliers, the environment, the general community. Let's not bother with that pinko stuff though when we can screw all of them & let the lower paid cover those costs.

Could change legislation so that interest and royalties paid offshore are non-deductible. Likewise management charges and rents in respect of UK situated property paid to outside UK. That may better reflect commercial reality.

These numbers are not my personal opinion on what poverty is they are official government statistics. Although without a permanent roof over your head is homeless, struggling to feed your family (hence using a food bank) and pay essential bills is living in poverty. I’m not sure what your point is, are you saying the 14M officially living in poverty are actually well off.

The increase in homelessness has nothing to do with immigration. We had immigration before the tories came to power in 2010 and we still have immigration now at similar levels.

Immigrants are scapegoated by our right wing press, which is owned by billionaire non domicile tax dodgers, despite the fact immigrants are less likely to be unemployed than British born people, less likely to claim benefits and contribute more than they take out of the system.

Big companies are far too clever - it needs a change internationally and there are countries with a vested interest in not letting that happen - some are even in the seas just of the UK mainland.

They’re not clever - it is just easy.

Do you have any suggestions?

Because it increasingly feels like your original question was:

How do we make our optimal economic system work better without changing it?

In any society there will those who earn less, have less etc. even in your Socialist utopia there are the haves and have nots. As I have pointed out the officials of Unite - the leftist of unions - have a final salary pension scheme paid for by the members - go figure?

We don't have 14m living in poverty as you well know yes they may earn less but they are entitled to benefits to top up their earnings the numbers using food banks is >2m that says c12m of you 14m can afford to buy food - is that true poverty? How many people in this country are really in poverty?

The Times has suggested 20% of all homeless in London are EU migrants - I suppose that is just Murdoch looking after himself?

There will always be people who earn less and have less than others, but we can choose to make things better and more equal rather than worse and less equal. We do have 14M living in poverty, that is a fact. Some of those people can feed themselves without using a food bank, but they are still living in poverty. It’s pointless debating how poor they are, everybody’s situation will be different, but the fact is they are officially living in poverty, and the number of people living in poverty has risen significantly. The only conclusion anyone can draw from that is the government has failed the people it’s supposed to represent on a massive scale. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42218682

There will always be people who earn less and have less than others, but we can choose to make things better and more equal rather than worse and less equal. We do have 14M living in poverty, that is a fact. Some of those people can feed themselves without using a food bank, but they are still living in poverty. It’s pointless debating how poor they are, everybody’s situation will be different, but the fact is they are officially living in poverty, and the number of people living in poverty has risen significantly. The only conclusion anyone can draw from that is the government has failed the people it’s supposed to represent on a massive scale. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42218682

Quote ="Sal Paradise" We don't have 14m living in poverty as you well know yes they may earn less but they are entitled to benefits to top up their earnings the numbers using food banks is >2m that says c12m of you 14m can afford to buy food - is that true poverty? How many people in this country are really in poverty? '" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42223497 If those definitions don’t work for you, how would you define poverty? Quote ="Sal Paradise" I am concerned about the inequality of wealth in this country. Surely something needs to be done to provide a fairer society in terms of wealth distribution. '" Do you stand by that? How would you define fairness, in this context? What level of equality would you like to see? What proportion of wealth being held by the the top 1% or 5%, nationally or globally, would you deem equitable? What would you regard as being the maximum acceptable Gini co-efficient in the UK?

Quote ="Sal Paradise" We don't have 14m living in poverty as you well know yes they may earn less but they are entitled to benefits to top up their earnings the numbers using food banks is >2m that says c12m of you 14m can afford to buy food - is that true poverty? How many people in this country are really in poverty? '" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42223497 If those definitions don’t work for you, how would you define poverty? Quote ="Sal Paradise" I am concerned about the inequality of wealth in this country. Surely something needs to be done to provide a fairer society in terms of wealth distribution. '" Do you stand by that? How would you define fairness, in this context? What level of equality would you like to see? What proportion of wealth being held by the the top 1% or 5%, nationally or globally, would you deem equitable? What would you regard as being the maximum acceptable Gini co-efficient in the UK?

The taxation system is very complex and requires highly intelligent people to understand it - we need to close down the rules on transfer pricing and as mentioned before management/franchising charges. Corporation tax needs to be an international cooperation or there will always be legal ways of avoidance.