Food prices

[3rd rail land]

Food prices have already increased a lot. For example a tub of cream at my local supermarket was 1 pound last last year, its 1.30 now. I honestly think we are heading for a terrible crash sometime this year as people simply can no longer afford to live and then the lot will go off.

Totally agree. This is the worst recession most of us will experience in our lifetimes. Living costs are getting out of control and of course wages are not rising anywhere near enough to keep up. The bubble will eventually burst at some point and it is rather worrying.
I think the only viable solution here is for large business such as supermarkets to keep prices as they are, or increase them less than they are, and accept lower profits but not so low they go out of business.

 

[DarloRich]

This is the worst recession most of us will experience in our lifetimes.

I don't know about that - the ones in the 80's were quite bad as was the one in the early 90's (Black Wednesday anyone?) and apparently the 2008/2009 recession was the worst in the uK since the second world war ( but that one didn't feel as bad as the two earlier ones - even though I lost my job)

 

[DelayRepay]

Absolutely - they need all kinds of goods including things like soap powder, washing up liquid, pet food, cleaning products etc. One of ( that is shameful to say isn't it) our local ones has started doing household bags recognising that kids need clean clothes for school and people for work etc etc.

Something is very wrong with our country.

It really is. I have always been in two minds about food banks - they do an amazing and much needed job, but unfortunately they now seem to be the safety net that the welfare state should be. I donate but I worry that in doing so I am absolving the government of their responsibility to provide for those in need.

I don't know about that - the ones in the 80's were quite bad as was the one in the early 90's (Black Wednesday anyone?) and apparently the 2008/2009 recession was the worst in the uK since the second world war ( but that one didn't feel as bad as the two earlier ones - even though I lost my job)

I was only a young boy in the '80s, but growing up in a South Yorkshire mining area, I saw hard times. My uncle was a miner who went out on strike. I remember asking my mum why my cousin had his tea at our house nearly every day, but I never went to his house for tea. I also remember asking my mum why she didn't take more care when cooking, she always 'accidentally' cooked too much and sent the leftovers home with my cousin.

This feels different - back then the problem was a lack of employment/income. Now, there seem to be plenty of jobs but even a family where both couples work struggle as costs rise while wages don't.

My dad was a bus driver and my mum worked as a part time cook. Between them they bought a house, raised two children, saved enough to help me with university fees, and we never really struggled. The only state support was Child Benefit. It would be very difficult to do that today.

 

[Starmill]

It really is. I have always been in two minds about food banks - they do an amazing and much needed job, but unfortunately they now seem to be the safety net that the welfare state should be. I donate but I worry that in doing so I am absolving the government of their responsibility to provide for those in need.

Yes, I definitely share that concern. I always wonder if when I'm leaving my (low value) donation I'm genuinely choosing the lesser of the two evils. But then what's the alternative? Don't donate and let that ordinary family come one step closer to starvation through no fault of their own?

It's also enormously frustrating how a customer loses so much agency when they have no choice but to turn to a food bank. Why should someone's low income mean they lose what limited elements of choice they had in the first place over their basic grocery shopping? Why not let them have the same choices I do about what I want to eat, bounded by the resources I budget for food? It's dehumanising and it worries me greatly. It demonstratrates that although food banks are better than nothing and they're just the system we have, direct cash to people who might otherwise become ill from the cold in their homes or go to bed without a meal at all is the real solution. Even if it's only a small amount of money.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Would it be better to give cash to a food bank, so they can purchase goods at wholesale prices?

By buying goods in a supermarket, and then placing them in the box near the exit, you are paying the full retail price which includes the costs incurred by the supermarket and their profit element.

Conversely, it is a convenient way to donate, there and then. Sending cash later people may forget or change their minds.

 

[DelayRepay]

Would it be better to give cash to a food bank, so they can purchase goods at wholesale prices?

By buying goods in a supermarket, and then placing them in the box near the exit, you are paying the full retail price which includes the costs incurred by the supermarket and their profit element.

Conversely, it is a convenient way to donate, there and then. Sending cash later people may forget or change their minds.

It probably would, and the Food Bank could then buy what was needed (I gather they are over-run with tins of baked beans and bags of pasta, but short of other items such as toiletries). They could also claim Gift Aid if the person donating is a tax payer.

But like you say, buying an extra couple of items for their trolley is convenient, and in a way doesn't feel as 'expensive' as giving cash.

