Marcus Rashford
- Thread starter C.R.A.Z.Y
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,289
- Location
- deep space nine
Well done to Marcus Rashford. However let's not kid ourselves that Johnson saw which way the wind was blowing and U-turned for that reason.
Also taxpayers money is nothing to do with it. The government can easily spend money into existence to pay for this. They use tax to control inflation ie. destroy money. Literally Tory ideology says kids should starve. Until a public figure ( not Keir btw ) forces a volte face.
Also taxpayers money is nothing to do with it. The government can easily spend money into existence to pay for this. They use tax to control inflation ie. destroy money. Literally Tory ideology says kids should starve. Until a public figure ( not Keir btw ) forces a volte face.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I suspect that the Government (or more accurately Johnson and Cummings) made this low-cost but headline grabbing announcement in order to grab the headlines while they quietly slipped out some news that they don't want noticed - DfiD merged into the TCO, changes to the Pension triple-lock promise 
Watch this space
Watch this space
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,774
- Location
- Location, Location!
Never implied it was. But how are there parents to 1.3 million children that can't afford to feed their kids.... Answer.... There isn't, this is a good cause for those that really need it but good luck convincing me that 1.3 million kids are in need of this.
Benefit street.
Irony truly is dead judging by your posting history which is just full of positivity and not at all a spam fest of what ever stuff /garbage you could drag of the web as long as it accorded with your biases. S/
Back on topic its hard to argue against these sorts of measures on an individual level.
The problem is to ensure that they don't in the longer run encourage destructive behaviour that actually makes things worse (for example by encouraging more people to neglect their kids by choosing to not feed or clothe them properly because the state will do it for them).
Considering we're in the middle of a pandemic that's resulted in many job losses or at the very least a 20% reduction in income, it's not surprising that many who were just getting by now cannot.
I was interested to see just how much benefits people get, so I went through the calculator. Based on a couple, with 2 kids under 4, one unable to work, and one actively looking for work the monthly benefits would be £1785. That's including council tax reduction.
Sounds like a fair bit, right?
But that's based on £1600 council tax and £930 a month rent. So that's £1063 gone every month straight away. Average bills for a 2 bed flat, £45 gas, £55 electricity and £35 water. Then there are mobiles and the internet, call it £40 for 2 cheap contracts and broadband. The tv license is another £10.
So £1248 per month for the basics. Which leaves £537 for food, travel, clothing, insurances, nappies, cleaning supplies, entertainment. About £31 per week, per person.
Considering that, it's hardly surprising that sometimes people will run out of money. Then they take 'payday loans' to make ends meet which just further worsens their situation.
They have poor credit so they can't take advantage of a credit card. They can't afford high-quality products so they have to buy cheaply, more often, which usually ends up costing more in the long run. They can't afford to bulk buy and often won't have the space to store it if they could, so they buy in smaller sizes which cost more.
All the self employed didn't need their self employment grant, all the workers didn't need the furlough money, all the businesses didn't need the sbrr grant.
It really does take a special kind of person to complain on this societal support measure being implemented
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,289
- Location
- deep space nine
They were scrapping the free meals up until Rashford got involved. Johnson's aides claimed the day before that he would not be extending the scheme. Then outcry then Johnson has temerity to claim next day he was unaware of the campaign.
Last edited:
Your maths is poor. You're basing your numbers on the average rental cost. They wouldn't be living in somewhere that has the average rental cost when they're not earning. They'd be living somewhere below average.
I've pointed this out to people in here several times. Take London out, and even the South East and the numbers drop sharply.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/
Last place I rented was a 3 bed bungalow with 2 car drive, garage and large gardens. Currently goes for £550 a month. That's in a town with low crime, very very low unemployment, good schools and fair transport links. £400 extra in a person's pocket per month makes things a lot less dramatic than you state.
I'm sorry but even by your reckoning on there it's easy to not spend beyond your means.
Why would you have to take out phone contracts and broadband to the tune of £40? Me and my girlfriend are careful with money. We both have giff gaff at £8 per month on cheap second hand phones. Broadband is a mobile router with £10 voxi SIM card that provides decent enough speeds for a family. That's only £26 a month.
Also £100 on gas and electric for a two bed flat? Even if you look through the thread on here about usage it's generally under that and that's with a tech heavy forum with a high average earning. If you are struggling with money you would be careful ie short showers, more layers of clothes.
Remember benefits is to tide you over not a lifestyle so it's all meant to be temporary.
Travelshould be low as no one is commuting to work. If you are on benefits the government will pay for interview clothes, training and cash to get to interviews and the job centre. This is on top of the amount you said.
they should be able to cook large healthy meals for a few days and freeze them. This would save money and mean the children are healthy. It's a very easy amount to live on in my opinion. People who can't expect to have a lifestyle like a working couple which benefits should never provide or else it's easier to not work for them.
I forgot unemployed, disabled or single parents don't live in the south east. My bad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,774
- Location
- Location, Location!
This is when you know you've lost an argument.
When this becomes available for 1.3 million children it stops becoming about parents unable to afford food, and just becomes another benefit. Let's not label this as essential school meals, because for the vast majority of those who will receive it, it isn't and if it is, then that's a lot of irresponsible parents having children they can't afford.
Having children is not a right, it is a responsibility.
Last edited:
You forgot they can access properties BELOW AVERAGE cost. Your bad.
When I moved into my first house, with a mortgage I was paying from my full time salary, i had to move quite a considerable distance from where i had grown up to find somewhere affordable.
Brightons expensive...
Here's a two bed down the channel in Eastbourne for £675
If you are poor, you cannot live in Brighton. Where I live you can rent a house for £500.
If we're sharing anecdotes there was a fine young lad that I went to school with that sold his as well, and shook down one of the geeky kids for his lunch = profit everyday. Probably learnt that one off his parents.
However that's nothing to do with this thread, which is about a fine young man that has experienced what it's like to be short on food as a kiddywink fighting for the guys stuck in a situation not of their own making being taken care of in ONE way.
What I don't get, is how can a footballer apply more pressure to the government than the opposition? I thought getting rid of Corbyn would sort this out, but it hasn't has it? As far as they were concerned, wouldn't you think they have nothing left to lose at this point?!
However that's nothing to do with this thread, which is about a fine young man that has experienced what it's like to be short on food as a kiddywink fighting for the guys stuck in a situation not of their own making being taken care of in ONE way.
What I don't get, is how can a footballer apply more pressure to the government than the opposition? I thought getting rid of Corbyn would sort this out, but it hasn't has it? As far as they were concerned, wouldn't you think they have nothing left to lose at this point?!
But it would cost you more in administration to figure all that out than just paying it to everybody.
Same with the furlough/covid support. I know a guy who has 8 high end furniture shops in London and surrounding areas. He got 8 x £25k plus furlough for all his staff and a suspension of rent on all his properties and admitted the shops were really just showrooms for people to browse and then during shutdown his online orders went through the rough so he is rolling in it. A free £200k, hardly any outgoings, most of his staff wages covered and he has seen his sales increase by 1000%. Should he have been excluded from the furlough/rates/retail grant schemes? Probably, he would have still been better off than before covid. Does that mean the whole furlough/grant scheme was wrong? Of course not.