Marcus Rashford

R.P.L said:
She's right though. If I wanted to pay for children to eat, I'd have children.
Click to expand...
Too bad it’s not up to you then chap. How much will this scheme cost you personally. Add it up and we’re try and create a fundraiser for you. In fact I’m sure I could reimburse you on a personal level with the change I’ve lost down the back of my sofa.

Seriously how heartless and selfish can the human race be.
 
Roar87 said:
Your numbers are off there though cheesyboy, there aren't 10 kids who need a meal and 1 who doesn't, it's more likely that 10% of parents taking up the scheme physically can't afford to go out and buy their child a meal, not 90%. How poor do you think people are? If 90% of parents requiring these meals couldn't afford to feed their children there'd be mass riots and civil unrest over it.
Click to expand...

I've not seen any studies that have given any numbers on how many parents of kids on FSM don't actually need them. So no idea how high the % is. Where have you got the numbers from?
 
Doobedoo said:
Too bad it’s not up to you then chap. How much will this scheme cost you personally. Add it up and we’re try and create a fundraiser for you. In fact I’m sure I could reimburse you on a personal level with the change I’ve lost down the back of my sofa.

Seriously how heartless and selfish can the human race be.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first sentence :D
 
R.P.L said:
She's right though. If I wanted to pay for children to eat, I'd have children.
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous mentality.

I don't set fires so I don't want my taxes going towards the fire service. I don't commit crimes so I don't want my taxes going to the police. I don't use trains much so I don't want to pay the country to improve its infrastructure. I won't ever lose a job, fall on hard times or require welfare so I don't want my taxes being spent on that.
 
Freakbro said:
History teaches us very
Click to expand...
Who needs history when we have this forum.

I stand by what George Carlin said though everyday that passes clarifies it, at least to me.

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope
Click to expand...
 
Hedge said:
It's a ridiculous mentality.

I don't set fires so I don't want my taxes going towards the fire service. I don't commit crimes so I don't want my taxes going to the police. I don't use trains much so I don't want to pay the country to improve its infrastructure. I won't ever lose a job, fall on hard times or require welfare so I don't want my taxes being spent on that.
Click to expand...

Those are bad comparisons except the trains. Those should be funded by ticket sales, not tax.
 
Doobedoo said:
Glad we sorted that one out ;). So how much is it going to cost you? If it’s more than £2 a year I’ll be surprised.

£2 a year lol you can’t be that hard up :D.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of principle. If it makes you happier then I won't be trying to claw back that £2, but that doesn't mean I agree with it in principle.
 
R.P.L said:
Those are bad comparisons except the trains. Those should be funded by ticket sales, not tax.
Click to expand...

God no, ticket prices would be astronomical if railways were only funded through ticket sales. You'd struggle to find rail lines or metro systems that don't receive some kind of government subsidy and are successful.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...

You need to report him if he has furlough staff working, furlough scheme is not for people who can work.
 
Yeah that is a bit odd - @Greebo were those furloughed staff working? If so that is someone abusing the scheme. On the other hand if they were shop staff and he's closed the shops while keeping staff employed for the online business and that side of the business has done well then meh... he still had staff who could't work and as much right to the scheme as anyone else.
 
dowie said:
Yeah that is a bit odd - @Greebo were those furloughed staff working? If so that is someone abusing the scheme. On the other hand if they were shop staff and he's closed the shops while keeping staff employed for the online business and that side of the business has done well then meh... he still had staff who could't work and as much right to the scheme as anyone else.
Click to expand...

No he didnt break any rules, they were shop staff he furloughed and being forced to close the shops then he was more than entitled to claim furlough for them. He kept the backroom staff employed doing the orders. But I was just making that point that since his sales went up 1000% during shutdown, he didnt need the £200k in grants, free rent and free rates and his employee wages paid for. He could have paid all of them and still would have been making more money than before covid. So in every scheme there are always going to be winners and losers. In his case he won to tune of around £400k of tax payers money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom