Penistone999 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Because well educated children are a benefit to society, and having a decent meal once a day contributes to this end. Is it easier to justify a subsidised bar for MPs at Westminster than to justify feeding children at school? If people choose to have kids, then it is their responsibility to pay and provide for those kids , not the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 If people choose to have kids, then it is their responsibility to pay and provide for those kids , not the states. thats what taxation is for ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 17:18 ---------- whats the point of bringing millions of people out of tax and then asking them to pay for everything????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I know what people are saying about government cuts, we look like only having three foreign holidays this year, and we can only change one of the cars and both of them are three years old. Bloody conservatives! Must go, the dinner gong's just rung in the dining room, mind you I've got to have strong words with that chef, I'm fed up of telling him lobster doesn't go with pheasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 thats what taxation is for I'd argue that the tax money is better spent when it's targeted at those that need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Gideon could try looking closer to home, every little helps. "£6 million taxpayer subsidy for Parliament bars Parliament's exclusive bars and restaurants run a deficit, with the bill picked up by the public" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11024713/6-million-taxpayer-subsidy-for-Parliament-bars.html For a moment, I thought you were referring to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osbornes-family-struck-a-6m-property-deal-with-firm-based-in-tax-haven--reports-10373416.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'd argue that the tax money is better spent when it's targeted at those that need it. so richer people pay a lot more tax and get less out? that doesnt seem fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 so richer people pay a lot more tax and get less out? that doesnt seem fair. It would all depend on what you meant by fair. Is it fair for someone struggling on a low wage to have to contribute to the lifestyle of someone who is significantly better off then them via their taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 It would all depend on what you meant by fair. Is it fair for someone struggling on a low wage to have to contribute to the lifestyle of someone who is significantly better off then them via their taxes? on a low wage they are not contributing or very little. On minimum wage salary, full time the tax contribution is £34.58 per month. Next year that will be £0. so please explain how the low wage earners are contributing to higher earners? ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 18:08 ---------- additionally its not a 'lifestyle'....I don't think kids meals at school are a lifestyle choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 on a low wage they are not contributing or very little. On minimum wage salary, full time the tax contribution is £34.58 per month. Next year that will be £0. so please explain how the low wage earners are contributing to higher earners? ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 18:08 ---------- additionally its not a 'lifestyle'....I don't think kids meals at school are a lifestyle choice. Kids are though. It's not like the planet needs any more people. Also taking the taxes and converting that into funds for school meals doesn't happen - that needs people and resources to process it all. It's tax credits all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 on a low wage they are not contributing or very little. On minimum wage salary, full time the tax contribution is £34.58 per month. Next year that will be £0. so please explain how the low wage earners are contributing to higher earners? ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 18:08 ---------- additionally its not a 'lifestyle'....I don't think kids meals at school are a lifestyle choice. People on a low wage, not just people on minimum wage, probably contribute more as a percentage of their income towards tax, especially when you consider VAT and fuel excise duty. The much better off can afford to pay towards the things that are needed for their children. If the state were to start funding this, instead of enriching their children's life, all the state will be doing will be adding to richer people's disposable income, or improving their lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now