Income Tax: how does it work?

Whilst I agree that there are many people who needlessly throw food away uncooked food, the idea (presented in the article) that cooked food left on a plate by a child could be re-used later by the family is patent nonsense. If articles like this wish to educate the wasteful (people) into changing their ways, they have to separate out the "unavoidable" food waste from the avoidable when they present their statistics[1], otherwise they run the risk of the "couldn't care less" claiming that all of the waste is in the unavoidable category.

[1] One of the statistics I once saw presented included the inedible parts of food in the "waste" category. This is stupid, even the most careful people (like me) throw away bones and stalks, how does quantifying this persuade me to stop doing it.

tim

Not entirely. The dog could eat it. But where in the article does it present that idea? The part I can find which comes closest to expressing that idea is "It is mostly food that could have been consumed if it had been better stored or managed, or had not been left uneaten on a plate.", but that falls far short of suggesting what you suggest it suggests.

On the whole, the practice of eating your plate completely clean should be encouraged. This is difficult in restaurants which have one-size-fits-all portions, but is quite doable in a family household. Dish stuff out from bowls, and give small portions. You can always have seconds. Then what's left in the bowls won't have been on anyone's plate, and can be re-used later. And don't give a child anything you know it won't eat.

Agreed.

But *some* use can be made of much of this stuff before it's thrown away, for example boiling it to make stock.

Some of it can go on the compost heap.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

The "W" there refers to "Working" (on a low wage), not "Wife", doesn't it? And most are for children, aren't they, not wives?

Yes, but where do children come from? :-)

Assuming you have a dog!

Not that far short, what else is it suggesting one does with food "left uneaten on a plate". It could be suggesting that less is cooked in the first place, but I'm sure that isn't always the problem. Most people who have had a young child will know that food is often left on the plate to a greater or lesser extent whatever quantity is placed there.

Perhaps it can, but I think that attempts to encourage people to do this is not going to have any effect. I certainly are not going to reduce my tiny amount of food waste to zero by doing this.

I don't think this counts as "not throwing it away"!

tim

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

They come from a *subset* of women -- not every woman has children!

Married Couples Allowance was just that -- an allowance for people who were married, whether-or-not they had children. FTC, WFTC & CTC only apply if they have children. So they are *not* "...something similar but [with] a different name" !!

I know.

I'm well aware that it's not the same. That's why I said "similar" and not "identical". That having a wife correlates well with having children is what makes it similar. One good thing about CTC is that you don't technically have to be married to your "wife".

If you don't have a dog, you can give it to the pigs. :-)

I reckon it's suggesting that less be put on the plate to start with, which isn't the same as not cooking it in the first place. There's nothing wrong with keeping leftovers for a later meal. Indeed it is normal unless your family is really big, or unless you have many guests, for something like a roast to be for too big to consume in one meal.

It feels (or is) unhygienic to keep leftovers which have been on someone's plate and thus "contaminated" by contact with their fork (or in the case of children when they've been handling it with their hands and just playing with it), but that doesn't apply to stuff which has only been in the cooking pans or serving bowls.

Perhaps not yet, but if shortages should ever again become serious, I think it will. Just ask those with memories of the w.. of the w.. No, we mustn't mention the war.

You could conceivably reduce your amount of food waste *below* zero by doing this, if as you suggested you don't classify inedibles as waste. Anything wholesome you can extract from inedibles before you throw them away would be a bonus (e.g. boiling bones saves you having to buy stock cubes). OK, this is as ridiculous as carbon offsetting.

I think it would count as "not wasting it", assuming you actually do something useful with the compost.

Indeed, and significantly so. It really is blatently obvious that a 15 stone body will take significantly more calories to maintain than a 10 stone body.

Yup - otherwise some people would simply balloon forever!

Oh no they don't

Really? Try reading this referenced wiki article, and then explain why it's wrong:

Do I really? Quote a reputable source that has a formula for metabolic rate which doesn't have weight as a significant factor.

Absolute bullshit. They will reach probably about 13-14 stone and their weight will then stabilise.

Where do you get this bullshit from? What formula are you using?

Er, yes it can.

A 15 stone 40 year old man whose weight is stable can cut his calorie intake by

20%, permanently, and his weight will then stabilise at about 11 stone.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

If someone whose weight is high but stable then goes on a temporary diet and loses weight, if they resume their former eating habits they simply regain that weight. Some are stupid enough wonder why when eating the same amount at 12 stone as they did when their weight was stable at 15 stone, they put weight on!

Indeed, or better predicting how much people will eat.

Quite. Simply dish out the minimum you know will be eaten and people who are still hungry can do their Oliver bit. Any excess can be saved for another day.

I think just like people are driving less now, people will be more careful with food is prices keep rising. Food has been/still is cheap, so people don't care too much about wasting it.

Or using your used cooking oil to fuel your car...apparently this can work!

It won't be that big, as it'll only benefit those couples where one doesn't work, or earns less than the personal allowance. And it could be funded by cutting tax credits (or getting rid of them if they go the whole hog...).

His big disaster (one of them).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That may have been so many years ago, but nowadays it's different.

There are many married couples without children, and many couples with children who are not married...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Quite so, but that doesn't say anything about the relative **metabolic rates**.

I doubt it. It still correlates well. That doesn't mean all couples have children.

Many, yes, but hardly enough to spoil the correlation.

True, but invalid. As I said: One good thing about CTC is that you don't technically have to be married to your "wife".

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Didn't you notice the qualification "Basal" in that name?

Well, as you appear to accept the Wikimedia Foundation as "a reputable source", how about:

"metabolic rate : The speed of metabolism." ... and ...

"metabolism : The complete set of chemical reactions that occur in living cells. "

Substituting the one in the other, we get: 'metabolic rate : The speed of the complete set of chemical reactions that occur in living cells.'

That says nothing about the *total* amount of energy used...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I disagree...

Don't forget, the offspring need to be young enough to be eligible for the benefits. So married couples with grown-up "children" would get the former benefit, but not the latter. Also, newly-married couples, before they have their first child, would get the former benefit, but not the latter. Finally, married couples who never have children would get the former benefit, but not the latter.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That's exactly why it *is* valid! ...

If unmarried couples with children *didn't* get the Married Couples Allowance, but they *do* get CTC, then that shows that the benefits are *different*.

There's no need. The article is right. But referring to it doesn't mean that you understand it.

Even the article you mention says "... the dietary consumption any particular individual needs in order to maintain body weight. 2000 kilocalories is often quoted but is no more than a guideline". That doesn't mention body weight as a significant factor. It would if it were.

Give me any reputable source that says any such thing. Then explain why it doesn't contravene the well established natural law of conservation of energy.

The fact of the matter, which I will explain very simply as it's clear you have no understanding of basic science whatsoever, is that the body is a very efficient machine. It excretes very few of the calories it takes in as food. The calories it takes in as food are utilised in two ways - to produce heat to keep the body at the optimum temperature for its enzymatic processes to work, and to do work by muscular activity. It's the amount of energy required to keep the body at 37C that is by far the larger of the two, and that is what is called basal metabolism. Work is actually a very efficient process - it takes 2 hours of vigorous squash to work off the calories in a cupcake for example.

The rate of heat loss from the body, and hence basal metabolism calorie requirement, depends on several factors. Obviously, it depends on surface area, and a fat person has a larger surface area than a thin one. However, fat is a very insulating substance. The more you have of it, the less heat will escape. These are compensating factors, and it's then just a matter of which is the larger and by how much. Experts differ in what they say here. You've had someone point you in the direction of an article that says basal metabolic rate does not increase with weight but rather decreases. You think, without any knowledge whatsoever, that it surely increases. The Wikipedia article to which you referred states a figure of 2000 calories without any reference to weight, but says it is no more than a guideline. However, it is nevertheless a guideline, which indicates that there really isn't any, or much, difference regardless of your size.

Any calorie intake over and above basal metabolism requirements can be used to do work. If fat people do work, they expend more calories doing it than thin people, but again there is the compensating factor that they tend not to do as much work because they are fat. So, the likelihood is that the work done whether you are fat or thin probably consumes about the same number of calories.

Any calorie intake over and above basal metabolism requirements and work is not excreted, so where does it go? The answer is that it is stored as chemical energy, ie fat. If you consistently exceed the body's calorie requirements for basal metabolism and work, you will produce fat, and you will put on weight, for as long as you do it.

Basal metabolism requires 2000 calories a day. A normal man requires about

2700 calories a day for basal metabolism and work. 20% less calorie intake means 540 calories a day less than are required. These can only come from the body's reserves of energy, ie fat, so 540 x 365 = 197,100 calories of fat energy will have to be consumed in a year. One pound of fat is about 4000 calories, which means that 197100 / 4000 = 49 lbs of fat will be consumed in a year. That's 3 and a half stone.

Well, I do have a BSc from a reputable university and from a time when a degree meant something. What scientific education have you had?

Ha Ha! What if your child refuses to eat anything except chips? Should you only give them chips?