tinfoilhat Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Forget it. Youve not answered the question. ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 21:16 ---------- Another nimby expecting the higher rate tax payer to pay for their kids. You're expecting me to pay for them and I haven't got any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 f they dont get proper meals and the basics Perhaps things are different in this Space Year 2015 but when I was a child, we had things called "parents" who dealt with things like that. I personally have never had a school meal in my life. And yet, here I am. If children are not being fed, surely social services need to get involved? Or perhaps people will finally concede what I've always said. That things really were better in the "good old days"? Clearly both points of view can't be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 What the hell are you on about? What makes you believe that higher rate tax payers pay for my daughter and what makes you think that we don't have a higher tax rate payer in my family? I'm suggesting that it's correct that the benefit for universal free meals should be removed, it's a suggestion that means I'll be worse off in the future, but I believe that it's the correct decision. Just as the child benefit cuts had an effect on my income, I believe it was the right decision. i believe ive made my point. Not getting into further squabbles. ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 22:13 ---------- You're expecting me to pay for them and I haven't got any! Were all in this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin6 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I like paying taxes for everyone elses kids to have free meals, when I cant afford to send mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm not sure I'm pitting one set of kids against another set, so I don't know where you're going with that one. It allows around £600 million to be ploughed back into education, to improve education for all. I don't know why it's such an issue it has always been this way until around a couple of years ago. But the argument is that feeding kids improves educational outcomes. Could we buy those better outcomes by spending £600m on something else? I don't know the answer to be honest but it is possible we couldn't. So before we cut lets properly review whether the meals are providing value for money? ---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 22:33 ---------- Were all in this together. Yes, it's the Pig Society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Personal responsibility has to come into things at some point. Don't have kids if you can't afford to feed them. And if you are just one mishap away from not being able to feed them, you really shouldn't be having kids yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Personal responsibility has to come into things at some point. Don't have kids if you can't afford to feed them. And if you are just one mishap away from not being able to feed them, you really shouldn't be having kids yet. Packed lunches are not as nutritious as cooked lunches, many parents are on low wages themselves so end up doing packed lunches for their kids therefore the kids are not getting a nutritious meal. Jamie Oliver touches on this point in this article= http://news.sky.com/story/1555724/free-school-meals-could-be-cut-by-government. I would rather my taxes be used on school meals for children here than on foreign aid that ends up in a dictators personal bank account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Personal responsibility has to come into things at some point. Don't have kids if you can't afford to feed them. And if you are just one mishap away from not being able to feed them, you really shouldn't be having kids yet. The bit in bold probably applies to millions of outwardly middle class families too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Packed lunches are not as nutritious as cooked lunches, many parents are on low wages themselves so end up doing packed lunches for their kids therefore the kids are not getting a nutritious meal. Jamie Oliver touches on this point in this article= http://news.sky.com/story/1555724/free-school-meals-could-be-cut-by-government. I would rather my taxes be used on school meals for children here than on foreign aid that ends up in a dictators personal bank account. I'd rather have lower taxes. And for what tax we do pay to be spent on useful things not spent on rewarding fecklessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'd rather have lower taxes. And for what tax we do pay to be spent on useful things not spent on rewarding fecklessness. This won't give you lower taxes. You will pay the same and they'll get spent on other things. 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