Can't afford school meals for kids, but billions for homebuyers, sure!

Eurofighter · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:09

I don't like the idea of the state paying for peoples kids, and giving benefits for children encourages people to have children they can't afford. But it isn't the children's fault their parents are idiots, for some I fear it will be their only meal a day and I couldn't have people starving in the UK being my fault. So I am with Labour on this.

Also many people fall on hard times, it isn't easy to know what will happen in the next 18 years of your life before you have a child. Plus with Corona there are many more with low wages or no wage.

Conservatives are too cruel.

Minusorange · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:09

antijoke said:
It’s amazing that you have so little compassion for children who are 100% blameless in this, says a lot about you as person.

It's not just about kids starving though is it, it's about irresponsible people having kids and all the suggestions to feed the kids do is bail these irresponsible people out and they go unpunished for letting their kids starve

malachi · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21

Psycho Sonny said:
Plenty of manual jobs out there for them to do.

Clean graffiti, pick up rubbish, NHS requires volunteers right now. Automation is only happening in manufacturing and the largest of industries. Could always have to help out at care homes.

True but you cant force a person to work who doesn't want to. Yeah plenty can clean graffiti, pick up rubbish, NHS requires volunteers right now but if they don't want to work then they will do a poor job of it or do the bare minimum. Which people running those sectors do not want otherwise the government would have implemented that already.

Also, I don't want to get all "Illuminati" but there is an business need to keep the poor, poor, at the bottom and give them the bare minimum to get by because they are happy with it.

antijoke · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:24

Minusorange said:
It's not just about kids starving though is it, it's about irresponsible people having kids and all the suggestions to feed the kids do is bail these irresponsible people out and they go unpunished for letting their kids starve

ok Dominic.

Psycho Sonny · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:29

malachi said:
True but you cant force a person to work who doesn't want to. Yeah plenty can clean graffiti, pick up rubbish, NHS requires volunteers right now but if they don't want to work then they will do a poor job of it or do the bare minimum. Which people running those sectors do not want otherwise the government would have implemented that already.

Also, I don't want to get all "Illuminati" but there is an business need to keep the poor, poor, at the bottom and give them the bare minimum to get by because they are happy with it.

No there is a business need to keep the working poor working.

Those that are poor and don't work there is literally no need for them.

Roar87 · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:38

Bounce said:
Think you got your knickers in a twist, never mentioned USSR and I never said I didn't like football.

If you think a football player earning 500k a week is justified, in comparison to a doctor who earns 100k a year saving lives then your wrong.

Take a look in the mirror tonight and have think about that.

How many Doctors do you think their tax money funds? I bet you vote Labour.

Sheff · 23 Oct 2020 at 19:59

Roar87 said:
How many Doctors do you think their tax money funds? I bet you vote Labour.

And where do you think the footballers get their money from? The people being vilified in this thread with their Sky subscriptions.

malachi · 23 Oct 2020 at 20:04

Psycho Sonny said:
No there is a business need to keep the working poor working.

Those that are poor and don't work there is literally no need for them.

There are many people in government (and the world) who do not want the poor or middle class to be on the same playing field as them. Such as becoming rich and successful, being part of the "Elites". Why? Because they are easier to control and manipulate for financial gain or votes. That's the business need.

They really don't care about the single mother who keeps on popping out kids by different dads and stays on benefits because that way, she will never be rich and successful if she relies on benefits. Feed her more benefits, the less likely she aspire to be anything better, one less person they need to worry about becoming part of the VIP club and another person who will vote for them because she gets more benefits as they stay in power. Stay in power equals, more money for them therefore another business need.

Minusorange · 23 Oct 2020 at 20:04

antijoke said:
ok Dominic.

Unless you address the root cause, then the cycle will just repeat, if you stop ****** parents having kids, then there won't be a need for the tax payer to bail those ****** parents out under the guise of "won't you think of the children", I find it fascinating you will all clamber for hand outs but won't push for the law to change to stop this cycle happening, at the very least allowing your child to starve should be classed as child abuse especially when it's because you done ****** up on simple economics

Eurofighter · 23 Oct 2020 at 20:47

So anyone that works in the arts shouldn't have kids. Just incase there is a 1 in 100 year virus...

paradigm · 23 Oct 2020 at 20:54

Uther said:
Everyone saying no, I assume you refused child benefit?

Refused it? No, but I have to pay it back, the only reason we take it is so that the wife continues to be in the PAYE system for pension reasons.

I personally feel that the government should be doing something to help children to not become malnourished, however free school meals outside of term time isn’t the solution as it’s open to abuse.

Werewolf · 23 Oct 2020 at 21:09

Minusorange said:
If you can't afford to save, you probably shouldn't be breeding

And of course no one who has ever had a child has had a change of circumstances.
Or had a child and then had their plans fall apart because of something unexpected.

The fact is that you can work multiple part time jobs (don't you love zero hours contracts/part time contracts with a stupidly low minimum hours), and work very hard but not earn enough to save much if anything due to things like the cost of housing, the need for transport, childcare etc.
When you then add in a situation where the government is saying that you cannot go to work, but must accept 66% of your normal wage (which at minimum wage is often so low the government is already making it up to something you can just about struggle with), your normal income goes from just about enough, to nowhere near enough to pay for everything.

If everyone waited until they were fully financially secure with large amounts of money stashed away for a rainy day, chances are half the population wouldn't have kids until they were 50, if ever. I know extremely well qualified professionals in key jobs who, if they lost their job would run into problems with money within a relatively short period of time, despite having savings.

IIRC some stupidly high percentage of people in the UK have effectively no savings, not because they're dumb or not working hard, but because at the end of the month after essential outgoings their income doesn't allow for it, or they've had to dip into it for past emergencies.

This thread is as usual when this sort of thing comes up rather telling about some people, and it's depressing.

Werewolf · 23 Oct 2020 at 21:12

Eurofighter said:
So anyone that works in the arts shouldn't have kids. Just incase there is a 1 in 100 year virus...

Or retail.

Or hospitality.

Or travel.

I think that accounts for something like half the UK population, on the other hand Hospital staff and funeral directors should obviously have as many as they can as their jobs aren't restricted by a pandemic, although they should only have as many as they can afford to pay the expensive childcare for whilst they work overtime.

neil_g · 23 Oct 2020 at 21:21

Tory U-turn in 3...2....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...idays-cafes-restaurants-twitter-b1247658.html

And just for the lols..

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-23...stituency-over-vote-against-free-school-meals

The Running Man · 23 Oct 2020 at 21:23

antijoke said:
It’s almost as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented world health issue and some parents have possibly lost jobs meaning they can’t afford to feed their children (who get free school meals) during holiday time.

It’s the people lowest in society who are suffering here and are probably part of the workforce who are on furlough/made redundant. But yeah, it’s because the parents are lazy.

Your attitude ******* stinks. Equating it to people getting in debt is a stupid comparison.

The perception is that the vast majority of people who would be claiming these meals were on benefits before covid, so covid has had no impact on these people.

The perception is also that these parents squander the money on non essential items like booze/cigarettes/ etc instead of feeding their children.

The push back is that the parents should start to look after their children properly, and make personal cutbacks. These items before before asking for more funding.

Minusorange · 23 Oct 2020 at 21:34

Werewolf said:
to nowhere near enough to pay for everything.

So you cut back on the luxuries, you don't cut back on feeding your child, the "too poor to afford it" is ******** universal credit pays

£281.25 per month for first or only child born before 6 April 2017
£235.83 per month per child in all other circumstances.

Where the **** is that money going if not on food for the spawn, that's more than enough to feed a child 3 meals a day, if parents are spending that money on other things, go after them instead of making tax payers pay more money just to bail those piece of **** parents out

Street · 23 Oct 2020 at 22:41

Minusorange said:
So you cut back on the luxuries

Implying that some of these families have luxuries to cut back on. The level of deprivation in some inner city areas is a lot higher than people actually realise!

Vanquish-Storm · 23 Oct 2020 at 22:55

Minusorange said:
So you cut back on the luxuries, you don't cut back on feeding your child, the "too poor to afford it" is ******** universal credit pays

£281.25 per month for first or only child born before 6 April 2017

£235.83 per month per child in all other circumstances.

Where the **** is that money going if not on food for the spawn, that's more than enough to feed a child 3 meals a day, if parents are spending that money on other things, go after them instead of making tax payers pay more money just to bail those piece of **** parents out

About £9 a day on food... If it's all spent on food. No clothes or other amenities.

Are parents spending it on something else?

The Running Man · 23 Oct 2020 at 22:55

Street said:
Implying that some of these families have luxuries to cut back on. The level of deprivation in some inner city areas is a lot higher than people actually realise!

Presumably they didn't move to the inner city areas after having kids due to job loss etc.

More likely they were already there and decided to have children. Why would you do that if you can't care for them properly? Irresponsible.

neil_g · 23 Oct 2020 at 23:19

The Running Man said:
Presumably they didn't move to the inner city areas after having kids due to job loss etc.

More likely they were already there and decided to have children. Why would you do that if you can't care for them properly? Irresponsible.

Assuming all pregnancies are planned. Birth control can fail. Sexual assaults happens.

This isn't a perfect world.