Increasing use of food banks

[Unbelievable Jeff]

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.

 

Housing

Food (not including alcohol)

Clothing

 

And then they can spend on what they want.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

 

Thanks for that.

 

The answer is clearly to pay welfare from day one ,rather than food banks. Is it inefficiency or government policy that delays payment for so long?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Thanks for that.

 

The answer is clearly to pay welfare from day one ,rather than food banks. Is it inefficiency or government policy that delays payment for so long?

 

For one I presume they have to check if that person is eligible for benefits, and that must take time. I would assume after that it is inefficiency and Government Policy (if it takes that long perhaps they'll forget about it and try to get money another way).

[Viking Warrior]

Pap

 

Im one that dosent totally understand the intricacies of finance etc , Yes I understand the fundamentals etc

maybe if I research tax credits / allowances . i might be eligible

 

Thanks also to Whitey Grandad for his input

[View From The Top]

Thanks for that.

 

The answer is clearly to pay welfare from day one ,rather than food banks. Is it inefficiency or government policy that delays payment for so long?

 

Some of both it would appear.

 

To cite one example. A lady misses a JCP appointment as her daughter had been rushed into hospital. She phone JCP to inform them but they stopped all her benefits for missing her appointment (Government policy). It took 10 weeks, letters from her GP and finally her local (tory) MP to become involved before they were restored (inefficiency). In that time the foodbank became vital and her debt spiralled.

 

Thankfully the daughter was discharged a few days later and the lady in question now works nights at Tesco's.

[buctootim]

Some big assumptions there.

 

Of course. It was to illustrate a point - Id expect the economics underpinning the actual policy to be more robust. That doesnt negate the basic truth though.

 

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.

 

Lets not get too hung up on Burger King v Pizza Express. Perhaps a better analogy is Pizza Hut v PE - comparable locations, product and methods.

 

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.

 

Obviously Macdonalds and pubs would also be subject to the new higher minimum wage so your point falls at the first very low hurdle. Your second also falls because whilst its true people would buy junk food less often if the price went up, they would simply spend the money somewhere else. As minimum wage workers would now have more income disposable income their increased spending power would replace demand lost from higher prices. Scandinavia is interesting because the price of goods is often very different to here - booze and junk food higher, rents and housing lower for example. It shows people and the market quickly adjust.

 

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.

 

I dont disagree, but it isnt an innovation or redistribution choice, you can do both. Id like to see a much bigger focus on developing better technical skills and knowledge - from high end research down to competent and certified builders and tradesmen. The reason the minimum wage has become such a big deal is because it is a simple cheap and effective antidote to two things - sucking in cheap labour from abroad depressing wages in the UK whilst pushing up the welfare bill as well as corporate tax dodging. Companies can dodge corporation tax but they cant dodge paying a higher minimum wage. The government should use the money saved / raised to reduce corporation commensurately for those that do pay.

...

Edited 9 December, 2014 by buctootim

[trousers]

To cite one example. A lady misses a JCP appointment as her daughter had been rushed into hospital. She phone JCP to inform them but they stopped all her benefits for missing her appointment (Government policy). It took 10 weeks, letters from her GP and finally her local (tory) MP to become involved before they were restored (inefficiency). In that time the foodbank became vital and her debt spiralled.

 

I know I'll be accused of being a government apologist, or such like, for even asking, but is it actually "government policy" to "stop all benefits" regardless of the reason for missing a JCP appointment or could this be a case of over zealous (jobsworth) implementation of a policy that actually has more scope for discretion than the headlines suggest? I've not seen the actual wording of the policy so genuine question. (no doubt there's a link somewhere that I've been too lazy to click on)

Edited 9 December, 2014 by trousers

[View From The Top]

I know I'll be accused of being a government apologist, or such like, for even asking, but is it actually "government policy" to "stop all benefits" regardless of the reason for missing a JCP appointment or could this be a case of over zealous (jobsworth) implementation of a policy that actually has more scope for discretion than the headlines suggest? I've not seen the actual wording of the policy so genuine question. (no doubt there's a link somewhere that I've been too lazy to click on)

 

DWP policy. Miss an appointment and receive a sanction, which is the polite way of saying your money gets stopped. JCP are under great pressure to implement sanctions at every opportunity.

