FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Free school dinners for all..
Free school dinners for all..
Jump to: Newest in thread
I earn a salary of 2 million billion per annum. Why should my children have free school meals when my children's school can't afford basics like teacher assistant salaries etc. I could easily afford to pay for school dinners, yet Jamie Oliver thinks the tax payer should pay for them for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well, one reason that's been given is that if you only give them to people who have been means tested, then a stigma builds around them that can prevent kids taking them up for fear of being bullied for being poor.
Another reason is that it takes time and resources to means test people. Is it worth spending that money when it might be a large proportion of the money you end up saving in dinners? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You don't have to take up the school dinners, you could send them with something from home. Therefore y ou wouldn't feel guilty. You could also donate some of your money to the school, as many schools are asking parents for this. I would assume the health initiative for children comes under a different heading than staff, certainly in school budgets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You don't have to take up the school dinners, you could send them with something from home. Therefore y ou wouldn't feel guilty. You could also donate some of your money to the school, as many schools are asking parents for this. I would assume the health initiative for children comes under a different heading than staff, certainly in school budgets"
Jamie oliver dosent like people to take packed lunch. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I earn a salary of 2 million billion per annum. Why should my children have free school meals when my children's school can't afford basics like teacher assistant salaries etc. I could easily afford to pay for school dinners, yet Jamie Oliver thinks the tax payer should pay for them for me."
The more important question is why can't schools afford the basics like teacher assistant salaries etc. It's because the funding from the Tories to schools has been systematically worn down.
If all those who earned billions, or even millions, paid a fair share of tax we could have free school meals for all, amazing school buildings, well paid teachers and assistants, small class sizes and resources coming out of our ears.
The arguments for universal free meals is the same as for universal benefits like the fuel allowance and are as follows:
1. To means test costs as much if not more than to just give to everyone and there's no saving but loads of people miss out.
2. Many, despite being in poverty and able to claim whichever benefit, fail to apply either through pride, difficulties with filling in forms etc etc
3. It stops any of the stigmatising of children on free school meals as highlighting them as the poor families of the class.
4. The main reason I oppose means testing is it sets up a 'them and us' situation and undermines the whole policy by setting up a section of society that resents what the others get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You don't have to take up the school dinners, you could send them with something from home. Therefore y ou wouldn't feel guilty. You could also donate some of your money to the school, as many schools are asking parents for this. I would assume the health initiative for children comes under a different heading than staff, certainly in school budgets
Jamie oliver dosent like people to take packed lunch."
Yeah because they tend to be crammed with junk. Its not soviet russia, you'd have the option of freedom to opt out. Just give your kids their own healthy pack up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
if you earned 2 million billion per annum then the tax from your earnings alone would be enough to not only pay for every school dinner for every pupil but also lunch for every pre-school child, adult and oap as well and still have change for free mars bars all round.... just saying  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly? "
Child poverty increases with every year of Tory rule.
But they abolished the measurement of and targets on child poverty rather than doing anything about it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You don't have to take up the school dinners, you could send them with something from home. Therefore y ou wouldn't feel guilty. You could also donate some of your money to the school, as many schools are asking parents for this. I would assume the health initiative for children comes under a different heading than staff, certainly in school budgets
Jamie oliver dosent like people to take packed lunch.
Yeah because they tend to be crammed with junk. Its not soviet russia, you'd have the option of freedom to opt out. Just give your kids their own healthy pack up. "
Would we see a repeat of families giving their children McDonalds over the school fence again i wonder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if you earned 2 million billion per annum then the tax from your earnings alone would be enough to not only pay for every school dinner for every pupil but also lunch for every pre-school child, adult and oap as well and still have change for free mars bars all round.... just saying "
You know it would never be coming to a UK bank!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly?
3.9 million children in the UK live in poverty."
Thats a shocking statisic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Now now, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have to be paid for somehow.
If four million kids have to live in poverty to fund it, that's just the cost of progress!  "
We all know trickle down economics is utter bullshit for the poorest in the country.Its a disgrace. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now now, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have to be paid for somehow.
If four million kids have to live in poverty to fund it, that's just the cost of progress! We all know trickle down economics is utter bullshit for the poorest in the country.Its a disgrace. "
You'd be surprised how many on the right think it genuinely works despite the fact that every single bit of evidence says it doesnt.
Right now the wealth is more concentrated at the top than its ever been in modern society and yet none of it is trickling down but right wingers will still claim it does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I never agreed with the notion of providing free school meals to all infant children. Besides the cost of providing a free meal, schools also had to fund kitchen upgrades to ensure they had the capability and capacity to cope with the demand should all infant children take up the free lunch.
School lunches haven't progressed enough to claim to be healthy, wholesome meals in my opinion so I would have much preferred to see the money being used to enchance the education system in different ways.
Ginger
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I never agreed with the notion of providing free school meals to all infant children. Besides the cost of providing a free meal, schools also had to fund kitchen upgrades to ensure they had the capability and capacity to cope with the demand should all infant children take up the free lunch.
School lunches haven't progressed enough to claim to be healthy, wholesome meals in my opinion so I would have much preferred to see the money being used to enchance the education system in different ways.
Ginger
"
Hungry children don't learn that well. Both are needed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Now now, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have to be paid for somehow.
If four million kids have to live in poverty to fund it, that's just the cost of progress! "
They only live in poverty because they are lazy! They should get a job outside of school hours and pay for their own meals!
Scroungers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now now, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have to be paid for somehow.
If four million kids have to live in poverty to fund it, that's just the cost of progress!
They only live in poverty because they are lazy! They should get a job outside of school hours and pay for their own meals!
Scroungers!"
Or within school hours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never agreed with the notion of providing free school meals to all infant children. Besides the cost of providing a free meal, schools also had to fund kitchen upgrades to ensure they had the capability and capacity to cope with the demand should all infant children take up the free lunch.
School lunches haven't progressed enough to claim to be healthy, wholesome meals in my opinion so I would have much preferred to see the money being used to enchance the education system in different ways.
Ginger
Hungry children don't learn that well. Both are needed.
"
I just don't agree that it's the schools place to feed a child for free, I appreciate that some parents choose not to feed their children sufficiently for a day at school but blanket free meals are not the answer.
And if poverty really is to blame why do they stop as the child goes into the juniors? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never agreed with the notion of providing free school meals to all infant children. Besides the cost of providing a free meal, schools also had to fund kitchen upgrades to ensure they had the capability and capacity to cope with the demand should all infant children take up the free lunch.
School lunches haven't progressed enough to claim to be healthy, wholesome meals in my opinion so I would have much preferred to see the money being used to enchance the education system in different ways.
Ginger
Hungry children don't learn that well. Both are needed.
I just don't agree that it's the schools place to feed a child for free, I appreciate that some parents choose not to feed their children sufficiently for a day at school but blanket free meals are not the answer.
And if poverty really is to blame why do they stop as the child goes into the juniors?"
Its an early intervention strategy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Now now, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have to be paid for somehow.
If four million kids have to live in poverty to fund it, that's just the cost of progress!
They only live in poverty because they are lazy! They should get a job outside of school hours and pay for their own meals!
Scroungers!
Or within school hours. "
Yes! Back down the pits with them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I never agreed with the notion of providing free school meals to all infant children. Besides the cost of providing a free meal, schools also had to fund kitchen upgrades to ensure they had the capability and capacity to cope with the demand should all infant children take up the free lunch.
School lunches haven't progressed enough to claim to be healthy, wholesome meals in my opinion so I would have much preferred to see the money being used to enchance the education system in different ways.
Ginger
Hungry children don't learn that well. Both are needed.
I just don't agree that it's the schools place to feed a child for free, I appreciate that some parents choose not to feed their children sufficiently for a day at school but blanket free meals are not the answer.
And if poverty really is to blame why do they stop as the child goes into the juniors?"
Brain development relies on nutrition. We learn more in our early years than we do at any other time.
I'd prefer to have reasonably developed adults running things when I'm relying on them in my dotage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now now, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have to be paid for somehow.
If four million kids have to live in poverty to fund it, that's just the cost of progress!
They only live in poverty because they are lazy! They should get a job outside of school hours and pay for their own meals!
Scroungers!
Or within school hours.
Yes! Back down the pits with them!"
Its perfectly possible to find employment between 0930 and 1430. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My son receives free school meals (this situation is temporary believe me). Regarding stigma, our LA uses a cashless system now. Pupils pay with a card, topped up by their parents or by the LA for those eligible for free school meals. So nobody in the school would know he reveives free meals as he hands his card over at point of sale, same as every other pupil. And for the cost of means-assessment, if you receive housing benefit or council tax benefit from the LA you automatically qualify for free meals and this is automatically arranged. Of course some working low-earners may slip through this and have to apply seperately, but surely not enough to be a burden on the system. When I was working I was easily in a position to pay my childs meals and I would not have expected anyone else to do so. So I think free meals are an essential benefit. But only for those that really need it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I never agreed with the notion of providing free school meals to all infant children. Besides the cost of providing a free meal, schools also had to fund kitchen upgrades to ensure they had the capability and capacity to cope with the demand should all infant children take up the free lunch.
School lunches haven't progressed enough to claim to be healthy, wholesome meals in my opinion so I would have much preferred to see the money being used to enchance the education system in different ways.
Ginger
Hungry children don't learn that well. Both are needed.
I just don't agree that it's the schools place to feed a child for free, I appreciate that some parents choose not to feed their children sufficiently for a day at school but blanket free meals are not the answer.
And if poverty really is to blame why do they stop as the child goes into the juniors?"
If poverty really is to blame....
Are you thinking that people are pretending to be poor and their kids are malnourished for the fun of it?
In 2011 half a million British children under the age of 5 were anemic according to the House of Commons library. And its only got worse since then. That is shameful and you should feel ashamed that youre spouting views on here that leave 5 year olds malnourished. If you cant feel any empathy for hungry children in your own community then you should take a look in the mirror and figure out whats wrong with you as a human being because there is something very wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago
Chester |
Are there that many people having children they can't afford to feed? It seems an awful lot. I know circumstances change and some have kids foisted upon them so I'm not trying any sort of blanket blame but I was always under the impression that by having a child people were committing themselves to a minimum 18 year contract to supply their basic needs.
