Marcus Rashford

[Theophany]

typical tolerant left.

It's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong. Disagreeing because you're a City fan would be a more logical line of argument.

I think one of the issues is that the more safety nets you put in place, the more it disincentivises people to take personal responsibility.

Yes, why aren't these literal children taking more personal responsibility for their situation and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps?

 

[Dis86]

I'm not sure real life works quite like that.

One of the big advantages young people from wealthier backgrounds have is that they have the safety net of their parents - they can pursue riskier opportunities, benefit from spending their own resources building cultural capital etc.

If you're living on a knife edge, with no fall-back, you can't risk anything - moving to a new town/city, quitting your minimum wage job to try to gain new qualificatins or experience etc. It's all out of reach.

Easily countered with nothing to lose, everything to gain!

 

[Dis86]

Yes, why aren't these literal children taking more personal responsibility for their situation and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps?

If only we weren't talking about their parents having the responsibility...

 

[Dirk Diggler]

As opposed to the person who made the original assertion that people claiming the benefits have simply fallen on hard times and made a sound financial decision to have kids?

That's not what they said, you've said that on their behalf. They've clearly said that anyone could fall on hard times and that it isn't just a system full of single mothers who don't work and planned to have kids with no way of financing them.

Have you any idea how many people who qualify for free school meals actually work? Have you any idea how many people actually claim this benefit?

A simple Google search:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2018

In January 2018, for all school types, 13.6% of
pupils were eligible for and claiming free school meals. This is the lowest proportion since 2001, when the department began collecting pupil level information.

I think it's fair to say that if the number is going up then it's down to loss of income, unless the human gestation period has changed significantly.

 

[wesimmo]

You've quoted some stats around benefit fraud, can you show me where anyone has mentioned benefit fraud in this thread?

No, I quoted stats around rich people abusing the system too.

That there are some people that work outside of the ethics behind a framework doesn't mean that the whole system is wrong.

Some poor people will prefer to live on benefits, but it's not a massive issue in the grand scheme of things, it's not like they're living the high life.

On the other hand people who have more than enough money refuse to pay their fair share to support the society they are part of, they're the ones I reserve my contempt for.

 

[cheesyboy]

Easily countered with nothing to lose, everything to gain!

People don't have "nothing to lose". They have plenty to lose, like their home or property, their relationships, communication with the outside world (internet/phone) or prospects of ever not being in debt.

 

[Theophany]

If only we weren't talking about their parents having the responsibility...

It's a disingenuous line of argument though, the parent gets no benefit from the child being given a meal. It's not like they're mis-spending child benefit.

 

[Hedge]

I imagine rich people avoiding tax is worth WAY more than the welfare system.

 

[Roar87]

I guess ultimately the differing views people take are just:

That person is hungry, we must give them food.
vs
That person is hungry, we must make sure they are able to provide food for themselves.

The latter view is apparently seen to be vile and lacking compassion. I would see the former as simply lacking any forethought, simply giving hungry people food isn't sustainable, we must give them opportunity. Providing people with food handouts is like tying your childrens laces everytime they come undone rather than teaching them to tie their own laces.

 

[Dis86]

People don't have "nothing to lose". They have plenty to lose, like their home or property, their relationships, communication with the outside world (internet/phone) or prospects of ever not being in debt.

You're stuck in a dead end, minimum wage job. Living at your parents, sofa surfing or in council accommodation. Taking risks is definitely something you can afford to do.

 

[Hedge]

I guess ultimately the differing views people take are just:

That person is hungry, we must give them food.
vs
That person is hungry, we must make sure they are able to provide food for themselves.

The latter view is apparently seen to be vile and lacking compassion. I would see the former as simply lacking any forethought, simply giving hungry people food isn't sustainable, we must give them opportunity. Providing people with food handouts is like tying your childrens laces everytime they come undone rather than teaching them to tie their own laces.

You realise we are talking about childrens dinners here right? how are children expected to provide food for themselves?

 

[Dis86]

I do see that point of view but I just can't separate hungry kids from woklis adults. There are bad eggs everywhere in society and there will always be those who take any little advantage they can get, sadly that's human nature. But then there are those who really, for one reason or another, do depend on the help from the state and I find it hard to take a "their own problem" stance on it. As humans we are capable of a lot of horrible things but we are also capable of great compassion (something that a few on here are lacking) and ensuring that children aren't going hungry falls under that.

I'm constantly reading that people today can't be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors. Why should children go hungry due to the fault of their parents? As Timebomb26 said, what do we do, let the kids die to teach the parents a lesson?



Yeah I have a friend like that. He is constantly getting himself in silly debt or taking payday loans, when they were available, to buy stupid stuff and he just didn't care cause his family were able to bail him out consistently. Even today in his 30s he still acts the same and gets credit or finance for everything or he will stop working for some really petty reason and know he can coast unemployed for a few months cause the bank of parents will bail him out. He was talking about getting a mortgage soon and I was laughing to myself as his credit must be non existent but then he said something about his parents going in on the mortgage with him and I was livid inside as it's taken me years of saving to get to this point, he just asked for it.

Though I have to be honest, I'm just jealous I couldn't do the same! But then I wouldn't have a work ethic.

Your friend is a prime example of what I'm saying. He has that safety net so just isn't taking responsibility. In his case the net is his parents and not the state. I know people who are exactly the same but I know them at both ends of the scale, wealthy and utterly impoverished. As one put it 'they can't chase him for a debt if he's got nothing to pay with'. He constantly takes out loans or finance on things at ridiculous rates and then defaults on them. I've got no idea how he keeps doing it although I suspect it's through illegal means. In the meantime he'll move the items on and spend the money getting hammered or on holidays.

 

[Hedge]

You're stuck in a dead end, minimum wage job. Living at your parents, sofa surfing or in council accommodation. Taking risks is definitely something you can afford to do.

Sure, ignore the fact you have zero self worth, no confidence and limited education.

Just jump on a train to the big city. Knock on Alan Sugars door and say "here pal, any chance I can have a job?"

 

[Doobedoo]

I imagine rich people avoiding tax is worth WAY more than the welfare system.

Absolutely which is why it’s hard to take those who take issue with it seriously.

Anyhoo it’s out of their hands so like it or not they are paying for it and they can’t do a thing about it.

 

[timebomb26]

I guess ultimately the differing views people take are just:

That person is hungry, we must give them food.
vs
That person is hungry, we must make sure they are able to provide food for themselves.

The latter view is apparently seen to be vile and lacking compassion. I would see the former as simply lacking any forethought, simply giving hungry people food isn't sustainable, we must give them opportunity. Providing people with food handouts is like tying your childrens laces everytime they come undone rather than teaching them to tie their own laces.

Rephrasing your thoughts a bit there. Before you didn’t want “your money” being spent feeding children.

Now you say these people need to be helped through education etc. Guess what, this requires tax payers money as well.

 

[Dis86]

Sure, ignore the fact you have zero self worth, no confidence and limited education.

Just jump on a train to the big city. Knock on Alan Sugars door and say "here pal, any chance I can have a job?"

Why must they have zero self confidence and self worth? You also don't need to be highly educated to succeed.
I work with a guy on a daily basis who runs a scaffolding company. Hes very well off. Left school at age 12 and even today can barely write. He worked his way up from labourer on building sites. Saved what he could and put himself through his tickets. Started working as a scaffolder and then took the leap of setting up for himself and it's paid off.

 

[Dis86]

It's a disingenuous line of argument though, the parent gets no benefit from the child being given a meal. It's not like they're mis-spending child benefit.

It's not just about school meals. Hence why I didn't mention them and mentioned safety nets in general. It's also why I've argued for the free school meals and pointed out how my partner provides additional food for kids that need it.

 

[Theophany]

It's not just about school meals. Hence why I didn't mention them and mentioned safety nets in general. It's also why I've argued for the free school meals and pointed out how my partner provides additional food for kids that need it.

The thread is about free school meals, so it doesn't matter if you mention it or not, it's the topic of discussion!

I don't actually think we disagree massively on the 'give a fish/teach a fish' debate, but this thread is a very specific example to which that discussion has absolutely no relevance really. Which is probably why people have been a bit harsh on you in this thread.

 

[Dis86]

The thread is about free school meals, so it doesn't matter if you mention it or not, it's the topic of discussion!

I don't actually think we disagree massively on the 'give a fish/teach a fish' debate, but this thread is a very specific example to which that discussion has absolutely no relevance really. Which is probably why people have been a bit harsh on you in this thread.

Meh, I feel it's devolved in to a general benefits and aid discussion. It really is a very difficult subject to draw a line down though. Either way at least we agree the kids should be safe, fed and clothed. Irrespective of whether their parents are useless or not.

 

[wesimmo]

Any 'teach them to fish' policy needs to recognise that, first, it will cost money in the short term.

Secondly that, just as we can't end racism in a generation, we can't change the culture of poverty in a generation.

It'll be an iterative process as more people do get the support they need to better themselves, they'll inspire their peers and children and it would hopefully improve over time.

You'll always have the hardcore of people who will just perpetuate the cycle, but given time you can hope to help the majority.