Marcus Rashford

Junglist said:
Sadly, yeah. The Senco who just retired said he was teaching children of the people he had taught years ago and said it was sad seeing the cycle often repeat.

But the children shouldn't go hungry just due to the parents not being able to make sensible choices/really unfortunate circumstances
Click to expand...

Exactly.

My sister gave up teaching because she couldn't handle the emotional stress.

She worked in a really deprived area of Newcastle, some of the stories she can tell about trying to care about children when their parents didn't are heartbreaking.

Just little things like deliberately spilling something on a child so she could get them into clothes from lost property and wash their own for them without recieving a load of abuse for suggesting something might be wrong to the parents.

There's little support for teachers in such schools. But while that happens, we're creating a self perpetuating problem because the children get let down by their parents AND the state.

Let teachers teach. Get more social support services involved. Provide more mental health support to teachers who are on the front line of those battles.

Break the cycle. It'll be cheaper in the long run.
 
One of the biggest problems is not necessarily wether people would be open to being taxed more to support those that really need it, the bigger problem is trusting the government to use it in the right way.

For example we have a housing crisis due to lack of houses and unaffordable rent for many. Now how many have more than one home? On the surface nothing wrong with it you’ve done well for yourself so you’ve invested in property as a means of a pension. Great. Now for every extra house owned by a person is one less home for a person that needs a roof not a pension fund. Now council houses are no longer a thing so how many of those claiming housing benefits, are now using that money to pay private land lords rather than living in a public funded council house. It’s inefficient, it’s more expensive and it’s using public money to fund additional pension pots for people that don’t really need it as much.

All those solar farms you see at the side of the motorway and such. Why is that not entirely public funded and the benefits passed on directly to those paying taxes. Why do we always need corporations to build infrastructure so that they can then profit from us the people. Some of it can be funded using our own money and the benefits used to offset the cost of living, in this case cheaper electric thus freeing up more money to circulate back into the economy.

Corporations have been given too much of a free reign we rely on them too much and the money we spend increases the divide between rich and poor.
 
Raikiri said:
In my opinion, charity should not exist. The state, funded by taxes (which should be largely provided by higher earners) should be able to provide for everyone. Every charity required is a failure of the state to provide adequate care.
Click to expand...

Is it not better for people to give their money voluntarily rather than have the government take it by force? You don't see any moral argument against taking people's money without their consent?
 
Roar87 said:
Is it not better for people to give their money voluntarily rather than have the government take it by force? You don't see any moral argument against taking people's money without their consent?
Click to expand...
They already take without consent by your logic. Money is taken form my pay cheque every month without my permission.

Taking from the rich to give to the poor has always been a noble endeavour I’m sure those that have too much can spare a little more and would happy to do so.
 
Doobedoo said:
One of the biggest problems is not necessarily wether people would be open to being taxed more to support those that really need it, the bigger problem is trusting the government to use it in the right way.

For example we have a housing crisis due to lack of houses and unaffordable rent for many. Now how many have more than one home? On the surface nothing wrong with it you’ve done well for yourself so you’ve invested in property as a means of a pension. Great. Now for every extra house owned by a person is one less home for a person that needs a roof not a pension fund. Now council houses are no longer a thing so how many of those claiming housing benefits, are now using that money to pay private land lords rather than living in a public funded council house. It’s inefficient, it’s more expensive and it’s using public money to fund additional pension pots for people that don’t really need it as much.

All those solar farms you see at the side of the motorway and such. Why is that not entirely public funded and the benefits passed on directly to those paying taxes. Why do we always need corporations to build infrastructure so that they can then profit from us the people. Some of it can be funded using our own money and the benefits used to offset the cost of living, in this case cheaper electric thus freeing up more money to circulate back into the economy.

Corporations have been given too much of a free reign we rely on them too much and the money we spend increases the divide between rich and poor.
Click to expand...

Again, it's nuanced. While I agree in principle, I don't necessarily disagree with certain things being outsourced, IF, and IME it's a big one, the contract benefits both parties equally and doesn't result in a drain on our financial systems by having foreign companies controlling energy, infrastructure etc and taking the profit.
 
Doobedoo said:
They already take without consent by your logic. Money is taken form my pay cheque every month without my permission.

Taking from the rich to give to the poor has always been a noble endeavour I’m sure those that have too much can spare a little more and would happy to do so.
Click to expand...

What's too much?
 
wesimmo said:
Again, it's nuanced. While I agree in principle, I don't necessarily disagree with certain things being outsourced, IF, and IME it's a big one, the contract benefits both parties equally and doesn't result in a drain on our financial systems by having foreign companies controlling energy, infrastructure etc and taking the profit.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But how does allowing German companies build and operate solar farms with subsidies no doubt, then sell that electricity back to us at top dollar benefit us? We could have easily done that with our own money, employing our own people, then passing the benefits directly back to us, the investors.

Not going to work in every case but some of them make absolute sense.
 
What sort of hate filled misanthropist do you have to be to genuinely think that allowing kids to eat is an unsuitable use for our taxes?

As for those desperately trying to paint this somehow as a bad thing by claiming that he should be donating his own money, he - like all the other Manchester United players - has been donating 30% of his salary throughout the pandemic.

The things that some people will manage to have a negative view on are staggering.
 
bazzabear said:
What sort of hate filled misanthropist do you have to be to genuinely think that allowing kids to eat is an unsuitable use for our taxes?

As for those desperately trying to paint this somehow as a bad thing by claiming that he should be donating his own money, he - like all the other Manchester United players - has been donating 30% of his salary throughout the pandemic.

The things that some people will manage to have a negative view on are staggering.
Click to expand...

What percentage of people who will access the scheme have other luxuries they could have perhaps sacrificed before relying on tax payer money? If you don't think people should have to sacrifice luxuries to feed their children then why not? I never want to see a child go hungry, I would assume that's obvious. When I was growing up my parents often had financial difficulties, looking back it was mostly poor choices.
 
Barring a few extreme cases, how could there possibly be so many parents bringing kids into the world that can't even afford to feed them properly for this to cost another £120m?
 
FFS, at the start of the year I was doing ok, 1 child, couple of houses by accident, earning multiples of the average wage and my missus ran an independent shop that was doing ok.

I got made redundant in Feb and the job market for my industry disappeared. Her business is under threat. I'm seriously concerned about the long term, never mind if I was struggling week to week to begin with.
 
Stumble Bum said:
Barring a few extreme cases, how could there possibly be so many parents bringing kids into the world that can't even afford to feed them properly for this to cost another £120m?
Click to expand...

There aren't, there's a minority of cases where the children very much need the help, these should obviously get it, and then there's a lot where it's just the tax payer subsidising parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom