The problem is, as long as the mail and the sun support the tories, nothing will change. Let’s be honest, 95% of the population believe what they read in those rags and are influenced by it.

Where did I say that? The idea of help out to eat out was to protect jobs was it not?

Its easy to suggest that feeding your own kids should be a priority over everything else - I have never smoked but I could imagine it must be very difficult to stop if your circumstances change but giving up other stuff is surely achievable?

Should it really be the state's role to provide everything - there has to be an element of personal responsibility - the UC is a reasonably generous system especially to families the idea that from that you can't feed your kids seems like poor judgement/prioritising?

I think free school meals should continue throughout the holidays but as meals not vouchers.

Only have Champagne on a Friday - hate caviar. I have worked for myself since I was 18 and I am nearly 60 - I raised three kids they never went without food even in the deepest recession when business was very tough. You can feed your kids if you really want to it really isn't that difficult.

What I have is do to hard work and a lot of luck - I have never signed on only thing we as a family ever had from the government is child allowance which we saved for the kids.

Last year I paid >£1m in CT so you can try and take the p1ss but how much did you contribute to society as a whole?

Good for you Sal.
However, the fact that a Tory government was effectively giving meal vouchers, for the better off to "eat out to help out", suggests that the hospitality was in need of life support, does it not ?
The people at the lower end of the job scale in that sector are usually on minimum wage, plus tips and quite often work part time.
Laid off or even furloughed, necessarily meaning that their already low income was cut.
The benefits system, although quick to respond in some cases, can be ridiculously slow so, just how do you cover the bills.

I dont deny that there are some people who do ok on the benefits system and there are those on low wages who manage to get by.
Life IS very tough for some and they run out of cash.
Maybe the had payday loans to cover or something worse, we dont know.

The idea of free school meals isn't and wouldn't be used by everyone on benefits, it is there as a safety net, not as the first point of call.

The right wing media like to portray EVERYONE on benefits as a lazy scrounger but, even you know this is simply not the case and in a civilised,, wealthy country, should we be accepting that the very poorest cant east every day ?

I completely agree with your post - hundreds of times has the company given staff loans when money has been tight - surely that is what a responsible employer should do.

Eat out to help out was surely an attempt to get hospitality back on its feet and protect the jobs of those who would have been furloughed as businesses were forced to close.

Whilst I accept the benefit system can be slow that is not the norm - the system seems very agile and responsive - free school meals should be automatic if you are on benefits and the benefits adjusted accordingly.

You will always get people who game the system - people with huge families - people who use food banks when they could afford the food and you will always have those incapable of looking after themselves but these are in the minority I would agree.

It seems that you have an ally, Tory MP Ben Bradley (Mansfield) who tweeted that:

"one kid lives in a crack den, another in a brothel". Another Twitter user wrote back that "£20 cash direct to a crack den and a brothel sounds like the way forward with this one",

He's since deleted his tweet but WTF , Angela Raynor was indeed right to refer to some of them as "scum".
I'm sure that his Tory voting constituents are proud of him.

CT is corporation tax, yeah? That being the case, is the use of ‘I’ completely appropriate? I admit it is pedantic point and if the company or companies are wholly owned by you, then ‘the businesses I owned paid...’ would be correct and I can forgive opting for something briefer.

However, I suspect it reflects a difference in our perspectives. You perhaps see your whole company as adding to your individual contribution. As I am progressing up through the hierarchy of my organisation and needing to support others while still having to generate enough revenue to justify my wage, I see myself, moving forward, as sort of ‘stealing’ (in the nicest possible way) their immediate productivity as my role evolves and my own direct delivery declines. I hope I would always say ‘our team generated £xxx revenue’, rather than seeing it as an extension of myself.

Would you acknowledge your workers deserve to claim a share of that >£1m tax contribution? Assuming you have workers - my argument rather falls down if you are a one-man consultancy or something!

I own the business 100% so yes I is correct - the company transfers the monies but its my money.

Whilst I have a host of incredible people in the organisation it is me who put the money and took the risk and it is me who will pay if it goes under. Nobody else in that business had PGs including the roof over my family's head. Fortunately those days are long gone.

My role is to encourage and support the organisation - ensure the strategic direction is correct and that the finance is available to deliver the plan. The workers are well rewarded for the contribution to the company's profitability - I also provide them with a platform to learn and develop and and opportunity to make mistakes at my expense. Many use the skills they have learned and obtain better paid roles - they wouldn't be able to do that with the investment the company has made in them - it isn't all one way!!

I disagree. There’s no reason you should care, but I do. To be fair, if you paid yourself a bigger wage instead, then you might get poop for excessive director to pay. Wealth is such a burden.



I agree. I don’t doubt you have been the single most important person in building a successful and profitable enterprise. And I acknowledge that my own instinctive prejudices don’t stand up to even my own analysis. Our worldview is very different, but I admire you for making a success of yourself despite a humble start in life. However, you acknowledge yourself that your workers contribute to the profits your company generates - surely that level of contribution (which I know is impossible to accurately quantify) should be reflected, notionally at least, in the tax paid on those profits and the ensuing contribution to society.

I guess it is the whole ‘I provide employment for this many people’ attitude vs the ragged-trousered philanthropist mindset.

Always rely on the usual suspects for some bewildering ideals of equality. Some of us make money, many of us squander other peoples taxes.

That's capitalism - its about who is taking the risk - non of those who contribute to profits stick their hand in their pockets when the company doesn't make a profit e.g. this year the only person doing that is me. So they generate the profits but not the losses - as you say that is beard and cardigan view?

Contribution to society is paid in three ways for me - CT, Employers NI, my own personal taxes

Okay, but there’s no universally accepted way of valuing contribution or ‘keeping score‘ in a capitalist society, with which to boost our own opinions or diminish those of others. Then, even using your own measure, I think you are reaching slightly.

Obviously our experiences will influence our opinions, but I think we’re better exchanging ideas based on the traditional democracy and equality of the pub, rather than trying to one up on credentials. We’ll just end up sounding like the little lass off Johnny Briggs whose mum was a nurse. We can talk about all the amazing and brilliant stuff I’ve achieved by PM if you’re interested... but why would you be?

I agree - my company wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for the brilliant people who have worked in it over many many years. If I hadn't risked everything initially there wouldn't be a company in the first place.

People's contribution is measured primarily by their status and their ability to manage risk - the monies are just a by-product of that ability - usually the greater the risk managed the greater the reward - ever thus.

In your world a road sweeper is as valuable as a cardiac surgeon - not in mine.

And yet, a cardiac surgeon earns rather less than a footballer or "influencer".
It is indeed a mixed up messed up world that we live in.

Also, very well paid people using tax avoidance and tax evasion to avoid paying their "share" - is this ok too.?