Increasing use of food banks

More and more in the news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30346060

I'm torn on this. Do the majority of people using these, genuinely need them - or, are they loading up with fags and booze or committing to other things they can't afford and then relying on food banks for food? This could be an ignorant view, so interested to hear what other people's opinions are...

Check this,

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/08/case-studies-food-banks

there's two very ordinary people using food banks.

More and more in the news:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30346060

 

I'm torn on this. Do the majority of people using these, genuinely need them - or, are they loading up with fags and booze or committing to other things they can't afford and then relying on food banks for food? This could be an ignorant view, so interested to hear what other people's opinions are...

I think some will use it for that, and others are in genuine need of them.

People like to criticise succesive governments and the economy for the increase in use of food banks - but at the same time there has also been a big increase in cigarette prices over the last few years...

Most food goes to people who really need it, but clearly they are open to abuse and it is a very inefficient way of getting money to people in needf. Raise the minimum wage incrementally to £10ph whilst giving tax breaks to employers who export would transform the social conditions of millions whilst cutting the benefits bill and raising tax revenues. Projections show it wont create massive unemployment (though Louisiana Fried Chicken will probably go to the wall, no bad thing) others who pay their staff better already will thrive.

I came across foodbanks for the 1st time a couple of years ago when working in the Black Country. The people using them were genuinely desperate. I could feel the shame and embarrassment of some of the young women getting basic staples to feed their kids.

Most food goes to people who really need it, but clearly they are open to abuse and it is a very inefficient way of getting money to people in needf. Raise the minimum wage incrementally to £10ph whilst giving tax breaks to employers who export would transform the social conditions of millions whilst cutting the benefits bill and raising tax revenues. Projections show it wont create massive unemployment (though Louisiana Fried Chicken will probably go to the wall, no bad thing) others who pay their staff better already will thrive.

I've used this before but it wouldn't work with children's nurseries. We make a modest profit at some nurseries and lose money at others. If we were forced to raise our wages (as they are trying to do to nurseries in Birmingham) then we would have no choice but to raise the amount we charge for children to attend. Even then it would be harder because the two year funded places offered by the government in no way subsidises a full time fee paying child (the payment from the government is small in comparison- there is no such thing as "free" childcare!).

I've used this before but it wouldn't work with children's nurseries. We make a modest profit at some nurseries and lose money at others. If we were forced to raise our wages (as they are trying to do to nurseries in Birmingham) then we would have no choice but to raise the amount we charge for children to attend. Even then it would be harder because the two year funded places offered by the government in no way subsidises a full time fee paying child (the payment from the government is small in comparison- there is no such thing as "free" childcare!).

Sure I accept there are some industries / services it wouldn't work for without some kind of government intervention. I suspect that if a £10ph minimum wage were introduced it would save on benefits / bring in new taxes to sufficient extent to be able to create tax breaks for socially oreconomically important ventures.

I've used this before but it wouldn't work with children's nurseries. We make a modest profit at some nurseries and lose money at others. If we were forced to raise our wages (as they are trying to do to nurseries in Birmingham) then we would have no choice but to raise the amount we charge for children to attend. Even then it would be harder because the two year funded places offered by the government in no way subsidises a full time fee paying child (the payment from the government is small in comparison- there is no such thing as "free" childcare!).

Isn't there a conflict here that they wish to "professionalise" the sector but that in turn dictates higher wages.

Sure I accept there are some industries / services it wouldn't work for without some kind of government intervention. I suspect that if a £10ph minimum wage were introduced it would save on benefits / bring in new taxes to sufficient extent to be able to create tax breaks for socially oreconomically important ventures.

Well the government solution is to move all nurseries into schools which isn't exactly putting the children first. Sadly it would be in the interests of the government to start school readiness from two upwards in schools because it is cheaper and means they are more likely to sit down, shut up and behave in reception. We have two nurseries in schools but it isn't some catch all solution.

Isn't there a conflict here that they wish to "professionalise" the sector but that in turn dictates higher wages.

They want to create cheaper places, have "more qualified" staff (though from my experience a qualification doesn't have much to do with being an effective childcare practitioner) and pay the staff more. It's not compatible and won't work unless they turn them into school-lite from the age of two. Which going on the comments of the previous early years minister who loved the French model is exactly what they want.

On top of all that, following the Birmingham thing we have been instructed to teach two year olds democracy and the rule of law!

I think the concept is a bit mixed up for me. Individual organisations create food banks by asking for donations from ordinary people or organisations like supermarkets, so it's outside of government control and it isn't paid for by increasing tax which is fine. But then you need referral via Social Services to qualify, so it's back to the government to decide who's worthy.

Personally I think I'd leave the government out of it and let anyone come and take what they need, if non-needy people take stuff unfairly then let it sit on their conscience.

Sure I accept there are some industries / services it wouldn't work for without some kind of government intervention. I suspect that if a £10ph minimum wage were introduced it would save on benefits / bring in new taxes to sufficient extent to be able to create tax breaks for socially oreconomically important ventures.

There is only finite money to be made in the economy. If you raise the cost of labour then you will reduce the number of jobs.

Check this,

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/08/case-studies-food-banks

 

there's two very ordinary people using food banks.

Hmmm but when the first lady spends £43 a month on a mobile phone, you have to look at "needs" more closely. Surely costs for food should be covered before the latest iPhone?

Fortunately I don't need to use food banks, but then again, my phone bill is a lot less than £43 a month.

There is only finite money to be made in the economy. If you raise the cost of labour then you will reduce the number of jobs.

Not so, you simply move it around as many countries experience with the minimum wage has shown. In fact you tend to retain more money in the country because people on minimum wages tend to spend locally.

Hmmm but when the first lady spends £43 a month on a mobile phone, you have to look at "needs" more closely. Surely costs for food should be covered before the latest iPhone?

 

Fortunately I don't need to use food banks, but then again, my phone bill is a lot less than £43 a month.

To be fair, that Barbera Tolley doesn't look like she goes hungry very often...

Edit: Actually read past the photo, turns out she has a thyroid issue.

Not so, you simply move it around as many countries experience with the minimum wage has shown. In fact you tend to retain more money in the country because people on minimum wages tend to spend locally.

If you increase the cost of running a company then their prices go up and they lose business and they will have to reduce their staff unless they can increase their productivity. You can't just issues an order that everybody should get paid more or you'll just end up with inflation and nobody is any better off.

The money just isn't there in the marketplace.

Does anyone know how the UK compares to other 'developed world' countries in terms of % of the population who can't afford to feed themselves at any given moment in time? Would be interesting to see how we compare.

Does anyone know how the UK compares to other 'developed world' countries in terms of % of the population who can't afford to feed themselves at any given moment in time? Would be interesting to see how we compare.

I'm dubious. I'd like to know how many people literally cannot feed themselves and how many buy expensive gadgets and then plead poverty.

The idea of providing school dinners throughout the school holidays , will cost loads. Catering staff dont normally work all the holidays .

they tend to work 39 weeks and get paid their relevent holiday pay. It will cost the state millions if they have to open up the schools and bring catering staff back to feed school kids.

On another matter some ( A very small mionrity) of food banks are particular on what food you can donate, they prefer brand name serials rather than the supermarket vfm brands.

The idea of providing school dinners throughout the school holidays , will cost loads. Catering staff dont normally work all the holidays .

they tend to work 39 weeks and get paid their relevent holiday pay. It will cost the state millions if they have to open up the schools and bring catering staff back to feed school kids.

And many of these staff have children of their own, also at school.

I'm dubious. I'd like to know how many people literally cannot feed themselves and how many buy expensive gadgets and then plead poverty.

There certainly appears to be many more food bank headlines than there are food bank usage statistics....

I'm dubious. I'd like to know how many people literally cannot feed themselves and how many buy expensive gadgets and then plead poverty.

I watched people queuing for beans, bread, pasta, milk etc every Tuesday for a couple of years. Each one looked just about as low as you could go. Before I saw it with my own eyes I would have struggled to believe it was possible in modern day Britain.

If you increase the cost of running a company then their prices go up and they lose business and they will have to reduce their staff unless they can increase their productivity. You can't just issues an order that everybody should get paid more or you'll just end up with inflation and nobody is any better off.

 

The money just isn't there in the marketplace.

Or companies pay less tax which they could if the benefit bill was reduced.

Despite this governments demonisation of the unemployed, apart from pensions, the biggest portion of the benefits bill goes in tax credits to people in work. So the state is subsidising low wages and also subsidising private landlords through housing benefit. More social housing would reduce this problem with rents being ploughed back into building more.

I'm old enough to remember Macmillan's Tory government boasting of how many council houses they were building. Then Thatcher sold them all off cheaply and prevented local authorities using that income to build more.

I could quote the relevant statistics but I've got to get off to the match.

Or companies pay less tax which they could if the benefit bill was reduced.

 

Despite this governments demonisation of the unemployed, apart from pensions, the biggest portion of the benefits bill goes in tax credits to people in work. So the state is subsidising low wages and also subsidising private landlords through housing benefit. More social housing would reduce this problem with rents being ploughed back into building more.

 

I'm old enough to remember Macmillan's Tory government boasting of how many council houses they were building. Then Thatcher sold them all off cheaply and prevented local authorities using that income to build more.

 

I could quote the relevant statistics but I've got to get off to the match.

One of the biggest mistakes of the last 30 odd years.

There certainly appears to be many more food bank headlines than there are food bank usage statistics....

Considering the report published today was a cross party paper I think you'll find all the relevant figures contained within if you can be bothered to read it.

Considering the report published today was a cross party paper I think you'll find all the relevant figures contained within if you can be bothered to read it.

Didn't realise that, so I might "bother to read it" when I get a chance. Thanks.

P.s. I probably should have qualified my observation with "historically"

I watched people queuing for beans, bread, pasta, milk etc every Tuesday for a couple of years. Each one looked just about as low as you could go. Before I saw it with my own eyes I would have struggled to believe it was possible in modern day Britain.

I don't deny it exists, I'd like to know how much of a problem it is and how many of those literally could not afford to feed themselves and didn't just make other choices.

I don't deny it exists, I'd like to know how much of a problem it is and how many of those literally could not afford to feed themselves and didn't just make other choices.

My experience in the Black County and The Potteries is that it hits what I guess we'd label as "underclass" or at least the lowest rungs of the working class ladder. It was very evident that many lacked a basic education and often didn't have the literacy skills to access benefits.

Going for handouts of own label pasta and beans isn't a result of choices. Perhaps you need to look beyond the Daily Mail headlines.

My experience in the Black County and The Potteries is that it hits what I guess we'd label as "underclass" or at least the lowest rungs of the working class ladder. It was very evident that many lacked a basic education and often didn't have the literacy skills to access benefits.

 

Going for handouts of own label pasta and beans isn't a result of choices. Perhaps you need to look beyond the Daily Mail headlines.

Workers at food banks rang into the radio today to say that whilst there is a problem there, they know that many of the people who get food and on their food banks are not in dire need and that actually it was just an easier option for them and meant they could keep their material possessions.

Not sure there was any need for the patronising daily mail response. There are worst things to eat than own label goods.

I think it is very much hitting old people as well. those That are infirm , lonely and do not have access to home care type facilities . I'm quite shocked that so many school children are not being fed given they get regular school meals etc .

I think it is very much hitting old people as well. those That are infirm , lonely and do not have access to home care type facilities . I'm quite shocked that so many school children are not being fed given they get regular school meals etc .

A lot of that is the fault of the parents. Occasionally we have packed lunches and there are always a few parents who think it is acceptable to give their three year old a pot noodle for lunch ffs.

A lot of that is the fault of the parents. Occasionally we have packed lunches and there are always a few parents who think it is acceptable to give their three year old a pot noodle for lunch ffs.

Don't your nurseries provide food then?

Don't your nurseries provide food then?

They do but the two nurseries we have in schools don't have their own kitchen facilities so we only provide snack and they bring packed lunches.

Hmmm but when the first lady spends £43 a month on a mobile phone, you have to look at "needs" more closely. Surely costs for food should be covered before the latest iPhone?

 

Fortunately I don't need to use food banks, but then again, my phone bill is a lot less than £43 a month.

I was going to pull out EXACTLY the same quote;

"She gets £71 employment and support allowance, a sum that shrinks to £15 a week when you take off bills for gas and electricity (£25), petrol for her mother’s car to drive to appointments and job interviews (£10), mobile phone (£10) and the £11-a-week bedroom tax, which she has had to pay since her youngest moved out of their two-bed council house. "

My monthly income is higher, yet I spend £12.50 a month, SIM only, on my 3 year old iPhone 4s - I get unlimited calls, unlimited texts and 2 Gb of data a month. I genuinely don't understand people wasting so much money on mobiles, especially when they're on such a tight budget.

Or companies pay less tax which they could if the benefit bill was reduced

They only pay tax if they make any profits.

If you increase the cost of running a company then their prices go up and they lose business and they will have to reduce their staff unless they can increase their productivity. You can't just issues an order that everybody should get paid more or you'll just end up with inflation and nobody is any better off.

 

The money just isn't there in the marketplace.

What you mean is that companies currently paying minimum wage will lose business to their competitors who are currently more expensive because they pay better. I wont lose any sleep over Burger king losing market share to Pizza Express because their price differential has narrowed. Allowing a race to the bottom maintains people on poverty wages destroys jobs, increases welfare demands and reduces tax take.

You've contradicted yourself. First you say higher wages wont create anymore wealth and then you say they will create inflation. Which is it? Will it increase demand or not?

What you mean is that companies currently paying minimum wage will lose business to their competitors who are currently more expensive because they pay better. I wont lose any sleep over Burger king losing market share to Pizza Express because their price differential has narrowed. Allowing a race to the bottom maintains people on poverty wages destroys jobs, increases welfare demands and reduces tax take.

 

You've contradicted yourself. First you say higher wages wont create anymore wealth and then you say they will create inflation. Which is it? Will it increase demand or not?

No contradiction there. Inflation leads to less wealth, not more. Demand won't increase if your prices go up.

How can companies lose business to competitors who charge more?

There is only finite money to be made in the economy. If you raise the cost of labour then you will reduce the number of jobs.

No contradiction there. Inflation leads to less wealth, not more. Demand won't increase if your prices go up.

 

How can companies lose business to competitors who charge more?

If there is only a finite amount of money in the economy how will demand go up leading to inflation?

How can companies lose business to competitors who charge more? By providing better quality, Im surprised you didnt know that. Example. Say Burger King charge £6 for its Bacon Double Cheeseburger meal and greasy formica table. Pizza Express charge £9 for a pizza where you waitress service and a gerbera on the table but of course its 50% more. Some people will think its worth it and some will take the cheaper option

Of BKs £6 £3 is staff wages at minimum wage rates, £1 ingredients and £2 for rates, equipment, utilities etc. Pizza Express pay £5 in wages £2 in ingredients and the same £2 for rates utilities etc. If you raise the wages component for BK to £5 and everything else stays the same their burger becomes £8 and the Pizza only £1 more - a much better value proposition. Pizza Express gain trade and Burger King lose plus welfare claims go down and tax receipts go up because you've raised wages by 60% - so you can afford to cut employers NI contributions. Better than screwing 20% of the population to the floor wouldnt you say?

If there is only a finite amount of money in the economy how will demand go up leading to inflation?

 

How can companies lose business to competitors who charge more? By providing better quality, Im surprised you didnt know that. Example. Say Burger King charge £6 for its Bacon Double Cheeseburger meal and greasy formica table. Pizza Express charge £9 for a pizza where you waitress service and a gerbera on the table but of course its 50% more. Some people will think its worth it and some will take the cheaper option

 

Of BKs £6 £3 is staff wages at minimum wage rates, £1 ingredients and £2 for rates, equipment, utilities etc. Pizza Express pay £5 in wages £2 in ingredients and the same £2 for rates utilities etc. If you raise the wages component for BK to £5 and everything else stays the same their burger becomes £8 and the Pizza only £1 more - a much better value proposition. Pizza Express gain trade and Burger King lose plus welfare claims go down and tax receipts go up because you've raised wages by 60% - so you can afford to cut employers NI contributions. Better than screwing 20% of the population to the floor wouldnt you say?

If you pay everybody more and put prices up you have inflation but nobody is better off.

Better quality doesn't of itself lead to more profit, and I see that there is no profit in your figures. And you're comparing burgers with pizzas which are not the same thing, although neither is a meal.

Less inequality leads to more growth.

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/make-growth-socially-inclusive-for-improved-well-being-and-stronger-economies.htm

Of BKs £6 £3 is staff wages at minimum wage rates, £1 ingredients and £2 for rates, equipment, utilities etc. Pizza Express pay £5 in wages £2 in ingredients and the same £2 for rates utilities etc. If you raise the wages component for BK to £5 and everything else stays the same their burger becomes £8 and the Pizza only £1 more - a much better value proposition. Pizza Express gain trade and Burger King lose plus welfare claims go down and tax receipts go up because you've raised wages by 60% - so you can afford to cut employers NI contributions. Better than screwing 20% of the population to the floor wouldnt you say?

Some big assumptions there.

First of all the overheads for Pizza Express will be a lot higher with prime high street locations as opposed to cheaper out of town retail outlets for Burger King.

Then you have to look at volumes. The average Pizza Express outlet will serve far less pizzas than BK can serve burgers. If BK serve 1000 burgers in a given period, PE would only serve up 100 pizzas. BK put £3000 in the wage pot (using your assumptions) compared to £500 from Pizza express. Therefore, switching to PE would make less money available for the average worker.

However, I dont see why the average BK customer would switch to PE. If anything, they are more likely to switch to McDonalds, who serve £4 meals, pay minimum wage and have people on zero hour contracts. Meanwhile BK would lay off staff as a result of the switch. Would the worker on the street really be better off???? Not really.

Then If McDonalds put their prices up to pay higher wages, you could bet your bottom dollar that more people would stay at home, as opposed to switching to PE or back to BK. Therefore you would be putting more people on the scrap heap.

The biggest problem of all, is that if BK charge more for their burgers, in order to pay higher wages, those customers will have less money to spend elsewhere. Say in the pubs or on cars, therefore leading to job cuts elsewhere. All you would be doing is to move money to fast food workers, away from those working in pubs or in car factories.

Taking from one group, in order to give to another isn't the answer.

The answer is to create more wealth (through innovation) and use the tax system to re-distribute it more fairly. It's quite simple really and neither political party seem to get it.

Tax credits and the minimum wage trap people in poverty. Of course they were designed to help the poorest , but as per usual once politicians try and rig the market the unintended consequences are worse than the problem they're trying to cure. We've ended up with a situation where large multi national profitable companies have their pay roll subsidised by the tax payer. I have minimum wage guys working for me who have turned down promotions and O/T because they'll be no better off as any extra money comes off their tax credits. We have no incentive to put our wages up because tax credits and unskilled EU migrants ensure our vacancies are always filled.