 

[Gloster]

My local food bank puts out a list each month of what they need that month. This month it is tinned fruit/potatoes/soup/spaghetti, sponge puddings, long grain rice (1 kg) and squash.

 

[david1212]

... As an extreme example of savings: the only bran flakes available in my village Tesco are Kellogg’s at £2.49 for 500 g. The Morrison’s in the nearby town has 1 kg. packets at £1.20. ...

Back 35+ years ago I lived in a village. The shops were independent or part of a chain e.g. VG, Mace that did not have the buying power of Tesco, Morrisons etc. Hence accepted the prices could not compete with the town supermarkets but even so overall not a huge markup.

Of couse for Tesco Express etc. the distribution still costs more and against sales the overheads per square metre are probably more. However Tesco as a group have the buying power so the added markup for the village store seems excessive.

Prices are going to go up and up. Change the way you shop: bin the pre cooked, processed stuff. Buy fresh and buy in bulk. Shop away from the supermarkets ( try your local market) and learn to cook simple filling meals and batch them if you can. It isn't hard to cook decent food on a budget but it does take more thought & planning than whacking a chicken Kyiv or premium pizza in the oven ..

Indeed and probably more nutritious too.
The meat content of even premium ready meals is generally low. I can't recall where but a while ago, maybe when supermarket delivery slots were hard to book, I read a post by a retired couple about their food bill. They were having two deliveries a week totalling over £150. There was plenty of reaction as to how they spent that much. The response was along the lines of a Tesco Finest or similar meal each a day, Tesco Finest soup as part of lunch and so on.
OK maybe an extreme example but in comparison I do not spend a lot of time cooking or preparation but rather a grill a pork chop or gammon steak, bake a fish or chicken breast portion etc.

 

[DarloRich]

It really is. I have always been in two minds about food banks - they do an amazing and much needed job, but unfortunately they now seem to be the safety net that the welfare state should be. I donate but I worry that in doing so I am absolving the government of their responsibility to provide for those in need.

That is exactly what we are doing and the government known this. What choice is there?

I was only a young boy in the '80s, but growing up in a South Yorkshire mining area, I saw hard times. My uncle was a miner who went out on strike. I remember asking my mum why my cousin had his tea at our house nearly every day, but I never went to his house for tea. I also remember asking my mum why she didn't take more care when cooking, she always 'accidentally' cooked too much and sent the leftovers home with my cousin

that sounds familiar. I wonder how many people are doing that today for friends and relatives.

 

[david1212]

It really is. I have always been in two minds about food banks - they do an amazing and much needed job, but unfortunately they now seem to be the safety net that the welfare state should be. I donate but I worry that in doing so I am absolving the government of their responsibility to provide for those in need....

This is my view. I pay all the various taxes so the state should also meet their obligations and feel donating to food banks is paying twice, certainly for essential items. Adding something they can hand out as treat e.g. Easter Egg is different.

 

[AM9]

This is my view. I pay all the various taxes so the state should also meet their obligations and feel donating to food banks is paying twice, certainly for essential items. Adding something they can hand out as treat e.g. Easter Egg is different.

For me, it's not whether I pay twice, donating is a voluntary act - not an obligation. The issue is that if the UK Government wishes to claim the higher moral ground as a caring nation, the appropriate taxes should be applied legally. Taxes are how the system works, and those who value a caring society in this country should support their application of them to secure that.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is my view. I pay all the various taxes so the state should also meet their obligations and feel donating to food banks is paying twice, certainly for essential items. Adding something they can hand out as treat e.g. Easter Egg is different.

Unfortunately the State does not appear to wish to meet its obligations at present nor for some time proceeding today's cost of living crisis.

Let's take a simple case a single person aged 25 with no children nor disabilities renting a private property and liable for Band A for their Council Tax. In 2010 they would have been entitled to income based Jobseekers Allowance worth £67.50 per week. They would have been able to get Council Tax Benefit which would cover 100% of their Council Tax bill. Their Housing Benefit been based on the Local Housing Allowance rate of one bedroom and would have been based on the median of rents (or the 50th percentile) in their local area.

Fast forward to 2022. A single person aged 25 with no children or disabilities renting a private property in Band A is now (or will be from April 2022 as I'm comparing with the April 2010 figure) entitled to Universal Credit of £77.28 per week. They now will get Council Tax Support which will be capped to something likely between 75% and 85% of their liability (the amount covered varies by Local Authority as they now set their own schemes and receive less from Central Government cover the cost of their scheme) so is probably paying somewhere in the region of £3 per week (depending on the exactly value of Band A, that also varies) in Council Tax. The Housing Costs Element of their Universal Credit will be calculated at the Shared Room Rate rather than the One Bedroom rate as anyone under-35 that has no dependent children or is single only gets that lower rate, it also now based on the 30th percentile or the bottom 30% of the rental market in their local area.

So the Universal Credit of 2022 has increased by only £11.58 which is an 14.5% increase in 12 years. The Bank of England's inflation calculator suggests that £67 in 2010 would be worth £91 in 2021 (it doesn't have 2022 yet) due to inflation in that time. Our person is having to find money to pay for their Council Tax and is also going to almost certainly be contributing to their rent. It's hard to pin down precise figures as I can't find data going back to 2010 before all the cuts came in. But taking 2015 as an example in my area (Teesside) the one bedroom rate was £80.56 per week it is now £86.30 per week. But actually our 25 year old will begetting the Shared Room rate which in 2022 for Teesside is only £65.00 per week. Good luck finding reasonable accommodation for £65 per week. It would be tricky at £86.30 per week I bet but not impossible. But recall even this figure is based on the bottom 30% of the market whereas in 2010 it would have been based on bottom 50% so will still be lower. It's also often now frozen as well anyway so falls further behind even the 30% figure (it used to be updated monthly).

So yes I absolutely agree, the State should be meeting its obligations to people to ensure that we don't need to contribute to foodbanks. But in the last twelve years the basic rate of our subsistence benefits have increased by just 14.5% and the Government has made further changes that mean that people have to meet more and more costs from the limited money that they receive. And now they're being asked to pay for more expensive food, more expensive utilities, rents are increasing further, etc etc. So from my point of view the State is absolutely not meeting its obligations.

 

[LucyP]

Why is it always down to "The State", by which you mean the hardworking taxpayers, who can be bothered to get off their backsides, and work for a living, and have to pay tax to fund someone who is too lazy to work and always has an excuse as to why someone else should provide their booze, cigarettes, gambling money and the latest mobile phone?

There are plenty of jobs available now. That excuse is long-gone.

 

[roversfan2001]

Why is it always down to "The State", by which you mean the hardworking taxpayers, who can be bothered to get off their backsides, and work for a living, and have to pay tax to fund someone who is too lazy to work and always has an excuse as to why someone else should provide their booze, cigarettes, gambling money and the latest mobile phone?

There are plenty of jobs available now. That excuse is long-gone.

Thought I'd stumbled across the comments section of a Daily Mail article then. The ignorance is astounding.

 

[DarloRich]

Why is it always down to "The State", by which you mean the hardworking taxpayers, who can be bothered to get off their backsides, and work for a living, and have to pay tax to fund someone who is too lazy to work and always has an excuse as to why someone else should provide their booze, cigarettes, gambling money and the latest mobile phone?

There are plenty of jobs available now. That excuse is long-gone.

I am not sure you really understand the issue.

 

[LucyP]

Don't I? Well please tell me then. You think that it's fine to do nothing whilst "The State" aka known as people who work hard and pay tax support you? Post Brexit, apparently no one wants to drive trucks, or buses etc. so there are shortages and cancellations, so there is plenty of work out there, and when there is work, people should take it.

So yes, please tell me why someone who can't be bothered to work should be funded by someone who does.

 

[roversfan2001]

Don't I? Well please tell me then. You think that it's fine to do nothing whilst "The State" aka known as people who work hard and pay tax support you? Post Brexit, apparently no one wants to drive trucks, or buses etc. so there are shortages and cancellations, so there is plenty of work out there, and when there is work, people should take it.

So yes, please tell me why someone who can't be bothered to work should be funded by someone who does.

A spectacularly poor example, given you need specific skills/qualifications to do those jobs. It isn't free to get the entitlement to drive a bus or truck you know? It's not about people who 'can't be bothered' to work either, that's just lazy rhetoric.

 

[DarloRich]

Don't I? Well please tell me then. You think that it's fine to do nothing whilst "The State" aka known as people who work hard and pay tax support you? Post Brexit, apparently no one wants to drive trucks, or buses etc. so there are shortages and cancellations, so there is plenty of work out there, and when there is work, people should take it.

So yes, please tell me why someone who can't be bothered to work should be funded by someone who does.

I doubt you are interested in reality so I will leave you to your ill-informed rantings. However I would say that from my experiance many people using foodbanks are working and paying tax.

 

[computerSaysNo]

Why is it always down to "The State", by which you mean the hardworking taxpayers, who can be bothered to get off their backsides, and work for a living, and have to pay tax to fund someone who is too lazy to work and always has an excuse as to why someone else should provide their booze, cigarettes, gambling money and the latest mobile phone?

There are plenty of jobs available now. That excuse is long-gone.

Don't I? Well please tell me then. You think that it's fine to do nothing whilst "The State" aka known as people who work hard and pay tax support you? Post Brexit, apparently no one wants to drive trucks, or buses etc. so there are shortages and cancellations, so there is plenty of work out there, and when there is work, people should take it.

So yes, please tell me why someone who can't be bothered to work should be funded by someone who does.

Firstly what about the people who cannot work? For example, physical mobility issues, mental health issues, no appropriate jobs in the local area and don't have the initial money to travel for work? What about people with kids who can't work because they can't afford childcare?
Secondly what about the people who do work but don't make a high enough wage to get by? You mention bus drivers, to do that you need to already have a license to drive a car. Do you know how expensive it is to learn to drive a car? Even with that, bus companies put clauses into contracts such as "we'll pay for your bus driving training as long as you don't leave the company for any reason within your first two years of employment". So if you do leave, even if it's not your fault, the companies are able to come after you for your £2000-£3000 worth of training.
Thirdly, why should people be absolutely forced to work? If you force someone into a job they don't want then they're not going to perform anywhere near as well as someone who wanted that job. Also, what's the purpose of being alive? Is it to work 50 hours a week just so you can afford the cheapest bread and milk at the supermarket? To work 50 hours a week just to be able to have somewhere to live? I've seen on the news recently of people who work having to choose between eating and heating their home. Shouldn't the State help them?

You mention "booze [and] cigarettes [...]"; while I'm not saying buying those things is the best use of money, it's still better for the economy than someone sitting with thousands of pounds in bank savings which are not being spent. How many people would be out of a job if everyone suddenly stopped buying cigarettes and left their money in the bank?

 

[LucyP]

Well actually I was replying to Ainsworth's post which was about single people on Jobseekers allowance. No one needs to use a foodbank. Lots are used by people in Range Rovers on PCP's with iPhone13s and a Louis Vuitton handbag, bought on their maxed out credit cards, so that they have some food in the house on the rare occasion that they don't use Just East or Deliveroo.

And there is nothing ill informed or ranting about saying that people should work and not expect the taxpayer to support them. And Ainsworth ought to look at how the national debt has surged in recent years, and the consequent interest payments and burden that causes, before saying The State isn't meeting it's obligations. It is more than meeting them. It's the refusal of the feckless to cut their cloth accordingly that is the problem.

 

[Starmill]

Don't I? Well please tell me then. You think that it's fine to do nothing whilst "The State" aka known as people who work hard and pay tax support you? Post Brexit, apparently no one wants to drive trucks, or buses etc. so there are shortages and cancellations, so there is plenty of work out there, and when there is work, people should take it.

So yes, please tell me why someone who can't be bothered to work should be funded by someone who does.

If we could please for one moment set your prejudices about gambling, booze and cigarettes to one side, the evidence suggests that the majority of people who are living in poverty in Britain today are in work. This was the case prior to the pandemic and was driven by a range of factors, but the largest being the cost of housing.

Or are you suggesting that someone earning at or just above the minimum wage (so approx £9.50 - 10.50 / hour) for a full time role in some way deserves poverty because they are working in their local supermarket stacking shelves, picking online shopping orders in a warehouse, or cleaning their local care home or hospital? Or are you denying that people trying to pay rent and support themselves on £10 / hour before tax would be in poverty?

No one needs to use a foodbank.

No one? Not one person?

 

[DarloRich]

Well actually I was replying to Ainsworth's post which was about single people on Jobseekers allowance. No one needs to use a foodbank. Lots are used by people in Range Rovers on PCP's with iPhone13s and a Louis Vuitton handbag, bought on their maxed out credit cards, so that they have some food in the house on the rare occasion that they don't use Just East or Deliveroo.

