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

[cheesyboy]

So you're saying this is a long term problem that isn't being tackled directly i.e by sorting the parents out, and therefore a bandaid fix should constantly be applied?

Yes it's a long term problem that's not being fixed, and yes feeding hungry kids this winter is a band aid fix.

Seems like we're substantially in agreement that something should be done to fix the long term, whilst doing something helpful in the short term

 

[RoboCod]

The absolute state of this thread..................................

I'm a (champagne?) socialist. Happy for my taxes to support people in need. There's no moral argument against feeding kids during a global pandemic where people are furloughed, people are losing their jobs, and there is a huge amount of economic uncertainty. If you don't think society should support these children then I assume you're also anti NHS, all education should be privatised, all council services eliminated etc.

You have to draw the line somewhere between the state (society) and private industry\charity, but I am happy to draw that line after feeding starving kids, not before. Christ.

I'm not socialist, but I definitely think the people that are against free kids meals should be exempt from national health care. After all, why should my taxes pay for those ill people!

 

[sanaxe1]

I think the point is here that most people would expect to see the parents make some cut backs first.

And if they aren't prepared to do that then why should we pay more?

A large portion of these families will have been on universal credit before covid and after so there is no real change for them, except they have had to do a bit more parenting, had more time to bond with their children while schools habd been closed.

Parents shouldn't have children on the assumption that they will be entirely paid for, fed, educated, clothed and brought up by the state, with no input from the parents.

Many people feel aggrieved that this is exactly what is happening and that irresponsible people are having children (or multiple) and literally handing off all responsibility to the state, and therefore us as tax payers while the parent simply benefits from free housing, free money, no other a life of luxury, but one of disregard for personal responsibility and sacrifice to make the family work.

Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 72 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works.

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

 

[Tom_ed1987]

Silly emotive title, try to think about the big picture.

I really wish someone in a prominent position would call out this widely repeated notion that there are 5 million or whatever starving children living in abject poverty in the UK - it's absolute rubbish.
On the whole for the ones that do face food insecurity it's nothing to do with a lack of money & everything to do with social issues - the types of people who are having these children are quite frankly wrong/unsuitable types, but the Guardian wouldn't have the balls to run a story about that.

 

[krooton]

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.

Actually, they done tricked you good boy, it is actually to help the sellers.

Saying that as someone who has benefited from Help To Buy twice, I fully understand that lever-pulling like that is to help sellers and keep prices inflated.

Being a seller who can't shift their property without reducing price sucks, stamp duty freeze essentially means you get the reduction without actually reducing anything. So we as a whole pay tax to help people selling houses not have to reduce their prices in accordance with market forces.

 

[LOAM]

Silly emotive title, try to think about the big picture.

I really wish someone in a prominent position would call out this widely repeated notion that there are 5 million or whatever starving children living in abject poverty in the UK - it's absolute rubbish.
On the whole for the ones that do face food insecurity it's nothing to do with a lack of money & everything to do with social issues - the types of people who are having these children are quite frankly wrong/unsuitable types, but the Guardian wouldn't have the balls to run a story about that.

Were on to "wrong types" now are we? It's a dangerous path this one, ends in trains and shower blocks.

 

[Chrisc]

Why should the government be feeding people's kids??? You want to bring kids into the world, then you bloomin' well feed them not the taxpayer.

So because somebody's parent is a bum, that kid deserves to go hungry? have a word with yourself mate.

 

[glenimp617]

I think many people would agree with your sentiment in part, but people are not universally in control of their income at all times and people are not always in control of their own family security. When a husband leaves a wife or vice versa it can be financially devastating.

I don't think you can apply your sentiment to reality and say it's fair. Unless fair is something like "better hope your parents don't suffer catastrophic misfortune".[/QUO

what do you mean will ? it already is.......................

Good point

I think people would prefer faster broadband than a faster train (although not that much faster since you also have to factor in the time it takes getting to the new hub station)

 

[The Running Man]

Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. 72 per cent of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works.

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

I hate to break this to you but there is no real poverty in the uk. Its a fictional scenario where they say that anyone earning 60% of the average and below is in poverty.

Poverty is what you see in Somalia, no running water, no energy a real struggle to provide food.

Free health, education, running water, housing upto £1000 a month on benefits. Choosing between chicken nuggets or a decent mean is just demeaning the whole essence of poverty im afraid.

 

[Ahleckz]

Hundreds of wealthy people who get their lunches paid for by the state vote against hundreds of poor people getting their lunches paid for by the state.

Good job!

 

[The Running Man]

So because somebody's parent is a bum, that kid deserves to go hungry? have a word with yourself mate.

Then you should tackle the parents. Not hold them up as a a beacon and continue to throw money at them, incentivising them to get even worse. And encouraging others to join them.

 

[Chrisc]

Then you should tackle the parents. Not hold them up as a a beacon and continue to throw money at them, incentivising them to get even worse. And encouraging others to join them.

Take the parents out of it, this is about the kids, I don't care if the kid is a little disobedient ****, they don't deserve to go hungry.

The fact that these absolute ********* we have in government are happy to let me and you pay for their lunches/travel and subsidised bar, and then vote against kids being fed is absolutely disgraceful. Yet they are happy to throw £12billion at an app which coincidentally lines the pockets of their mates is a disgrace in itself.

 

[Stumble Bum]

So because somebody's parent is a bum, that kid deserves to go hungry? have a word with yourself mate.

Its been mentioned many times in this thread already, the government already pays parents plenty to raise and support their children, Child tax credits, benefits for low earners, tax breaks, all sorts of benefits. The government has already paid for kids to have food. The issue is not the government it is with the parents.

As I have previously posted, it would appear we have a society whereby even giving parents money towards children is not enough, instead of these benefits the government should just cancel those benefits and provide free food at school instead. Stop the parents taking the money and spending it on other things.

 

[The Running Man]

Take the parents out of it, this is about the kids, I don't care if the kid is a little disobedient ****, they don't deserve to go hungry.

The fact that these absolute ********* we have in government are happy to let me and you pay for their lunches/travel and subsidised bar, and then vote against kids being fed is absolutely disgraceful. Yet they are happy to throw £12billion at an app which coincidentally lines the pockets of their mates is a disgrace in itself.

You're acting as though the children's guardians do not already get income support/housing/child support.

They should be using this to home,feed,educate their family.

 

[danoliver1]

If you have to go to school by law then they should have to supply drinks and meals. Do prisoners have to have people bring them meals in? No of course not.

 

[plasmahal]

The parents have already been given the money in the form of benefits to provide food and clothes for the children, it's how the parents choose to spend the money already provided to them that's the issue here.

How many children who are hungry have parents who smoke and/or drink, have Sky TV, smart phones, tablets and other such tech that are not as essential to a human beings survival as food?

The issue is and always will be the way parents spend their money, did you miss the news bulletins where people who had been given school meal vouchers during lockdown were trying to buy alcohol and tobacco in the supermarkets and when refused were kicking off?

This is the problem not the government.

 

[Semple]

I think you'll find the government have already given the money it takes to feed and clothe children but the parents don't spend it on that and this is why you'll never get rid of people with hands out asking "please can I have some more", until they are forced to buy the essentials they'll continue to fritter it away on luxury items (yes I'm including tobacco and alcohol in that) and then hope someone will bail them out with schemes like free meals.

Until we have some sort of test to allow people to breed then kids will be born to lifes eternal spongers who will keep taking and taking until it's stopped being given to them. Unfortunately it's against someone's human rights to stop them breeding but nobody has thought of the human rights of the unborn child who will endure years of hardship because of the gravy train their parents choose to try and hop on.

Whenever this topic has come in the past, i've always made the suggestion that part of welfare should be dished out as food vouchers*. That way there's a guaranteed portion of welfare given to families that the taxpayer will know is spent on providing food for the family. It means if the parents want any luxuries, they've got to fund them themselves.

*The government should set up a contract directly with major supermarkets for vouchers, rather than using some shambolic private company to arrange food vouchers - which happened earlier in the year.

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.

I think a lot of people are starting to get on board with that idea these days. We already have a crisis of obesity in this country, using taxpayers money to buy Mcdonalds and KFC is shameful.

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.

I was commenting on a thread yesterday when someone was talking about electricity costs going up significantly now they're WFH. When you look at the costs of running a laptop + monitor, we're talking 10-12p a day. So for a family of four, you're looking at an extra 40-50p a day, which is likely significantly less than their commuting costs. Their extra use is probably things like having the TV and radio on during the day, whilst the kids also have games consoles + TVs also running for hours during the day.

 

[SideWinder]

I believe that there should be more education for parents on how to create cheap, healthy meals for children. A pizza and chips from Iceland could cost £2-3 or something but it won't 'fill' their stomach. Yes they will be full but due to the content, they'll be hungry again very quickly when compared to something full of vitamins.

 

[UTmaniac]

I was commenting on a thread yesterday when someone was talking about electricity costs going up significantly now they're WFH. When you look at the costs of running a laptop + monitor, we're talking 10-12p a day. So for a family of four, you're looking at an extra 40-50p a day, which is likely significantly less than their commuting costs. Their extra use is probably things like having the TV and radio on during the day, whilst the kids also have games consoles + TVs also running for hours during the day.

Not to mention the expense of all those kettle boils for essential work tea/coffee while WFH, while no doubt putting far more water in the kettle than is necessary.

 

[SonicSW20]

Not to mention the expense of all those kettle boils for essential work tea/coffee while WFH, while no doubt putting far more water in the kettle than is necessary.

Someone call UNICEF, the issue of starving children in the UK is solved!