Cost of living

[Gizmo]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I was pricing some of the cheap goodies, yesterday. A mince round ,which used to be a quid is £1.50. Tesco own brand stuff has doubled, like the soup and dog food. Kitchen roll up about 40p. Then there's the ginger. Coca-cola isn't leaving the shelf and the water is up a few bob anaw. Bread and milk is scandalous. The only stuff not overly priced compared to the last year or two is fags and bevvy. Even the big bars of galaxy and dairy milk are up from a quid to £1.50. 

 

I bought stuff for a fry, and I near choked on the cost of it. Some folk are gonnae struggle and may even top themselves, if this keeps going, with rent/mortgage, fuel and energy costs on top. But hey, Damien Green used to swim in shite, so we can all swim in shite.

Noticed the bog standard frozen birds eye burgers in a 10 box are £6. For frozen beef burgers, probably a staple for feeding hungry kids. I bet fish fingers and the other kid friendly staples are also through the roof. 

Worst is the price goughing is aimed squarely at the poor, disgusting really:
 

25% uplift on the "value" foods and own brands. 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Noticed the bog standard frozen birds eye burgers in a 10 box are £6. For frozen beef burgers, probably a staple for feeding hungry kids. I bet fish fingers and the other kid friendly staples are also through the roof. 

Worst is the price goughing is aimed squarely at the poor, disgusting really:
 

25% uplift on the "value" foods and own brands. 

I was gonnae do a big shop. But stopped. I'll go to Aldi, or go on line at Morrisons and take my time. Scandalous.

[Gizmo]

5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I was gonnae do a big shop. But stopped. I'll go to Aldi, or go on line at Morrisons and take my time. Scandalous.

We've started picking up just what we need. You won't come out of Tesco at least £15 down for a few things now. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

We've started picking up just what we need. You won't come out of Tesco at least £15 down for a few things now. 

I used to go in every day, just so the stuff was fresh. Now, not a chance. 

 

 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, hmfcbilly said:

My own take on this is that astronomical energy hikes to the factories producing all foods in UK from tinned foods to cheese etc is probably responsible for the majority of increases. Meanwhile, the UK government stand back and don't intervene unlike, their French counterparts who nationalised EDF. Also, the Scottish government's answer is to hike taxes again for anyone on more than 43k a year. Whilst 43k a year is obviously a decent salary and above the national average, if you've a single income of *43k a year, your a lot worse off than 2 folk earning 20k a year each. Point I'm making is that, the SNP seem to think anyone earning over 43k a year is living the high life and that certainly is not always the case. The joke of it all is that the 51% of Scots tax payers earning 28k or under may well be 'better off' than their English counterparts, but to the tune of £20 a year. Hardly life changing comfort zones they are in! I've got my tin hat on ready for the Aye, but we get phree prescripshuns and phree edumacation and that, likesy, ken wot a mean?! 🙈🙈

*What is it, £100 a year. 2 quid a week. And if you've no got a woman, well... 

Edited May 20, 2023 by ri Alban

[That thing you do]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

*What is it, £100 a year. 2 quid a week. And if you've no got a woman, well... 

...

 

Youll have £100

 

👍

[ri Alban]

8 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

...

 

Youll have £100

 

👍

[ri Alban]

Brings in an extra £129m 

 

[ri Alban]

[ri Alban]

28 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

...

 

Youll have £100

 

👍

Greetin about tax on 7000 grand. Yet no complaints on the lesser bands. 

8 quid a week every grand you make. £56 a week until you hit the 50 grand. (Then an extra 2p on the 125 grand mark) I could make it, if I could be bothered and I was 20 years younger, but I can't be arsed and we both work, so keep it under the 43 grand mark. 😎💪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 

 

The SNP can't win at times. Accused of not doing anything, then bring in more money to pay for things, and folk moan about that. They have there faults, but this isn't one of them. WM policy is the problem here. Yeah, maybe they could drop it to 40% for a year, but then the folk who need help can't get it. I'd tax us 60%, but that would change the whole country for the better , but folk decided they wanted more boom and bust with Labour/blue labour at the wheel. Who will make sure we all make them rich.

Edited May 20, 2023 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

45 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

...

 

Youll have £100

 

👍

😆I'm about £150 extra. 😭 Fecking SNP!  

 

But greetin cause you pay more on 7000 grand of tax than in England. Oh boohoo. Probably gets 5 weeks holiday pay for free. I'm sure their magician, sorry accountant will make the extra disappear.👍

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Gizmo said:

Noticed the bog standard frozen birds eye burgers in a 10 box are £6. For frozen beef burgers, probably a staple for feeding hungry kids. I bet fish fingers and the other kid friendly staples are also through the roof. 

Worst is the price goughing is aimed squarely at the poor, disgusting really:
 

25% uplift on the "value" foods and own brands. 

He does talk well , does Eck. And unless the courts don't mean anything, he's innocent. So why he's not back in the SNP or on the TV more, is wrong. 

 

[Gundermann]

8 hours ago, superjack said:

Mhairi black refers to it as a cost of greed crisis. She absolutely nails it as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no SNP fanboy. 

https://fb.watch/kDNVAhbtQ3/

 

Yes, she's right.

[Ray Gin]

17 hours ago, hmfcbilly said:

My own take on this is that astronomical energy hikes to the factories producing all foods in UK from tinned foods to cheese etc is probably responsible for the majority of increases. Meanwhile, the UK government stand back and don't intervene unlike, their French counterparts who nationalised EDF. Also, the Scottish government's answer is to hike taxes again for anyone on more than 43k a year. Whilst 43k a year is obviously a decent salary and above the national average, if you've a single income of 43k a year, your a lot worse off than 2 folk earning 20k a year each. Point I'm making is that, the SNP seem to think anyone earning over 43k a year is living the high life and that certainly is not always the case. The joke of it all is that the 51% of Scots tax payers earning 28k or under may well be 'better off' than their English counterparts, but to the tune of £20 a year. Hardly life changing comfort zones they are in! I've got my tin hat on ready for the Aye, but we get phree prescripshuns and phree edumacation and that, likesy, ken wot a mean?! 🙈🙈

 

That "phree edumacation" you mock saves people tens of thousands of pounds.

[Ray Gin]

17 hours ago, hmfcbilly said:

if you've a single income of 43k a year, your a lot worse off than 2 folk earning 20k a year each. 

 

Untrue

[ri Alban]

An educated population should make the country better. But the elite don't want the population educated.

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

An educated population should make the country better. But the elite don't want the population educated.

 

I'm not sure Billy is the elite. He doesn't seem to understand how tax works.

 

[ri Alban]

8 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I'm not sure Billy is the elite. He doesn't seem to understand how tax works.

 

I was meaning the folk in the power(Not Holyrood), real power. If the common people were clued up , they'd be in trouble.

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Untrue

 

Have you punched the numbers into the gov tax calculator?

[ri Alban]

12 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Have you punched the numbers into the gov tax calculator?

40 grand to support two people, against 43 grand for one. 🤔 

[Ray Gin]

14 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Have you punched the numbers into the gov tax calculator?

 

No, but unless I'm missing something there's only going to be about 1k difference. Not what I'd describe as a lot worse off. Especially when you have to combine the wages of 2 people to get there.

 

[ri Alban]

About 36 grand between 2 people and 37 grand for the one person. So it's a false statement .

Edited May 20, 2023 by ri Alban

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

No, but unless I'm missing something there's only going to be about 1k difference. Not what I'd describe as a lot worse off. Especially when you have to combine the wages of 2 people to get there.

 

 

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

About 36 grand between 2 people and 37 grand for the one person. So it's a false statement .

 

You've punched in the numbers wrongly you fat fingered Paisley twat.

 

A household with 2 earners on 20 grand a pop will be 2-3 grand better off than a household with a singe earner on 43 grand.

 

That's a lot of chicken suppers and blue face paint you'd be losing out on.

[Captain Sausage]

7 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

 

You've punched in the numbers wrongly you fat fingered Paisley twat.

 

A household with 2 earners on 20 grand a pop will be 2-3 grand better off than a household with a singe earner on 43 grand.

 

That's a lot of chicken suppers and blue face paint you'd be losing out on.

tell them how you really feel. 
 

If you compare it properly, two people earning £21,500 each would earn £4,218 per year more than a single earner on £43,000, which was the essence of what was being said.  
 

Thats 10% more, not sure in what world that isn’t a significant delta. 

[Ray Gin]

12 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

tell them how you really feel. 
 

If you compare it properly, two people earning £21,500 each would earn £4,218 per year more than a single earner on £43,000, which was the essence of what was being said.  
 

Thats 10% more, not sure in what world that isn’t a significant delta. 

 

10% more income to cover 100% more people.

 

But it was 20k suggested, not 21500.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Ray Gin

[Greedy Jambo]

15 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I was gonnae do a big shop. But stopped. I'll go to Aldi, or go on line at Morrisons and take my time. Scandalous.

 

Morrisons has become one of the more expensive supermarkets, I wouldn't be ordering from them now. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

33 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

10% more income to cover 100% more people.

 

But it was 20k suggested, not 21500.

 

 

 

But the same number of dependents.

 

[Ray Gin]

5 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

But the same number of dependents.

 

 

Twice as much food to buy, twice as many clothes and toiletries to buy, use more energy, need a bigger home, pay more council tax, more travel expenses. No danger they're hugely better off than the single 43 grand earner.

[il Duce McTarkin]

27 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Twice as much food to buy, twice as many clothes and toiletries to buy, use more energy, need a bigger home, pay more council tax, more travel expenses. No danger they're hugely better off than the single 43 grand earner.

 

Ah sorry, I wrongly assumed that the discussion was about a household with one 43 grand earner as opposed to a household with 2 x 20 grand earners.

 

A household with 2 adults and 2 kids with 2 x 20 grand earners is 10% better off than the household where one adult earns 43 grand and supports the rest. Also, you can forget the year's free childcare when the kids are 2 years old because somene in the house is earning abve the threshold. 

 

Folk think 43 grand is a big wage. It isn't.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Dirk McTarkin

[hmfcbilly]

1 hour ago, Captain Sausage said:

tell them how you really feel. 
 

If you compare it properly, two people earning £21,500 each would earn £4,218 per year more than a single earner on £43,000, which was the essence of what was being said.  
 

Thats 10% more, not sure in what world that isn’t a significant delta. 

Thanks captain, that's exactly what I was getting at, and easily proven too. Shouldn't let that get in the way of the extreme Nats blinkered views though. The whole point of my post was that, the SNP are going after 950k folk who are on 43-75k a year under the guise of ending child poverty. They've done nothing about the grossly unfair council tax system since making it a manifesto pledge 14 or so years ago, amongst making a pigs ear of just about every devolved power they've been granted, with the default excuse being....WM dont give us enough money. Facts are, anyone in Scotland earning above 28k a year are paying more tax than in England, and it doesn't take much more than the 28k a year before you are seeing disparity in hundreds  of pounds. Touch the 50k a year salary, and youre moving into 4 figures and excess of 1k difference. Meanwhile, the folk often slogging their guts out for 15-20k are better off tax wise by about £25 a year. I'd hardly call that looking after the folk who need it the most.  

 

As for free prescriptions....well nothings free really is it? The higher earners are footing the bill for that. Personally, I'd adopt a model whereby, if you need ongoing medicine (diabetes, cancer etc) you're prescriptions are covered. Giving prescriptions for a 30p box of paracetamol is an absolute joke IMO and I'd love to know how many millions are wasted on such like prescriptions each year? 

[Ray Gin]

7 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

I thought the discussion was about a household with one 43 grand earner as opposed to a household with 2 x 20 grand earners.

 

A household with 2 adults and 2 kids with 2 x 20 grand earners is 10% better off than the household where one adult earns 43 grand and supports the rest. Also, you can forget the year's free childcare when the kids are 2 years old because somene in the house is earning abve the threshold. 

 

Kids have never been mentioned as part of the discussion previously. But that's still ignoring the additional expenses of the 2nd adult.

[Cade]

Water companies to spend £15billion to fix the problems that they created, but this money will come from higher charges to customers.

They'll also be using that extra money to pay out dividends to their shareholders.

Discharging raw jobbies into every river in the nation then making YOU pay for the cleanup, and for a nice new car for their investors.

 

And the sheep like moron public will simply pay up.

[hmfcbilly]

8 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Ah sorry, I wrongly assumed that the discussion was about a household with one 43 grand earner as opposed to a household with 2 x 20 grand earners.

 

A household with 2 adults and 2 kids with 2 x 20 grand earners is 10% better off than the household where one adult earns 43 grand and supports the rest. Also, you can forget the year's free childcare when the kids are 2 years old because somene in the house is earning abve the threshold. 

 

Folk think 43 grand is a big wage. It isn't.

Yep, it's not rocket science the point I was trying to make but it seems like Ray Gin and Ri Alban are struggling to grasp it🤔 maybe no happy that some of us question narratives, regardless of whether it reveals an answer we want to hear or not?! 

[hmfcbilly]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Kids have never been mentioned as part of the discussion previously. But that's still ignoring the additional expenses of the 2nd adult.

Well, having lived both on my own and with a partner before we had kids, I'd say I hardly noticed a difference in my bills from being single to being in a couple with no children.  Ate the same at meal times and neither of us worked shifts so the house was only occupied from teatime onwards generally speaking. 

[hmfcbilly]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

An educated population should make the country better. But the elite don't want the population educated.

Aye the SNP have done a great job at preserving and enhancing Scotlands once thriving educational reputation eh 🤣 the problem with folk like you who hold extreme views on nationalism, is that you (wrongly) presume everyone else who questions or disagreed with you or the Scottish government must be a rich, tory b*stard. I'd say that narrow mindedness points to a lack of education and understanding 

[hmfcbilly]

3 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

No, but unless I'm missing something there's only going to be about 1k difference. Not what I'd describe as a lot worse off. Especially when you have to combine the wages of 2 people to get there.

 

Difference is £2178 but why let the facts get in the way of your inaccurate £1k guess eh🤷 again, truths don't suit your blinkered, extreme nationalist views 

[Ray Gin]

6 minutes ago, hmfcbilly said:

Well, having lived both on my own and with a partner before we had kids, I'd say I hardly noticed a difference in my bills from being single to being in a couple with no children.  Ate the same at meal times and neither of us worked shifts so the house was only occupied from teatime onwards generally speaking. 

 

The additional bus to work alone is about an extra £800 a year. Even more if its an extra car with vehicle tax, petrol costs and mot etc.

 

At least an extra £1k on food too. 

 

That extra couple of grand is eaten up very quickly.

 

 

[Ray Gin]

Just now, hmfcbilly said:

Difference is £2178 but why let the facts get in the way of your inaccurate £1k guess eh🤷 again, truths don't suit your blinkered, extreme nationalist views 

 

Don't throw a hissy fit because you've been called out on talking nonsense.

 

2k to cover an extra person doesn't make them hugely better off.

 

[hmfcbilly]

16 minutes ago, Cade said:

Water companies to spend £15billion to fix the problems that they created, but this money will come from higher charges to customers.

They'll also be using that extra money to pay out dividends to their shareholders.

Discharging raw jobbies into every river in the nation then making YOU pay for the cleanup, and for a nice new car for their investors.

 

And the sheep like moron public will simply pay up.

Yep, could learn a lot from the French. They never 'just accepted' utility bills going through the roof. Their government renationalised EDF and protected their citizens. Now they are protesting about retirement age increasing by 2 years yet we stood by and watched as the UK government put woman up to 67 from 60 and the general age up in stages to 66 and 67 depending on when you were born. France and even Ireland, pay about half what we do on the average electricity bill 

[hmfcbilly]

9 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Don't throw a hissy fit because you've been called out on talking nonsense.

 

2k to cover an extra person doesn't make them hugely better off.

 

Not throwing any hissy fits and not quite sure facts can be misconstrued as talking nonsense. If anything, couple of posters have pointed out a few facts to you because you can't be arsed checking stuff before posting. The whole point to my original post was, that, taking even more tax off someone on 43k a year isn't going to fix poverty, its likely to drag more people into it. There's a huge difference from taxing someone a little more on say on 70k a year than there is to someone on 43k. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Kids have never been mentioned as part of the discussion previously. But that's still ignoring the additional expenses of the 2nd adult.

 

Ignore that part then, doesn't change the rest.

[Ray Gin]

38 minutes ago, hmfcbilly said:

Not throwing any hissy fits and not quite sure facts can be misconstrued as talking nonsense. If anything, couple of posters have pointed out a few facts to you because you can't be arsed checking stuff before posting. The whole point to my original post was, that, taking even more tax off someone on 43k a year isn't going to fix poverty, its likely to drag more people into it. There's a huge difference from taxing someone a little more on say on 70k a year than there is to someone on 43k. 

 

Saying 2 people earning 20k are hugely better off is not a fact. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The additional bus to work alone is about an extra £800 a year.

 

 

Bus to work?

 

 

It's not the 1970's, Ray.

[Unknown user]

On 19/05/2023 at 20:32, hmfcbilly said:

My own take on this is that astronomical energy hikes to the factories producing all foods in UK from tinned foods to cheese etc is probably responsible for the majority of increases. Meanwhile, the UK government stand back and don't intervene unlike, their French counterparts who nationalised EDF. Also, the Scottish government's answer is to hike taxes again for anyone on more than 43k a year. Whilst 43k a year is obviously a decent salary and above the national average, if you've a single income of 43k a year, your a lot worse off than 2 folk earning 20k a year each. Point I'm making is that, the SNP seem to think anyone earning over 43k a year is living the high life and that certainly is not always the case. The joke of it all is that the 51% of Scots tax payers earning 28k or under may well be 'better off' than their English counterparts, but to the tune of £20 a year. Hardly life changing comfort zones they are in! I've got my tin hat on ready for the Aye, but we get phree prescripshuns and phree edumacation and that, likesy, ken wot a mean?! 🙈🙈

 

I'm very grateful for the free prescriptions, what's wrong with that?

[Ray Gin]

6 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

 

Bus to work?

 

 

It's not the 1970's, Ray.

 

Better chance of parking in town in the 1970s.

[hmfcbilly]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Saying 2 people earning 20k are hugely better off is not a fact. 

I never said that. I said if you're on 43k you're a lot worse off than 2 folk on 20k each, living in the same house. Depends on what your definition of a lot worse off is I suppose, I'll give you that at least 

[hmfcbilly]

17 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I'm very grateful for the free prescriptions, what's wrong with that?

If you've a long term ailment then I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. If you go to your GP and get prescribed some ibuprofen or paracetamol that can be bought for 40 or 50 pence a box but the NHS get charged the full dispensing fee then I do have issue with that. I see that as money that could be put to better use in other areas of the health service. Likewise, if I need some antibiotics say once or twice a year, I have no issue paying £8 or £9 each time either, especially if it diverts the funds to getting waiting lists etc down in our hospitals. Trust me when I say this, I'm 42, never needed the system my whole life but now I do, I reqlise how broken the system is. My eldest child was diagnosed T1 diabetic last year and my health board (NHS borders) have funding for 3 insulin pumps this year. There's 12 kids on the list. Besides that, Scotland do not follow NICE guidelines like the rest of UK so although pumps are funded, the continuous glucose monitoring side isn't always. This is vital to drip feed insulin otherwise, you are wearing a pump for 24hrs when all it actually does is save you 5 injections per day instead of utilising it to its full capabilities. Perhaps if so much wasn't wasted on trivial prescriptions, serious medical conditions would be better served? Pumps aren't a luxury for a type 1 diabetic, they literally offer the person with the condition a chance to resume a life that the many of us often take for granted, albeit with a device attached to you pretty much 24/7. 