As for food banks , if people want to run them or donate to them, that's up to them. However I won't be doing either. We have a welfare state that pays people enough to eat whilst they're looking for work and tax credits, family benefit ect means people in work get enough to feed themselves. There are obviously people who fall through the cracks of society or who are ill, mentally or addicts , but generally I don't accept that people have no other option than food banks if they're claiming the correct amount they're entitled to. I realise that view won't be popular, but surely the debate should be around what people consider to be a minimum standard of living . Is owning a mobile, a TV, or even a car a right that people have or are they luxeries that should go to leave more money for food. What about fags and booze, should people be expected to stop smoking before using charity to feed themselves?

I'm interested in what people think are basic requirements and what people feel are luxury items they should only have once they've been fed , and housed.

Lord Duckhunter

A good honest post

Your comments about employees turning down promotions and O/T employemtn etc is spot on. because they'll be no better off as any extra money comes off their tax credits.

Some applicants make it clear at the start of an interview that unless they can only work X hours ( lesst thanthe ft/PT hours being recruited to that they are not interested in the job. as it affects all their benefits,

Some jobs you can accomodate those requests, the majority you can't . somehow the atate needs to change peoples mindset about benfits

being a life time entitlement.

I am more concerned about fuel poerty and those that work Full time but barely take home the living wage , but with travel costs and the price of fuel , they cannot afford to heat their house let afford the 50in state of the art TVs mobile phones etc, They cant even afford a phone

Why do people earning up to £50K entitled to child tax credit?

You may have to pay a tax charge, known as the ‘High Income Child Benefit Charge’, if you have an individual income over £50,000 and either: you or your partner get Child Benefit

Thats seems perverse. no wonder the country is broke

Why do people earning up to £50K entitled to child tax credit?

 

You may have to pay a tax charge, known as the ‘High Income Child Benefit Charge’, if you have an individual income over £50,000 and either: you or your partner get Child Benefit

 

Thats seems perverse. no wonder the country is broke

It used to be called a tax allowance. Now they take the tax off you and give some of it back.

Don't agree with tax credits myself. It's a subsidy to banking and corporations.

On a related note, I love it when people debate finance as if it's real and set in stone.

Tax credits and the minimum wage trap people in poverty. Of course they were designed to help the poorest , but as per usual once politicians try and rig the market the unintended consequences are worse than the problem they're trying to cure. We've ended up with a situation where large multi national profitable companies have their pay roll subsidised by the tax payer. I have minimum wage guys working for me who have turned down promotions and O/T because they'll be no better off as any extra money comes off their tax credits. We have no incentive to put our wages up because tax credits and unskilled EU migrants ensure our vacancies are always filled.

 

As for food banks , if people want to run them or donate to them, that's up to them. However I won't be doing either. We have a welfare state that pays people enough to eat whilst they're looking for work and tax credits, family benefit ect means people in work get enough to feed themselves. There are obviously people who fall through the cracks of society or who are ill, mentally or addicts , but generally I don't accept that people have no other option than food banks if they're claiming the correct amount they're entitled to. I realise that view won't be popular, but surely the debate should be around what people consider to be a minimum standard of living . Is owning a mobile, a TV, or even a car a right that people have or are they luxeries that should go to leave more money for food. What about fags and booze, should people be expected to stop smoking before using charity to feed themselves?

 

I'm interested in what people think are basic requirements and what people feel are luxury items they should only have once they've been fed , and housed.

If you read the cross party report you'd see that a major part of the problem is that people can't access benefits or have to wait up to 16 weeks for them to come through.

As for considering a mobile as a luxury they are often cheaper to have than landlines and if you don't have a number then JCP can stop your benefits on the grounds that you aren't contactable for offers of work.

If you read the cross party report you'd see that a major part of the problem is that people can't access benefits or have to wait up to 16 weeks for them to come through.

 

As for considering a mobile as a luxury they are often cheaper to have than landlines and if you don't have a number then JCP can stop your benefits on the grounds that you aren't contactable for offers of work.

Lol shocker.