[trousers]

DWP policy

 

Don't suppose you've got a link to the actual policy wording off the top off you're head? No worries if not, I'll get Googling.

[buctootim]

I know I'll be accused of being a government apologist, or such like, for even asking, but is it actually "government policy" to "stop all benefits" regardless of the reason for missing a JCP appointment or could this be a case of over zealous (jobsworth) implementation of a policy that actually has more scope for discretion than the headlines suggest? I've not seen the actual wording of the policy so genuine question. (no doubt there's a link somewhere that I've been too lazy to click on)

 

Its also the problem with an entirely rules based system opposed to one with measure of discretion. One case study talked about a sight impaired man receiving benefits whose eyesight worsened so he became registered blind and entitled to more money. His existing benefit was stopped and it was 8 weeks before the new one was processed. Even though the money was backdated it caused him real problems in the meantime. Its stupid avoidable issues like that which need addressing.

[trousers]

Just found this:

 

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/further-information

 

Your Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) payments will be stopped for a period (‘sanctioned’) if you don’t do something your work coach oremployment scheme provider asks you to do - for example, if you:

• don’t keep to your Claimant Committment
  
• don’t go to a Jobcentre Plus when asked
  
• turn down a job or training
  
• don’t apply for any jobs
  
• don’t go to any training booked for you
  
• leave your job or training without a good reason or because of your behaviour
  

Contact Jobcentre Plus as soon as possible if any of these apply to you, and explain why. You may be able to keep your payment if you have a good reason.

 

I'm surprised that attending hospital in an emergency isn't classed as a "good reason". Who decides what a "good reason" is?

[trousers]

More wording in the PDF that's linked from the JWP page above :

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/379070/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-dwpf15.pdf

 

If you can’t do, or haven’t do one these things, tell your work coach or employment scheme provider why straight away.

 

You’ll get your benefit payment if you can show you had good reason for not doing what you were told to do. Provide as much information as you can as quickly as possible. For example call your work coach as soon as you can before an interview if you can’t attend let them know why. Your work coach can use this time to help others find work, and you’ll continue to get your benefit payment if we decide you had good reason for not going

Edited 9 December, 2014 by trousers

[buctootim]

More wording in the PDF that's linked from the JWP page above :

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/379070/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-dwpf15.pdf

 

Are the Gov dyslexic?

[trousers]

Are the Gov dyslexic?

 

Possibly, but that was a crap cut and paste from an embedded PDF. Fixed now

[trousers]

If someone at the job centre and/or the DWP "decided" that rushing a daughter to hospital wasn't a "good reason" to avoid sanctions then they need their head testing.

[View From The Top]

Just found this:

 

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/further-information

 

 

 

I'm surprised that attending hospital in an emergency isn't classed as a "good reason". Who decides what a "good reason" is?

 

I would hazard a guess that a JCP manager would be the "who". Can't imagine that a mere advisor would have such powers.

[trousers]

I would hazard a guess that a JCP manager would be the "who". Can't imagine that a mere advisor would have such powers.

 

How does the JCP manager decide what a "good reason" is? Do they have a check list issued by the DWP or is it purely down to their individual discretion? As I say, sounds like a bonkers decision (on the surface) for the emergency hospital scenario you highlighted.

[View From The Top]

If someone at the job centre and/or the DWP "decided" that rushing a daughter to hospital wasn't a "good reason" to avoid sanctions then they need their head testing.

 

I agree but there is clearly so much evidence of such cases for all of them to have been mere oversights.

 

As with an awful lot of things, common sense appears to have been removed from the process.

 

It also shouldn't take weeks for mistake to be rectified.

[pap]

So is everyone comfortable with British residents relying on organised begging to eat?

[trousers]

So is everyone comfortable with British residents relying on organised begging to eat?

 

Labour first established food banks. Best ask them.

 

#classicwhatabouterytrousers

[pap]

Labour first established food banks. Best ask them.

 

#classicwhatabouterytrousers

 

Did you lose the ability to learn new things at some point in your life?

[Whitey Grandad]

So is everyone comfortable with British residents relying on organised begging to eat?

 

We spend over £200bn a year on welfare, how much more do you want?

[trousers]

Did you lose the ability to learn new things at some point in your life?

 

Yes, circa 1983. Does it show?

[pap]

We spend over £200bn a year on welfare, how much more do you want?