[Unknown user]

34 minutes ago, hmfcbilly said:

If you've a long term ailment then I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. If you go to your GP and get prescribed some ibuprofen or paracetamol that can be bought for 40 or 50 pence a box but the NHS get charged the full dispensing fee then I do have issue with that. I see that as money that could be put to better use in other areas of the health service. Likewise, if I need some antibiotics say once or twice a year, I have no issue paying £8 or £9 each time either, especially if it diverts the funds to getting waiting lists etc down in our hospitals. Trust me when I say this, I'm 42, never needed the system my whole life but now I do, I reqlise how broken the system is. My eldest child was diagnosed T1 diabetic last year and my health board (NHS borders) have funding for 3 insulin pumps this year. There's 12 kids on the list. Besides that, Scotland do not follow NICE guidelines like the rest of UK so although pumps are funded, the continuous glucose monitoring side isn't always. This is vital to drip feed insulin otherwise, you are wearing a pump for 24hrs when all it actually does is save you 5 injections per day instead of utilising it to its full capabilities. Perhaps if so much wasn't wasted on trivial prescriptions, serious medical conditions would be better served? Pumps aren't a luxury for a type 1 diabetic, they literally offer the person with the condition a chance to resume a life that the many of us often take for granted, albeit with a device attached to you pretty much 24/7. 

 

I think you overplay the scale of trivial prescriptions to be honest. The real questions is what would the cost saving be compared to the ongoing cost of administering a means based system, and is it really worth the bother?

 

I agree that healthcare isn't funded well enough, but that's a much bigger problem than prescriptions.

[il Duce McTarkin]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Better chance of parking in town in the 1970s.

 

 

Fair point.

[Gizmo]

7 hours ago, hmfcbilly said:

Thanks captain, that's exactly what I was getting at, and easily proven too. Shouldn't let that get in the way of the extreme Nats blinkered views though. The whole point of my post was that, the SNP are going after 950k folk who are on 43-75k a year under the guise of ending child poverty. They've done nothing about the grossly unfair council tax system since making it a manifesto pledge 14 or so years ago, amongst making a pigs ear of just about every devolved power they've been granted, with the default excuse being....WM dont give us enough money. Facts are, anyone in Scotland earning above 28k a year are paying more tax than in England, and it doesn't take much more than the 28k a year before you are seeing disparity in hundreds  of pounds. Touch the 50k a year salary, and youre moving into 4 figures and excess of 1k difference. Meanwhile, the folk often slogging their guts out for 15-20k are better off tax wise by about £25 a year. I'd hardly call that looking after the folk who need it the most.  

 

As for free prescriptions....well nothings free really is it? The higher earners are footing the bill for that. Personally, I'd adopt a model whereby, if you need ongoing medicine (diabetes, cancer etc) you're prescriptions are covered. Giving prescriptions for a 30p box of paracetamol is an absolute joke IMO and I'd love to know how many millions are wasted on such like prescriptions each year? 

Plenty complaints about the more progressive tax system but no suggestions as to how to make it fairer whilst affording to pay for the services and needs of the populace?

Some trivial prescriptions like paracetamol and ibuprofen probably save very poor people from choosing between food and pain management. The SNP did the sums and administrating who qualifies for free prescriptions was more expensive than making them free across the board. 

Sure nothing is free but the health of the people is something I don't mind my additional tax viz-a-viz the rest of the UK going towards. Why are only long-term conditions worthy of free medication anyway? Is someone with temporary pain not deserving of being helped, even though their demand on the NHS will be less?