Or just a few dinners for little fat timmy
Can't afford school meals for kids, but billions for homebuyers, sure!
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
- Status
Or just a few dinners for little fat timmy
Soldato
Just reading this thread is a reminder of how sad most discourse makes me nowadays. It essentially consists of two diametrically opposed viewpoints where there is no common ground and no real desire or attempt to discuss things properly, just lots of loaded language and ad hominem attacks.
Now I'm just waiting for Hitler to be invoked unironically.
Now I'm just waiting for Hitler to be invoked unironically.
Soldato
I've always thought that the answer to this issue (nutrition in general) was personalised food stamps for kids to spend at appropriate supermarkets and shops (Not KFC etc) and schemes for them to be accepted in Cafe's. I mean I don't want kids to have their meals dictated to them but hey schools do this anyway and it would mean that we wouldn't be spendng tax payers cash on junk food worsening the diabetes epidemic we already have.
The number of kids going to McD's, KFC etc on my high street is tragic irrespective of how they get the money.
And family supermarket food stamps instead of part of their universal credit too. Why should any junk food be paid for by the state.
Essentially I'd be a lot happier about my taxes being spent on kids meals if I was sure it wasn't misused/wasted OR being spent by feckless parents.
The number of kids going to McD's, KFC etc on my high street is tragic irrespective of how they get the money.
And family supermarket food stamps instead of part of their universal credit too. Why should any junk food be paid for by the state.
Essentially I'd be a lot happier about my taxes being spent on kids meals if I was sure it wasn't misused/wasted OR being spent by feckless parents.
Caporegime
What have SCHOOL dinners got to do with people not in school?
As the government rightly stated there are other income support benefits for this kind of thing.
The key here is to make sure that the parents are putting their children first. Or finding ways to prosecute them.
If that means not smoking 10 fags a day to feed them, so be it.
If it means no sky TV, so be it.
If the government need to issue part of income support for parents in food tokens instead of cash money then so be it.
As the government rightly stated there are other income support benefits for this kind of thing.
The key here is to make sure that the parents are putting their children first. Or finding ways to prosecute them.
If that means not smoking 10 fags a day to feed them, so be it.
If it means no sky TV, so be it.
If the government need to issue part of income support for parents in food tokens instead of cash money then so be it.
Caporegime
Rashford wants the government to provide school meals to children during school holidays...not at or during school which is why its so preposterous.
Maybe he should be campaigning against bad parenting instead.
Commissario
Not that many if you're also now having to cover additional heating costs for the house, additional electricity usage, buying materials for the children to use for school that would normally be provided by the school, potentially having your hours cut at work or having to do fewer hours at work because you're now looking after your children when they'd normally be in school.
When you go from everyone being out of the house ~8 hours a day every weekday to being in the house all the time the costs of everything required to make the house comfortable to live in tends to go up by rather more than a third, and it'll get worse in the winter when the heating has to be on more (apparently some of the big companies are finding they're saving tens of thousands of pounds a month in utility bills at individual office buildings, as they're not having to heat/cool them or power all their electrical gear and looking again at their normal attitude to work from home*).
A friend of mine was commenting the other day that his electricity bill has gone up significantly over the last few months, his wife has been working from home, and both their kids have been home using laptops/tablets to do schoolwork. Fortunately he and his wife are both in pretty good jobs so it's not a major issue.
*As it's saving them a fortune across the businesses in utilities, and if they can get people to work from home long term it'll also save on rent - whilst at the same time potentially moving the cost of powering the equipment staff use largely onto the staff.
Man of Honour
Depressing but predictable response from the usual suspects.
I wonder how many people against this grew up poor/on free school meals.
What does it cost to feed some kids for a few weeks a year, a few million? It's a drop in the ocean compared to what this (or past) government waste on a daily basis. Couldn't care less if it's being abused too.
I wonder how many people against this grew up poor/on free school meals.
What does it cost to feed some kids for a few weeks a year, a few million? It's a drop in the ocean compared to what this (or past) government waste on a daily basis. Couldn't care less if it's being abused too.
Commissario
Food stamps tend to cost more to administer than they ever save, and also tend to end up with the recipients paying more for their food than if they'd simply had the cash as they can't shop around. In the US the food stamp thing is taken to the utterly insane level where because it's deliberately meant to be restrictive and demeaning to receive them you cannot for example buy a cooked chicken even if it's cheaper than an uncooked one of the same size, so you're not only paying more for it, you're then having to cover the full cost of cooking it (IIRC US food stamps tend to be flat out illegal to use for any cooked food, which can include things like a cooked chicken that has cooled off).
Caporegime
Countered by the cost saving if not having to ra el to work, I save £25 a week not traveling to work every day, i doubt my energy bill has gone up by £25 a week.
Plus not going to work, I eat at home which is cheaper too..
People are pushing back because universal credit has already increased but the concern is that parents are t spending responsibility.
You do know that ALL of these costs are covered by the tax payers.
Tax payers do not want bad parents spending their time boozing/smoking while not looking after their children. The cost should be taken by their parents who need to sacrifice for their children, not demand more handouts that they will not spend in an adequate fashion.
I feel for those that really do struggle, but there are those that ruin it for everyone.
The wife likes that program rich house poor house, there was one on it where they complained at only having like £50 a week to pay for everything like food.
Then the camera pans around and there is a huge TV, and sky box.
Even I decided ages ago that sky wasn't worth it. Zero sympathy for those.
If it meant feeding the children I'd sell everything I could and do without.
The wife likes that program rich house poor house, there was one on it where they complained at only having like £50 a week to pay for everything like food.
Then the camera pans around and there is a huge TV, and sky box.
Even I decided ages ago that sky wasn't worth it. Zero sympathy for those.
If it meant feeding the children I'd sell everything I could and do without.
I agree to some extent - especially under normal circumstances - but we're in the middle of a crisis here. A crisis where mismanagement is rife, money is being wasted left, right and centre. If anything, this could have been a great PR exercise.
Man of Honour
Wouldn't providing meals in school ensure that money is being spent directly on the kid?
And I honestly do not care if parents choose to spend their money on alcohol and cigarettes*, as long as the kid knows they have access to at least a decent meal a day (via school/the government).
*That's another problem in itself, and if this thread is anything to go by then the lack of sympathy means it's not going to be addressed, only stigmatised.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
They should be given good stamps like America.
Where you can only buy essentials using the card. Where supermarkets refuse you to use the credit towards luxury spends.
It's a cyclical problem. Give an idiot money they spend it on crap. They feed themselves crap whilst pregnant and their kid when it's growing up.
As a result the poor nutrition causes deficiencies in their mental capacity meaning throughout no fault of their own the child is an idiot.
Cycle repeats.
So if we stop them from buying crap and only allow fresh fruit and vegetables, eggs and meat, etc. Then the kid has a chance of fulfilling their potential.
Omega 369 is huge during a child's development and the NHS don't give it to pregnant mothers who are broke. They give them a multi vit with folic acid and that's it.
Also OP has messed up.
Is he against the stamp duty freeze because that's in place to help younger generation by making homes cheaper to buy.
It's to help buyers all of them including first time buyers as there is already plenty of other schemes for first time buyers only too.
Is that the case here though - I mean if it is then it would perhaps support the government position to not carry on with this food voucher(stamps)/free school dinner thing... but if not then it seems like they've shot themselves in the foot here.
Instead of raising universal credit they could have rolled this out as a long term thing and they'd get positive headlines, instead they're getting "tory scum" and "starving kids" because they're not carrying on with food stamps this holiday.
I mean if it can be efficient then perhaps it should be a more general component of the benefits system. I mean you could massively reduce the need for food banks too - seems really pointless to have facilities for distributing food when there are already shops/supermarkets perfectly capable of doing so.
I'd take it one step further even - have each supermarket chain put together suggested, healthy, weekly shopping baskets... have it as either an opt in system (volunteer for have a portion of your benefits as food stamps) or as a system that people get dropped into if/when they prove to be incapable of budgeting.... the food aspect (especially with kids involved) being ring fenced from sanctions etc.. and the last bit to taper off if/when someone starts low wage employment.
I also think housing benefits should be able to go directly to the landlords too, while it is some nice lofty idea from the Tories that people should take on personal responsibility plenty of people at the bottom are there or have fallen there because they're not very good at looking after their lives. If rent is paid directly to landlords then they can't get into arrears anymore.
Perhaps give people the option initially to sort themselves out but once someone gets kicked out of a house and needs emergency accomodation then from that point onwards - rent goes directly to the landlord... ditto to food banks etc.. once someone needs to resort to that then onto part of their benefits being paid in food vounchers (including an increase during holidays if they have kids to make up for the lost free school meals).
Soldato
The kids own fault for choosing to be born to irresponsible parents. Let them starve.
Very true, I had such high hopes for Covid being a real rain.
Soldato
I'm in the US so I'm not up to speed on these particular policies, but the OP appears be equating giving money to people, with allowing people to keep more of their own money?
- Status