Hacker News Reader

Five Guys is not "3x any other burger chain", that is lunacy. I live in London and eat burgers a lot. Chains like GBK ("Gourmet" Burger Kitchen, of course just another mid-market chain, not gourmet in a classical sense), Honest Burger, Byron Burger, Black Bear Burger, Burger & Beyond, Patty & Bun, other imported USA chains like Shake Shack, and others. They're all popular places to go for a burger, and they're as or (typically) more expensive than Five Guys. You can find much more expensive burgers too. And yes you can find cheaper burgers, but not very nice ones (I do not enjoy Big Macs at all, and for that matter I don't like Five Guys either, but I can get something I like for their prices). I would say what I regard as a "decent" burger here has gotten much more expensive.

We don't all live in London big man.

Correct. However, enough of us do to render your claim that Five Guys is "3x as expensive as any other chain" entirely factually incorrect. And the situation's basically the same in any UK city big enough to have a few Five Guys.

It isn't. I would try leaving London. Almost all the chains you have mentioned do not exist outside London.

It is. I do. If not chains by the same name, equivalent ones that are as or more expensive than Five Guys. E.g., Fat Hippo are in Birmingham, Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham... And of the chains I mentioned, GBK for example are all over the place, in about 15 different towns and cities. I know of a chain in Manchester, "Almost Famous", if they're any cheaper than Five Guys, it'll be by about 50p. And so on. Your claim that Five Guys is 3x any other burger chain is ridiculous.

I bet the person complaining about the price of burgers was in London or some other major city which has them though. And nicer burgers won’t be much cheaper outside of London (they simply might not exist in some places though)

How much do you even pay in the UK for a 5 guys hamburger? the previous comment had a complicated order. For reference, in southern california, the regular hamburger is $10.79 from five guys. A lot higher than in n out, a double double is less than $5, but probably $2-3 cheaper than what you'd pay at a low key sit down restaurant like a brewery or whatever.

As a point of comparison (here in East Coast Australia) decent (mid-range) hamburgers are commonly around AUS$18-20.

According to xe.com, that's about US$12-13.30.

The Walthamstow (North London) Five Guys is selling the regular hamburger right now for £8.65 which in dollars is $10.75.

Out of curiosity I just checked Detroit, MI, median income of 20k usd a year. Still about the same at $10.49. This is almost bewildering how the price is pegged to about $10.75 the world over, no matter the price of labor or rent or beef or getting it to the world over. Margins must be all over the place.

I suppose it's to prevent Burger Arbitrage

> the govt recently introduced free childcare for a certain number of hours

I'm guessing you don't have children because they actually promised to do it in a year. Nothing has changed yet. Also the extra funding for free hours works out at like 20p/hour which is way below what is needed for nurseries to break even on free hours.

I think you're massively overstating how good things are. Are taxes aren't high because they're paying for great services; they're high because they're paying for great fuckups. Brexit, corruption, too-good pensions deals, etc.

Our state pension is paid out of contributions made over a lifetime, it isn't remotely close to a good deal...if it is so good, would you have all your contributions paid into the state pension? No.

Brexit? Zero cost. Corruption? Zero cost. It is amazing that the state is giving massive handouts to people in work, and they still complain that things are terrible. We are giving thousands of pounds per year to people on more than 3x the median salary, and your response is: more money please. We are spending £200bn/year on healthcare, fully universal..."why am I having to pay taxes for this? Things are so bad".

Okay...if you were on £50k, would you support the govt making thousands a year in transfers from you to people on £200k?

One reason why economic policy is so bad in the UK is that people genuinely cannot conceive of economic policy being made for anyone but them: planning, govt finance, monetary policy...every area, it is really quite excruciating.

> Our state pension is paid out of contributions made over a lifetime, it isn't remotely close to a good deal

It's a great deal for the people receiving pensions now because they massively underpaid contributions compared to the total pension they'll receive.

> ...if it is so good, would you have all your contributions paid into the state pension? No.

Of course not, because our contributions now are really going to pay the pensions of current pensioners. We are paying for the previous generation.