 

I'd like to spend £200billion on welfare, not banks, buy-to-let landlords and sustaining an artificially high cost of living on the country's credit card. The welfare system would probably be a lot cheaper without the professional hangers-on.

 

I'd also like to be able to say live in a country where people's basic needs are met, or at the very least, has a framework whereby people's needs can be met, such as a healthy job prospects and decent renumeration. We have neither.

[eurosaint]

Did you lose the ability to learn new things at some point in your life?

 

Says the man who is still blaming Maggie Thatcher for everything

 

Nb. please don't disregard the smiley !

[Saint Mikey]

I'd like to spend £200billion on welfare, not banks, buy-to-let landlords and sustaining an artificially high cost of living on the country's credit card. The welfare system would probably be a lot cheaper without the professional hangers-on.

 

I'd also like to be able to say live in a country where people's basic needs are met, or at the very least, has a framework whereby people's needs can be met, such as a healthy job prospects and decent renumeration. We have neither.

 

Where is there an example of this utopian country in the world?

[Lord Duckhunter]

DWP policy. Miss an appointment and receive a sanction, which is the polite way of saying your money gets stopped. JCP are under great pressure to implement sanctions at every opportunity.

 

I guess the problem is toe rags who don't want to work and shysters working in the black economy and then claiming. They must make people jump through hoops to deter wasters. Problem is the genuine needy can fall through the cracks, although I'd be amazed if this women with the hospital appointment didn't have previous. I just can't believe someone was so insensitive as to dock her just for that. I find at work that my staff who take the most time off for kids illness or taking kid to A&E tend to be the ones who are off sick most, cars breakdown more and tend to be the first to clock out.

 

My gut feeling is that even if we gave everybody on welfare an extra £100 per week, within a year we'd still have as many food banks and still have similar numbers using them. Throwing more money at welfare can not be the answer.

[View From The Top]

I guess the problem is toe rags who don't want to work and shysters working in the black economy and then claiming. They must make people jump through hoops to deter wasters. Problem is the genuine needy can fall through the cracks, although I'd be amazed if this women with the hospital appointment didn't have previous. I just can't believe someone was so insensitive as to dock her just for that. I find at work that my staff who take the most time off for kids illness or taking kid to A&E tend to be the ones who are off sick most, cars breakdown more and tend to be the first to clock out.

 

My gut feeling is that even if we gave everybody on welfare an extra £100 per week, within a year we'd still have as many food banks and still have similar numbers using them. Throwing more money at welfare can not be the answer.

 

I agree totally but nor is leaving some of the most vulnerable and needy it the situation we currently find ourselves.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'd like to spend £200billion on welfare, not banks, buy-to-let landlords and sustaining an artificially high cost of living on the country's credit card. The welfare system would probably be a lot cheaper without the professional hangers-on.

 

I'd also like to be able to say live in a country where people's basic needs are met, or at the very least, has a framework whereby people's needs can be met, such as a healthy job prospects and decent renumeration. We have neither.

 

Who do you mean by this? Are you talking about the single mothers with two kids who have never worked and have chosen to have a life on benefits?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I guess the problem is toe rags who don't want to work and shysters working in the black economy and then claiming. They must make people jump through hoops to deter wasters. Problem is the genuine needy can fall through the cracks, although I'd be amazed if this women with the hospital appointment didn't have previous. I just can't believe someone was so insensitive as to dock her just for that. I find at work that my staff who take the most time off for kids illness or taking kid to A&E tend to be the ones who are off sick most, cars breakdown more and tend to be the first to clock out.

 

My gut feeling is that even if we gave everybody on welfare an extra £100 per week, within a year we'd still have as many food banks and still have similar numbers using them. Throwing more money at welfare can not be the answer.

 

From personal experience I can tell you they really are that harsh. I've spoken at length on here about my time unemployed, and the difficulties I had with the Job Centre in particular.

 

I was sanctioned when I told them I couldn't attend a meeting due to a hospital appointment -at the time of them booking the meeting.

 

I was also later sanctioned for not getting a job after attending an interview the Job Centre set up for me, and 20 other candidates when there was one job on offer.

 

Workers in these places are not there to get people into work, they are there to get benefit bills down.

 

Again, worth remembering that misclaimed benefits accounts for a fraction of what millionaires, billionaires and big companies dodge in tax and fraudulent accounting.