This is nonsense. I suspect this is an extrapolation of one story in the Mail or Express. I am out.

 

[LucyP]

Believe what you like. Maybe go and look for yourself.

Ainsworth in his example mentioned Council Tax Benefit. He seemed to think that the person in his example should receive it. Why? My current bill is just under £4,000.00. Do you think I get my bins emptied better or more frequently than someone who pays nothing? I have no children at any council schools. I don't use social services, or a council leisure centre. etc. etc. I get basically nothing for that payment.

 

[DarloRich]

Believe what you like. Maybe go and look for yourself.

it is clear you do!
BTW I have been for a look on quite a regular basis. I guess the Rangeys must all have been parked up round the corner. I am sure you know best mind.

 

[Starmill]

Believe what you like. Maybe go and look for yourself.

Ainsworth in his example mentioned Council Tax Benefit. He seemed to think that the person in his example should receive it. Why? My current bill is just under £4,000.00. Do you think I get my bins emptied better or more frequently than someone who pays nothing? I have no children at any council schools. I don't use social services, or a council leisure centre. etc. etc. I get basically nothing for that payment.

Are you suggesting that the public services which people receive should be proportional to the tax they pay? In which case why have public services at all? Are you saying that because you personally don't currently use schools or have children in school that schools shouldn't be publicly funded? Did you attend a state school?

 

[ainsworth74]

Well all I can say is that I hope @LucyP is never reliant on the State due to the bad luck of losing their job or the misfortune of ill health if they truly believe that our welfare state is overly generous in its current guise. I fear they may be in a rude shock if they're forced to rely on it rather than simply spouting Daily Mail talking points. As for looking for myself, I do that a lot. It's the day job after all so I'm rather immersed in it. I can count on one hand the number of people that I've come across who are on the take. The number who are desperate due to circumstances outside of their control and need support that just isn't available would require rather more hands than I have available. But I'm sure it'll be a comfort for them to know that they just need to tug harder on their bootstraps and stop being parasites.

 

[brad465]

Absolutely - they need all kinds of goods including things like soap powder, washing up liquid, pet food, cleaning products etc. One of ( that is shameful to say isn't it) our local ones has started doing household bags recognising that kids need clean clothes for school and people for work etc etc.

Something is very wrong with our country.

It really is. I have always been in two minds about food banks - they do an amazing and much needed job, but unfortunately they now seem to be the safety net that the welfare state should be. I donate but I worry that in doing so I am absolving the government of their responsibility to provide for those in need.



I was only a young boy in the '80s, but growing up in a South Yorkshire mining area, I saw hard times. My uncle was a miner who went out on strike. I remember asking my mum why my cousin had his tea at our house nearly every day, but I never went to his house for tea. I also remember asking my mum why she didn't take more care when cooking, she always 'accidentally' cooked too much and sent the leftovers home with my cousin.

This feels different - back then the problem was a lack of employment/income. Now, there seem to be plenty of jobs but even a family where both couples work struggle as costs rise while wages don't.

My dad was a bus driver and my mum worked as a part time cook. Between them they bought a house, raised two children, saved enough to help me with university fees, and we never really struggled. The only state support was Child Benefit. It would be very difficult to do that today.

The basis of neoliberalism is that all the responsibility for a functioning society, and blame when things don't work, is on the public, and that politicians can be lazy by praising public generosity as a reason not to do anything. The public response should complement effective Government policy, not be a substitute for it.

This reminds me of a quote by German comedian Henning Wehn: "We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of Government's repsonsibilities."

 

[Starmill]

No matter how secure you may think your employment, business, or other main source of income, there is always a chance (however small) that anyone could experience financial devastation through a a range of possibilities including illness, natural disaster or another unforeseeable event beyond your control, and become reliant on public services and welfare support very heavily, even if for a short time. Why anyone thinks that support should be so poor as to dehumanise an individual I fail to understand. That could one day be you.

 

[Jamiescott1]

I work in catering and get regular market reports from suppliers.
Recieved the meat report this morning and the predicted cost increase of meat is scary.
Usually these market reports contain info about what's in abundance and therefore cheaper. They no longer have that section

 

[birchesgreen]

I work in catering and get regular market reports from suppliers.
Recieved the meat report this morning and the predicted cost increase of meat is scary.
Usually these market reports contain info about what's in abundance and therefore cheaper. They no longer have that section

What was it?