> Brexit? Zero cost. Corruption? Zero cost.

What? Ok this is some weird humour!

Child benefit incurres a fee once you hit 50k a year, once you get to 60 the fee means you have to pay it all back.

This is the point where you "claim" it but say you don't want to receive any payments.

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge

With a 45% tax rate and a 20% VAT, something that costs $1 would require an income of $2.18.

He's not taxed at 45% he just doesn't understand progressive taxation. You'd need to make like 1 million a year or more for the effective rate to be 45% i think.

Well yes, including NI the marginal tax rate is 47%, so you can only asymptotically reach it.

But your effective tax rate is already 40% at 125k.

listed prices include VAT pretty much everywhere I've been to in the world, other than the US. If something says it costs €1 or £1 then you're paying €1 or £1 for it at the checkout.

If the tax is included in the price, then you’re getting less than $1 of the good or service as it’s already baked into that price.

For example with a 20% VAT, a $1 priced item is really an $.83 item, and to pay for it at a 45% tax bracket would require $1.81 of income.

The numbers themselves are meaningless. Only the total ratio of income required to goods received is important, and it remains unchanged.

Although the 45% is only applied to income above £120,000 and VAT either doesn't apply or is reduced to 5% on stuff like (most) food, rent, utilities, children's clothes, and loads more.

So what you're saying is pretty wrong.

Isn't this basically how all economies work? You get taxed on your paycheck and then on purchases too. It's not unique to the UK to recognize taxes diminish your purchasing power.

In Canada tax rates are similar, although we do have lower VAT. In other EU countries income tax is more aggressive but they have more social benefits.

No, it wouldn't because when you pay tax your money isn't being flushed down the toilet. You don't understand at a fundamental level how the govt works in the UK.

This has nothing to do with the government policies.. it's simple math.

If you’re making 50k, paying or not paying health insurance matters.

The US suffers from both a high tax burden and poor services. We just tend to nickel and dime our taxes more but it doesn’t really matter if you’re paying 1$ to the feds in income taxes, pay 1$ to use a state’s toll road, or 1$ to a “fee” your town tacks on the water bill.

Looking at total government spending as a percentage of GDP doesn’t show differences in services but it does show just what it all costs.

Simple math that you got wrong. Do you understand that 45% is a marginal rate?

And yes, it does have everything to do with govt policies because you are getting value back.

It is like saying taxes are high in Nordic countries, ignoring the fact that most of what you pay is returned to you. Saying that doesn't impact demand or the price level is not accurate, and misunderstands (again) at a fundamental level how govt operates.

If people are getting the math wrong (as is what happened here) then maybe the math isn't so simple?

Let's just mint that 1T coin and solve the simple math.

Are you really in here arguing that UK is not in a cost of living crisis? There's plenty of evidence that they are, and this seems like a needlessly contrarian post.

I have no idea what "a cost of living crisis" is or what the quantitative definition for one is.

Demand is not falling so, by definition, there cannot be a "cost of living crisis". Because prices have increased does not mean they are at a high level.

You are acting as if some govt agency has declared a "cost of living crisis" and that is somehow meaningful to reality. I gave you specific examples of the prices of food: you call that "contrarian", I don't see any specific examples in your post however...perhaps you are being needlessly contrarian?

Except demand is falling, as demonstrated by the very article you're commenting under. Or by the figures showing people saved energy like crazy over the last 6 months. Or by the rise in people struggling with bills and credit [1]. I don't know what numbers you're looking at, but it's pretty clear that people are hurting more now than they did before, and that is inevitably going to kill demand.

[1] https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/national/23527220.10-milli...

> For example, the govt recently introduced free childcare for a certain number of hours. Where do you think the taper would be? Probably median income? £28k? Maybe where child benefits stop £50k? Nope, £100k

So do you also think primary education is also welfare?

45% probably includes retirement contributions.

No, it doesn't. 45% is the top marginal rate, no-one in the UK includes "retirement contributions" as part of taxation...it makes no sense.

No, it doesn't, but people love to show a big difference between gross and net and forget to mention retirement moneys.