I agree that people who lose jobs or can't work through serious illness etc should get money to live on including free meals and I love the idea of paying with a top up card so they can't be bullied for being welfare kids. I do know my parents struggled at times but my sister and i never went hungry, even when they walked miles to work or didn't eat themselves. There was always food for us because that was their responsibility.
Got to admit I didn't even know schools gave free meals. Why should they be free to everyone? If the parents have a decent income and don't feed their kids it's neglect surely and worthy of prosecution?
I ask as someone who (before i realised I was gay not bi) made Herculean efforts to avoid any chance of having children during sexual liaisons.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there that many people having children they can't afford to feed? It seems an awful lot. I know circumstances change and some have kids foisted upon them so I'm not trying any sort of blanket blame but I was always under the impression that by having a child people were committing themselves to a minimum 18 year contract to supply their basic needs.
I agree that people who lose jobs or can't work through serious illness etc should get money to live on including free meals and I love the idea of paying with a top up card so they can't be bullied for being welfare kids. I do know my parents struggled at times but my sister and i never went hungry, even when they walked miles to work or didn't eat themselves. There was always food for us because that was their responsibility.
Got to admit I didn't even know schools gave free meals. Why should they be free to everyone? If the parents have a decent income and don't feed their kids it's neglect surely and worthy of prosecution?
I ask as someone who (before i realised I was gay not bi) made Herculean efforts to avoid any chance of having children during sexual liaisons.
"
In my case my son became ill and I had to leave work to care for him. I dont care if anyone wants to call me a scrounger, I know we are the type of case the benefit system is there to catch. Being on benefits times are tough but I have no fear of eviction or starvation. I truly believe most on benefits who cannot feed their children are those spending the money on other stuff (drink, drugs whatever...). It is way harder than people believe for social services to hold these people to account. The ones I feel for are those working hard on minimum wage or zero hour contracts, paying their bills, in many cases extortionate private rents and barely surviving. I feel strongly the safety net should be there. But not to be taken advantage of. And there is the rub... how do we provide a safety net for the needy that cannot be abused? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago
Chester |
"Are there that many people having children they can't afford to feed? It seems an awful lot. I know circumstances change and some have kids foisted upon them so I'm not trying any sort of blanket blame but I was always under the impression that by having a child people were committing themselves to a minimum 18 year contract to supply their basic needs.
I agree that people who lose jobs or can't work through serious illness etc should get money to live on including free meals and I love the idea of paying with a top up card so they can't be bullied for being welfare kids. I do know my parents struggled at times but my sister and i never went hungry, even when they walked miles to work or didn't eat themselves. There was always food for us because that was their responsibility.
Got to admit I didn't even know schools gave free meals. Why should they be free to everyone? If the parents have a decent income and don't feed their kids it's neglect surely and worthy of prosecution?
I ask as someone who (before i realised I was gay not bi) made Herculean efforts to avoid any chance of having children during sexual liaisons.
In my case my son became ill and I had to leave work to care for him. I dont care if anyone wants to call me a scrounger, I know we are the type of case the benefit system is there to catch. Being on benefits times are tough but I have no fear of eviction or starvation. I truly believe most on benefits who cannot feed their children are those spending the money on other stuff (drink, drugs whatever...). It is way harder than people believe for social services to hold these people to account. The ones I feel for are those working hard on minimum wage or zero hour contracts, paying their bills, in many cases extortionate private rents and barely surviving. I feel strongly the safety net should be there. But not to be taken advantage of. And there is the rub... how do we provide a safety net for the needy that cannot be abused?"
So yours is an acceptable and unfortunate case but you do make good points about system abuse.
I seriously thought that maybe a benefit account could be issued to those needing benefits. All bills paid direct to landlord/electic/gas/water company. Account comes with card to use in food and clothes shops but which staff can't accept for alcohol/fags. Also free bus pass to travel for interviews etc. Would that work? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there that many people having children they can't afford to feed? It seems an awful lot. I know circumstances change and some have kids foisted upon them so I'm not trying any sort of blanket blame but I was always under the impression that by having a child people were committing themselves to a minimum 18 year contract to supply their basic needs.
I agree that people who lose jobs or can't work through serious illness etc should get money to live on including free meals and I love the idea of paying with a top up card so they can't be bullied for being welfare kids. I do know my parents struggled at times but my sister and i never went hungry, even when they walked miles to work or didn't eat themselves. There was always food for us because that was their responsibility.
Got to admit I didn't even know schools gave free meals. Why should they be free to everyone? If the parents have a decent income and don't feed their kids it's neglect surely and worthy of prosecution?
I ask as someone who (before i realised I was gay not bi) made Herculean efforts to avoid any chance of having children during sexual liaisons.
In my case my son became ill and I had to leave work to care for him. I dont care if anyone wants to call me a scrounger, I know we are the type of case the benefit system is there to catch. Being on benefits times are tough but I have no fear of eviction or starvation. I truly believe most on benefits who cannot feed their children are those spending the money on other stuff (drink, drugs whatever...). It is way harder than people believe for social services to hold these people to account. The ones I feel for are those working hard on minimum wage or zero hour contracts, paying their bills, in many cases extortionate private rents and barely surviving. I feel strongly the safety net should be there. But not to be taken advantage of. And there is the rub... how do we provide a safety net for the needy that cannot be abused?
So yours is an acceptable and unfortunate case but you do make good points about system abuse.
I seriously thought that maybe a benefit account could be issued to those needing benefits. All bills paid direct to landlord/electic/gas/water company. Account comes with card to use in food and clothes shops but which staff can't accept for alcohol/fags. Also free bus pass to travel for interviews etc. Would that work? "
It could work I suppose. But if you want people to be responsible for themselves they need to learn what to prioritise and to deal with bills etc. Plus as has been said earlier, the cost of enforcing this may be prohibitive. And then theres the argument why shouldnt soneone on benefits have the odd bottle of wine etc? May seem like a luxury but view it as the occasional treat for holding shit together then its different. And research showing those on low incomes are more likely to drink alcohol? smoke and eat poor food choices? So where do we stand on that, education for the poor, do they fall into bad choices or is that all they know bla bla... gets very tricky. If I knew the answers I would be sitting in Theresa May's office, running the country lol! I see where the anger comes from towards those on benefits, I really do. Having been on both sides of the fence. I just think if there was an easy solution, wouldnt some political party have grabbed it by now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I truly believe most on benefits who cannot feed their children are those spending the money on other stuff (drink, drugs whatever...). "
Uninformed bullshit.
Remarkable to see in this thread where we're talking about whether malnourished british children should get at least 1 decent meal 5 days a week (not even 7) that people are trying to justify taking it away.
More than two thirds of children in poverty have at least 1 parent working.
Most children that are underfed are that way not because there are millions of parents spending that money on drink and drugs but because they have to stretch meals to feed the family. So parents split 2 dinners into 3 or 4 just to get by.
Its shocking how judgemental you are about other families situations with no regard for the facts when the social safety net has been there for you when you needed it. Most families are poor because jobs were unexpentantly lost, long term illness or work hours cut. No study backs up your prepostorous nonsense of it being mostly down to drink and drugs.
Maybe next time check the facts before you pontifocate about the imagined failings of others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I truly believe most on benefits who cannot feed their children are those spending the money on other stuff (drink, drugs whatever...).
Uninformed bullshit.
Remarkable to see in this thread where we're talking about whether malnourished british children should get at least 1 decent meal 5 days a week (not even 7) that people are trying to justify taking it away.
More than two thirds of children in poverty have at least 1 parent working.
Most children that are underfed are that way not because there are millions of parents spending that money on drink and drugs but because they have to stretch meals to feed the family. So parents split 2 dinners into 3 or 4 just to get by.
Its shocking how judgemental you are about other families situations with no regard for the facts when the social safety net has been there for you when you needed it. Most families are poor because jobs were unexpentantly lost, long term illness or work hours cut. No study backs up your prepostorous nonsense of it being mostly down to drink and drugs.
Maybe next time check the facts before you pontifocate about the imagined failings of others."
Nope. You are talking to someone who has worked extensively in this field. Of course there are exceptions, I believe you will see I pointed those out, working families that are on the breadline due to low wages and high rents or zero hour contracts. Maybe that part escaped you. But I truly believe the majority of cases I saw of families on benefits with hungry children were due to the parents prioritising other things. If that doesn't fit with your political rhetoric then tough. Not uninformed bullshit. I always go with evidence based practice. And nowhere did I say I believe in taking free meals away from children in need. I stated my view that a blanket approach, free meals for all, is not necessary. When you are telling me, a qualified social worker who's last job was in commu ity work empowering the unemployed, my opinions are uninformed bullshit, well that just makes me thing what the fuck? ooh and pontificate... big word. Well done. I happen to know my work has influenced the future of many many people that saw no hope, now they do. Throughout the UK. I am satisfied I have done my part. You just keep on ranting, using big words, and feeling all smug. I'm sure you will make a difference eventually... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
My friend works in the social sector a fair bit, and without generalising, she does see families, where the parents sit there with the latest iPhone and wearing the latest trainers, and the children are in poor health and in inadequate clothes.
No child should ever go hungry but just blaming the system is wrong.
This is where organisations such as the Red Cross or WI, could come in with some simple home economics courses? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I earn a salary of 2 million billion per annum. Why should my children have free school meals when my children's school can't afford basics like teacher assistant salaries etc. I could easily afford to pay for school dinners, yet Jamie Oliver thinks the tax payer should pay for them for me."
Because it is not about you or your child.
Regardless of what the 'means test everything' brigade think there is great stigma attached to being reliant on means tested benefits. Regardless of what 'safety' measures are put in place it is inevitable that other children will discover which children are receiving free school meals, usually by overhearing the conversations of vile and vicious parents pointing out who is on free school meals to score points over those they perceive as being of less worth than them.
Children need protecting from that stigma and the bullying that follows. The only way to do that and ensure that no child goes hungry in school is to give free meals for all.
By the way that's socialism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You don't have to take up the school dinners, you could send them with something from home. Therefore y ou wouldn't feel guilty. You could also donate some of your money to the school, as many schools are asking parents for this. I would assume the health initiative for children comes under a different heading than staff, certainly in school budgets
Jamie oliver dosent like people to take packed lunch.
Yeah because they tend to be crammed with junk. Its not soviet russia, you'd have the option of freedom to opt out. Just give your kids their own healthy pack up.
Would we see a repeat of families giving their children McDonalds over the school fence again i wonder. "
Did you see the state of a lot of the mums who were handing over the Mc D's
Too lazy to feed their kids properly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I truly believe most on benefits who cannot feed their children are those spending the money on other stuff (drink, drugs whatever...).
Uninformed bullshit.
Remarkable to see in this thread where we're talking about whether malnourished british children should get at least 1 decent meal 5 days a week (not even 7) that people are trying to justify taking it away.
More than two thirds of children in poverty have at least 1 parent working.
Most children that are underfed are that way not because there are millions of parents spending that money on drink and drugs but because they have to stretch meals to feed the family. So parents split 2 dinners into 3 or 4 just to get by.
Its shocking how judgemental you are about other families situations with no regard for the facts when the social safety net has been there for you when you needed it. Most families are poor because jobs were unexpentantly lost, long term illness or work hours cut. No study backs up your prepostorous nonsense of it being mostly down to drink and drugs.
Maybe next time check the facts before you pontifocate about the imagined failings of others.
Nope. You are talking to someone who has worked extensively in this field. Of course there are exceptions, I believe you will see I pointed those out, working families that are on the breadline due to low wages and high rents or zero hour contracts. Maybe that part escaped you. But I truly believe the majority of cases I saw of families on benefits with hungry children were due to the parents prioritising other things. If that doesn't fit with your political rhetoric then tough. Not uninformed bullshit. I always go with evidence based practice. And nowhere did I say I believe in taking free meals away from children in need. I stated my view that a blanket approach, free meals for all, is not necessary. When you are telling me, a qualified social worker who's last job was in commu ity work empowering the unemployed, my opinions are uninformed bullshit, well that just makes me thing what the fuck? ooh and pontificate... big word. Well done. I happen to know my work has influenced the future of many many people that saw no hope, now they do. Throughout the UK. I am satisfied I have done my part. You just keep on ranting, using big words, and feeling all smug. I'm sure you will make a difference eventually..."
G Hay and L Bauld, Population Estimates of Problematic Drug Users in England Who Access DWP Benefits:
A years long study commissioned by the government that shows only 6.6% of people on benefits use recreational drugs.
North East Child Poverty Commission:
A 12 year study found the main causes of poverty were a lack of jobs, low wages and insecure jobs, change in benefits and barriers to employment such as childcare costs. Lack of desire to work and lifestyle choices are not a major cause although do play a role in individual cases.
Barnardos:
67% of people (thats a majority by the way) on jobseekers benefit find work within 6 months. Another 11% have to put their full time energy into their families for various reasons.
British Social Attitudes 28 (September 2012)
75% of people view drugs and alcohol as a major cause of poverty despite the available evidence.
NatCen "Child Poverty in Britain"
The three most frequently cited (by the public) causes of child poverty were parental alcohol/drug addiction, parents not wanting to work and family breakdown. But in fact very few parents are dependent on alcohol or drugs and family breakdown by itself does not directly cause child poverty.
Theres your evidence. 6.6% is well short of the majority you alledge existed. And all studies in this area show that drugs and alcohol are not the cause in the majority. ALL STUDIES. So I dont care if youre a qualified juggler or you spend your days taking notes on Theresa Mays meetings, you are completely wrong, you have been proven wrong by actual experts who have actual data who actually know what they are talking about.
Your "feeling" that drugs and alcohol are a major cause is uninformed bullshit because the facts prove otherwise. And if you honestly think pontificate is a big word you should try reading proper books instead of the Daily Mail. Not only will you get a decent grasp of the English language but you might actually know what youre talking about in the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I earn a salary of 2 million billion per annum. Why should my children have free school meals when my children's school can't afford basics like teacher assistant salaries etc. I could easily afford to pay for school dinners, yet Jamie Oliver thinks the tax payer should pay for them for me."
Do you not see it as a great opportunity to expose children to a healthy balanced diet and a chance to expand their palate beyond what they might get feed at home? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
I simply can't understand how anyone thinks that feeding children is a waste of taxpayers money at all.
It is sad when if some parents neglect their children buy buying pretty shoes instead of decent food, but why should the child be penalised for any of that stuff?
Children are the responsability of their parents/guardians firstly, but also the responsibility of society as a whole (what with them being the future and all that).
I wonder if the wealthy look at ordinary people arguing over this sort of thing, and view them like a couple of tramps fighting over 10p. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago
Chester |
I can't speak as a wealthy person because I'm really not but I'm seeing more and more people saying blah only costs this and blah only costs that but the trouble is, all those blahs add up to cost a lot. I'm kind of playing devils advocate but no matter what costs government tries to cut, people complain. If they don't cut any we get a bigger deficit. All are bad but I do believe feeding a child is the parents responsibility first and only the state when the parent/s genuinely can't afford it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly?
3.9 million children in the UK live in poverty."
Parents brought them into the world, these kids don't just appear by magic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't speak as a wealthy person because I'm really not but I'm seeing more and more people saying blah only costs this and blah only costs that but the trouble is, all those blahs add up to cost a lot. I'm kind of playing devils advocate but no matter what costs government tries to cut, people complain. If they don't cut any we get a bigger deficit. All are bad but I do believe feeding a child is the parents responsibility first and only the state when the parent/s genuinely can't afford it. "
Well that is not quite true is it?
After all if the Tories had not cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% by so much as to double their wealth in the last 7 years we could afford all these 'blah only costs this and blah only costs that' things. But you are right at present when our leaders and policy setters pander to the wealthy by stripping wealth from the bottom 70% then the state can't even afford to fix the holes in the roads let alone ensure everyone is fed.
Guess it is all about priorities and it seems to be more important that Branson can afford to offer 10 minute holidays in space and have the funds to buy another island than nurses can afford to feed their families. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago
Chester |
"I can't speak as a wealthy person because I'm really not but I'm seeing more and more people saying blah only costs this and blah only costs that but the trouble is, all those blahs add up to cost a lot. I'm kind of playing devils advocate but no matter what costs government tries to cut, people complain. If they don't cut any we get a bigger deficit. All are bad but I do believe feeding a child is the parents responsibility first and only the state when the parent/s genuinely can't afford it.
Well that is not quite true is it?
After all if the Tories had not cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% by so much as to double their wealth in the last 7 years we could afford all these 'blah only costs this and blah only costs that' things. But you are right at present when our leaders and policy setters pander to the wealthy by stripping wealth from the bottom 70% then the state can't even afford to fix the holes in the roads let alone ensure everyone is fed.
Guess it is all about priorities and it seems to be more important that Branson can afford to offer 10 minute holidays in space and have the funds to buy another island than nurses can afford to feed their families."
What tax did they cut for the wealthy? And if they're making money then money makes more money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't speak as a wealthy person because I'm really not but I'm seeing more and more people saying blah only costs this and blah only costs that but the trouble is, all those blahs add up to cost a lot. I'm kind of playing devils advocate but no matter what costs government tries to cut, people complain. If they don't cut any we get a bigger deficit. All are bad but I do believe feeding a child is the parents responsibility first and only the state when the parent/s genuinely can't afford it.
Well that is not quite true is it?
After all if the Tories had not cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% by so much as to double their wealth in the last 7 years we could afford all these 'blah only costs this and blah only costs that' things. But you are right at present when our leaders and policy setters pander to the wealthy by stripping wealth from the bottom 70% then the state can't even afford to fix the holes in the roads let alone ensure everyone is fed.
Guess it is all about priorities and it seems to be more important that Branson can afford to offer 10 minute holidays in space and have the funds to buy another island than nurses can afford to feed their families.
What tax did they cut for the wealthy? And if they're making money then money makes more money. "
.
Factually the only that creates money is debt!.
That's just a FACT, you may not like it but it is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Beware those who have strong desire to punish children for the sins of their parents.
 "
Some parents need to take their responsibilty seriously. I have recieved free school meals as a kid and lived in poverty. I do not believe all kids should get a free meal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What tax did they cut for the wealthy? And if they're making money then money makes more money.
Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax and Bank Levy..."
I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Beware those who have strong desire to punish children for the sins of their parents.
Some parents need to take their responsibilty seriously. I have recieved free school meals as a kid and lived in poverty. I do not believe all kids should get a free meal. "
So if someone said that your parents should have taken their responsibility more seriously that's OK. Guessing people's circumstances on the basis of their children having free school meals doesn't provide the whole story and other's in school don't need to know the ins and outs.
I loathe the deserving and undeserving poor attitude thus generates.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"The very elderly or sick are just as vulnerable as children"
But are not going to suddenly regain the one chance of childhood to grow their bodies and brains to serve the sick and elderly when grown.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!" "
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The very elderly or sick are just as vulnerable as children
But are not going to suddenly regain the one chance of childhood to grow their bodies and brains to serve the sick and elderly when grown.
"
Don't worry about that...
The Dementia Tax and removal of the triple lock has them covered too... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
I think there has to be a limit to what we will tolerate as a civillised, western society, and if we are really at a point where we are squabbling over the notion of feeding children then society has really fucked up somewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are..."
I pay corporation tax and i am in no way wealthy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think there has to be a limit to what we will tolerate as a civillised, western society, and if we are really at a point where we are squabbling over the notion of feeding children then society has really fucked up somewhere. "
True. If people now expect the state to feed their children. Definetly fucked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"I think there has to be a limit to what we will tolerate as a civillised, western society, and if we are really at a point where we are squabbling over the notion of feeding children then society has really fucked up somewhere.
True. If people now expect the state to feed their children. Definetly fucked. "
Why? It's hardly onerous is it? We aren't short of food. It's the least that society can do to ensure the wellbeing of future generations, and struggling households may save a few quid to improve their quality of life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are...
I pay corporation tax and i am in no way wealthy. "
So you claim income tax allowances and pay income tax on your earnings up to your lower rate maximum income. Then all all other profits you pay corporation tax at 20% for your FIRST £300,000 of NET profits and you claim not to be wealthy!
YOU UNPRINCIPLED GREEDY SHIT!
And yes I know exactly how the system works! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Factually the only that creates money is debt!.
That's just a FACT, you may not like it but it is
Is my ISA a debt? It makes a little money. "
.
Every country in the world users the fractional reserve banking system, ALL money is created via debt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are...
I pay corporation tax and i am in no way wealthy.
So you claim income tax allowances and pay income tax on your earnings up to your lower rate maximum income. Then all all other profits you pay corporation tax at 20% for your FIRST £300,000 of NET profits and you claim not to be wealthy!
YOU UNPRINCIPLED GREEDY SHIT!
And yes I know exactly how the system works!"
My *first* £300,000 yeah right mate. You have no idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Beware those who have strong desire to punish children for the sins of their parents.
Some parents need to take their responsibilty seriously. I have recieved free school meals as a kid and lived in poverty. I do not believe all kids should get a free meal.
So if someone said that your parents should have taken their responsibility more seriously that's OK. Guessing people's circumstances on the basis of their children having free school meals doesn't provide the whole story and other's in school don't need to know the ins and outs.
I loathe the deserving and undeserving poor attitude thus generates.
"
My parents should have...mum was a single parent who treated us badly and my dad left us when I was 3. Yes they should have been more responsible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Beware those who have strong desire to punish children for the sins of their parents.
Some parents need to take their responsibilty seriously. I have recieved free school meals as a kid and lived in poverty. I do not believe all kids should get a free meal.
So if someone said that your parents should have taken their responsibility more seriously that's OK. Guessing people's circumstances on the basis of their children having free school meals doesn't provide the whole story and other's in school don't need to know the ins and outs.
I loathe the deserving and undeserving poor attitude thus generates.
My parents should have...mum was a single parent who treated us badly and my dad left us when I was 3. Yes they should have been more responsible"
It was hardly your fault though was it, and thus you didn't deserve to suffer for it. Sadly, we can't prevent some parents from being shit, but we can do our best to make sure that children are taken care off by having suh things as free school dinners and a well funded social services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are...
I pay corporation tax and i am in no way wealthy.
So you claim income tax allowances and pay income tax on your earnings up to your lower rate maximum income. Then all all other profits you pay corporation tax at 20% for your FIRST £300,000 of NET profits and you claim not to be wealthy!
YOU UNPRINCIPLED GREEDY SHIT!
And yes I know exactly how the system works!
My *first* £300,000 yeah right mate. You have no idea. "
Isn't it anything upto £300,000 "not" per £300,000 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are...
I pay corporation tax and i am in no way wealthy.
So you claim income tax allowances and pay income tax on your earnings up to your lower rate maximum income. Then all all other profits you pay corporation tax at 20% for your FIRST £300,000 of NET profits and you claim not to be wealthy!
YOU UNPRINCIPLED GREEDY SHIT!
And yes I know exactly how the system works!
My *first* £300,000 yeah right mate. You have no idea.
Isn't it anything upto £300,000 "not" per £300,000"
I expect so. I make nowhere near that amount. Not even a 6th of that amount. Yet I'm still worth abuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I'm not sure you can lump corporation tax with "tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Really?
Who do you think benefits from cuts in corporation Tax?
Before you answer you may like to look at exactly what the corporation Tax allowances and accounting exemptions are...
I pay corporation tax and i am in no way wealthy.
So you claim income tax allowances and pay income tax on your earnings up to your lower rate maximum income. Then all all other profits you pay corporation tax at 20% for your FIRST £300,000 of NET profits and you claim not to be wealthy!
YOU UNPRINCIPLED GREEDY SHIT!
And yes I know exactly how the system works!"
A person does not pay Corporation a Tax, an entity does. Maybe you don't know how it works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I expect so. I make nowhere near that amount. Not even a 6th of that amount. Yet I'm still worth abuse. "
The point is you have a choice...
Pay income tax and NI on all your earnings or registrar as a limited company then pay yourself a wage that takes full advantage of all income related reliefs and take the rest of your INCOME as corporate profits or pay the full rate of income tax on all your earnings...
Now seeing as according to you you have registered yourself as a company to avail yourself of corporate status do you think that qualifies you as worth abuse?
Or maybe you think that is proof that you are smart and deserve some sort of applause?
Maybe you should give a little thought to how much the really wealth make out of the tax loophole you use to enrich yourself at the cost of the poorest? Or maybe you placate your conscience by dropping a few coppers in a poor box and buying a copy of the big issue every now and then... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I expect so. I make nowhere near that amount. Not even a 6th of that amount. Yet I'm still worth abuse.
The point is you have a choice...
Pay income tax and NI on all your earnings or registrar as a limited company then pay yourself a wage that takes full advantage of all income related reliefs and take the rest of your INCOME as corporate profits or pay the full rate of income tax on all your earnings...
Now seeing as according to you you have registered yourself as a company to avail yourself of corporate status do you think that qualifies you as worth abuse?
Or maybe you think that is proof that you are smart and deserve some sort of applause?
Maybe you should give a little thought to how much the really wealth make out of the tax loophole you use to enrich yourself at the cost of the poorest? Or maybe you placate your conscience by dropping a few coppers in a poor box and buying a copy of the big issue every now and then... "
You bore me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so some kids get some free food? i don't see what the problem is with that 
Me neither but, the not poor kids getting free food bothers me"
so your jealous of some kids then? .... how very grown up of you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't speak as a wealthy person because I'm really not but I'm seeing more and more people saying blah only costs this and blah only costs that but the trouble is, all those blahs add up to cost a lot. I'm kind of playing devils advocate but no matter what costs government tries to cut, people complain. If they don't cut any we get a bigger deficit. All are bad but I do believe feeding a child is the parents responsibility first and only the state when the parent/s genuinely can't afford it.
Well that is not quite true is it?
After all if the Tories had not cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% by so much as to double their wealth in the last 7 years we could afford all these 'blah only costs this and blah only costs that' things. But you are right at present when our leaders and policy setters pander to the wealthy by stripping wealth from the bottom 70% then the state can't even afford to fix the holes in the roads let alone ensure everyone is fed.
Guess it is all about priorities and it seems to be more important that Branson can afford to offer 10 minute holidays in space and have the funds to buy another island than nurses can afford to feed their families.
What tax did they cut for the wealthy? And if they're making money then money makes more money. "
Money makes more money for people with money, not anyone else. At the moment we've got the largest comcentration of money at the top we've ever had and its not generating all the new jobs or investment that right wingers always claim it will.
All those tax cuts that were supposed to be good for society have benefitted only those at the top and hurt the rest of us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so some kids get some free food? i don't see what the problem is with that "
Because the kids decided to be born and thats their fault.
And if their parents arent making enough money for whatever reason (like the wealthy bankers fucking the economy and costing people their jobs) then the children need to be punished so that they learn not to repeat their parents mistakes.
If these kids arent shown their place by leaving them hungry and malnourished at 4 years old in the 5th largest economy in the world then they'll never learn. Why should the wealthy bankers and other billionaires have to be inconvenienced just so some kids dont suffer lifelong poor health because they were malnourished in their key developmental stages.
Let them go hungry, and if any of them die because they werent healthy enough then thats 1 problem solved. At least the right wingers can still afford their ivory back scratchers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *omaMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly?
Child poverty increases with every year of Tory rule.
But they abolished the measurement of and targets on child poverty rather than doing anything about it!"
Child Poverty is a result of policies pursued by every government for decades. . .It doesn't help when we have hundreds of thousands of idle assed parents who haven't worked a day in their adult lives.
Make EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT means tested.
You should only take out of the pot when you've contributed to it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm a believer in all kids having school dinners propper cooked food not shitty convenience food real stuff like they use to cook the schools.
I used to love em as it was most times the only real meal we had most days
The ones that kicked up the last time were mums who wanted thier kids to eat chips n shit every day because that's what they fed theirs most of the time at home from the Chippy.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly?
Child poverty increases with every year of Tory rule.
But they abolished the measurement of and targets on child poverty rather than doing anything about it!
Child Poverty is a result of policies pursued by every government for decades. . .It doesn't help when we have hundreds of thousands of idle assed parents who haven't worked a day in their adult lives.
Make EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT means tested.
You should only take out of the pot when you've contributed to it.
"
And how will this help to reduce child poverty? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly?
Child poverty increases with every year of Tory rule.
But they abolished the measurement of and targets on child poverty rather than doing anything about it!
Child Poverty is a result of policies pursued by every government for decades. . .It doesn't help when we have hundreds of thousands of idle assed parents who haven't worked a day in their adult lives.
Make EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT means tested.
You should only take out of the pot when you've contributed to it.
And how will this help to reduce child poverty? "
... it won't ... but it'll make the poster feel marginally less envious for an hour or two |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Does anyone know what percentage of family's can't afford to feed their children properly?
Child poverty increases with every year of Tory rule.
But they abolished the measurement of and targets on child poverty rather than doing anything about it!
Child Poverty is a result of policies pursued by every government for decades. . .It doesn't help when we have hundreds of thousands of idle assed parents who haven't worked a day in their adult lives.
Make EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT means tested.
You should only take out of the pot when you've contributed to it.
And how will this help to reduce child poverty?
... it won't ... but it'll make the poster feel marginally less envious for an hour or two"
Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
