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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minusorange said:
Look at all that money £11.7billion for child benefit, £29.9billion for child and working tax credits, if parents choose to not convert that money into food for their kids, why should the tax payer be punished and those ****** parents be rewarded even more handouts

People aren't too poor to feed their kids, the money is there, they're just ******* stupid ******** and need to be punished instead of rewarded for their **** ups
Click to expand...
You're trolling, admit it.
 
HEADRAT said:
What do you cut back on if you’re currently on the breadline that lose 20% of your salary. You making out like there is something they can drop, what is it light/heating, what?
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if all these people could afford is rent, leccy & heating even on 80% minimum wage

I managed just fine on benefits which is way less than minimum wage and had no issue, I lived within my means

My mother also raised me as a single parent, worked her ass to provide for me, we didn't live in poverty

Also from your linked article

Removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap would lift 100,000s of children out of poverty
Click to expand...

Yes let's let everyone breed more when they clearly can't afford to keep 1 or 2 children, that'll do it

Children in large families are at a far greater risk of living in poverty – 43 per cent of children living in families with 3 or more children live in poverty
Click to expand...

Maybe don't go past 2 if you can't afford 2 ? huh ?
 
HEADRAT said:
I do wonder about their parents ability to have produced well rounded, compassionate human beings. Just goes to show that having money might not be the best yardstick for bringing up nice children!

Some of the views stated in this thread are nothing short of horrific, I do think some post views like this to add to a “notoriety” factor. They think it makes them “special/different”, unfortunately to the adults in the thread it just makes them look immature.
Click to expand...

Let's not gloss it over. They are *****.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
I’m still surprised that even with our welfare state, and in this case child credit, that so many with either jobs or benefits can’t afford food for their children. I’d be curious to know how many also have non-essential items in their life like smart phones etc. Doesn’t make child poverty right and there’ll always be rare cases that aren’t accounted for, but surely these are in the minority in a state that pays so much into its welfare state already. We can’t bail every single person out to the point where they have no sense of or requirement for self responsibility.
Click to expand...
Is a smart phone non-essential though? What if it their sole means of communication and they rely on it to talk and see family and friends? I see this argument made frequently, "they shouldn't have TV", "they shouldn't have any alcohol", etc.... What arbitrary level of depravity does someone have to attain before they are deemed worthy of salvation though? Does the mother and her kids need to be living in a box on the street, scraping amongst rat **** for food before enough is enough and she's allowed a few of your precious £?

If we're going to deny people things like smart phones, what kind of phone are they "allowed" as well? Should it be no better than a Nokia 3310? (amazing phone tbf though).... How do we police this policy too? Shall we have an army of enforcement officers from the council running random spot checks for us?

"you there! Yes you. Is that an iPhone 6 you have in your hands madam? I'm sorry, you're going to have to come with us!"

So long as those of us who have "paid their way" can be sure someone is truly in the gutter before they get their benefits, we're content yeah? Yeah!

I get your point though by the way. People should be educated better to manage their money and their life. It's a tough pill for some that they essentially see themselves bailing out other people's misfortunes or poor life choices... Or, more sadly, their inherent disadvantaged life.
 
HEADRAT said:
Which other G7 nation does this please?

I’m not saying the current system is perfect, I’m saying you don’t make fundamental changes during a pandemic.

If these people care so little for their children do you think that will stop them having them, or will the State just end up keeping 100,000’s of children in care? You thinks people will stop having sex/unwanted children if they new the state will just “pick up the tab”? Some children probably would be better off in care, why do you think we don’t take those children away, it’s cost isn’t it?

Are you advocating forced birth control for the poor?
Click to expand...

Forced manual labour would be a good start to help them pay back the community who is keeping them clothed and fed.

On my short drive into the city there are parts which are absolutely rife with litter.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
The earth doesn't have unlimited resources.

Are you suggesting we just keep throwing money at them and letting them breed with no contribution to the greater good?

Like I said before those that have consistently paid in should be given help.

Those that don't have 6 months to get their act together.

But your suggesting we just keep on doing what we have been and expecting a different outcome.

That is the definition of madness.

Other countries have time limits on state benefits and handouts for those that have no intention of working.
Click to expand...

maybe we should take your grandparents out the back and shoot them when they get to 70. That way we don’t need to pay for care homes either or paying pensions. Or any disabled people in general, they’re a drain on society so it would be in the interests for the greater good.
 
RoboCod said:
Is a smart phone non-essential though? What if it their sole means of communication and they rely on it to talk and see family and friends? I see this argument made frequently, "they shouldn't have TV", "they shouldn't have any alcohol", etc.... What arbitrary level of depravity does someone have to attain before they are deemed worthy of salvation though? Does the mother and her kids need to be living in a box on the street, scraping amongst rat **** for food before enough is enough and she's allowed a few of your precious £?

If we're going to deny people things like smart phones, what kind of phone are they "allowed" as well? Should it be no better than a Nokia 3310? (amazing phone tbf though).... How do we police this policy too? Shall we have an army of enforcement officers from the council running random spot checks for us?

"you there! Yes you. Is that an iPhone 6 you have in your hands madam? I'm sorry, you're going to have to come with us!"

So long as those of us who have "paid their way" can be sure someone is truly in the gutter before they get their benefits, we're content yeah? Yeah!

I get your point though by the way. People should be educated better to manage their money and their life. It's a tough pill for some that they essentially see themselves bailing out other people's misfortunes or poor life choices... Or, more sadly, their inherent disadvantaged life.
Click to expand...

with having kids at school, a phone with internet access is pretty much needed, it’s how they communicate with parents now. Smart phones are cheaper than laptops these days.
 
RoboCod said:
Is a smart phone non-essential though? What if it their sole means of communication and they rely on it to talk and see family and friends? I see this argument made frequently, "they shouldn't have TV", "they shouldn't have any alcohol"
Click to expand...

Lol what did people do in the 90's without mobile phones and the internet.
 
antijoke said:
with having kids at school, a phone with internet access is pretty much needed, it’s how they communicate with parents now. Smart phones are cheaper than laptops these days.
Click to expand...

I bought a desktop PC from one of those clearance eBay shops for less than £200. It's a gen 6 i5 but more than enough for work tasks. Her mobile phone cost more. A 3310 would more than suffice as terms of communication.
 
adam cool dude said:
Lol what did people do in the 90's without mobile phones and the internet.
Click to expand...

They sent letters home with the kids, they don't do that at all now. We get about 10-15 emails a week from our eldests primary school. Without a phone or pc we wouldn't have a clue what was going on. Absolutely everything from payments, after / before school club, menus and general information is only accessible online.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom