JFKvsNixon Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 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? I still think that free school meals should exist, just for those that need them. Maybe the money saved from universal free meals for infant age could be spent on providing more free meals for those who are struggling throughout the ages at school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I still think that free school meals should exist, just for those that need them. Maybe the money saved from universal free meals for infant age could be spent on providing more free meals for those who are struggling throughout the ages at school? All for using resources in the best way. Like I was saying let's look at the evidence before just making cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Its simple. You said people should pay for their own children. Using yours as an example. Then you claim higher rate tax payers should pay for poor kids and should take out nothing for own kids. So i ask again. Why should higher rate tax payers pay for your kids. Straight up. You've made a great big assumption which makes your question meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) You've made a great big assumption which makes your question meaningless. why should higher rate tax payers pay out and not get the same benefits as non contributers. Its a really simple question no-one has answered yet. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:21 ---------- I still think that free school meals should exist, just for those that need them. Maybe the money saved from universal free meals for infant age could be spent on providing more free meals for those who are struggling throughout the ages at school? Why should some kids get them, and the other kids not? What youre saying is middle income upwards should shoulder the burden, pay more tax and pay for other peoples kids ASWELL. while getting nothing out the pot...that they filled up. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:23 ---------- in effect middle earners are being taxed Twice. no wonder all the middle to high income earners are so teed off with school system. its patently unfair. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:30 ---------- Paying for little brattish ungrateful kids who wont amount to much anyway. Illiterate scroungers. Parents are even worse. Voucher toting 2 weeks in skegness illiterate tattoo'd hoodlums. Rant over. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 11:36 ---------- why should higher rate tax payers pay out and not get the same benefits as non contributers. Its a really simple question no-one has answered yet. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:21 ---------- Why should some kids get them, and the other kids not? What youre saying is middle income upwards should shoulder the burden, pay more tax and pay for other peoples kids ASWELL. while getting nothing out the pot...that they filled up. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:23 ---------- in effect middle earners are being taxed Twice. no wonder all the middle to high income earners are so teed off with school system. its patently unfair. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:30 ---------- Paying for little brattish ungrateful kids who wont amount to much anyway. Illiterate scroungers. Parents are even worse. Voucher toting 2 weeks in skegness tattoo'd hoodlums. Get the workhouses setup and operational, soon learn the value of hard work and education. Rant over. Edited September 22, 2015 by TJC1 .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Where do you stop? I've heard parents moaning that they can't afford the actual expense of feeding their kids during the summer holidays because they aren't getting the free school meals. Maybe we should open school canteens during the summer because of that? Or maybe just provide all meals for children. And what about clothing them? That can be expensive, so free clothes as well. And of course toilet training infants is tiresome, so that should be something the state should be doing as well. And then we wonder why kids are starting school in nappies, incapable of using cutlery, unable to sit up unaided, and incapable of paying attention and learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 why should higher rate tax payers pay out and not get the same benefits as non contributers. Its a really simple question no-one has answered yet. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:21 ---------- Why should some kids get them, and the other kids not? What youre saying is middle income upwards should shoulder the burden, pay more tax and pay for other peoples kids ASWELL. while getting nothing out the pot...that they filled up. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:23 ---------- in effect middle earners are being taxed Twice. no wonder all the middle to high income earners are so teed off with school system. its patently unfair. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 12:30 ---------- Paying for little brattish ungrateful kids who wont amount to much anyway. Illiterate scroungers. Parents are even worse. Voucher toting 2 weeks in skegness illiterate tattoo'd hoodlums. Rant over. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 11:36 ---------- Are you seriously asking why benefits should be targeted towards the needy, as opposed to them being dished out willy-nilly to everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) Are you seriously asking why benefits should be targeted towards the needy, as opposed to them being dished out willy-nilly to everyone? Not will nilly. its not the either / or.Youre not arguing for a socialist model (avatar noted) Yours is a divisive model where the non poor pay everything in and take nothing out. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 14:36 ---------- Where do you stop? I've heard parents moaning that they can't afford the actual expense of feeding their kids during the summer holidays because they aren't getting the free school meals. Maybe we should open school canteens during the summer because of that? Or maybe just provide all meals for children. And what about clothing them? That can be expensive, so free clothes as well. And of course toilet training infants is tiresome, so that should be something the state should be doing as well. And then we wonder why kids are starting school in nappies, incapable of using cutlery, unable to sit up unaided, and incapable of paying attention and learning. No just in school. During school hols parents can feed their own kids. ---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 14:37 ---------- Well the ones who work and contribute can... Edited September 22, 2015 by TJC1 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) Not will nilly. its not the either / or.Youre not arguing for a socialist model (avatar noted) Yours is a divisive model where the non poor pay everything in and take nothing out. What has my avatar of Jose Mourinho got to do with my argument? Why is it divisive for the poor to receive the benefits? Why should the government, or to be more precise the tax payers, provide for those that can provide for themselves? The amount that the government has to spend is limited, so it should be targeted at those that need the help. Do you think that it would be right for the state to pay a millionaire housing benefit for his rent, whilst at the same time not correctly funding healthcare? Edited September 22, 2015 by JFKvsNixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 What has my avatar of Jose Mourinho got to do with my argument? Why is it divisive divisive for the poor to receive the benefits? Why should the government, or to be more precise the tax payers, provide for those that can provide for themselves? The amount that the government has to spend is limited, so it should be targeted at those that need the help. Do you think that it would be right for the state to pay a millionaire housing benefit for his rent, whilst at the same time not correctly funding healthcare? i suppose you could ask who is the better off someone who lives in a 3 bed semi in rochdale who is paying a £100k mortgage or someone who earns twice as much and lives in an identical house but with a £500k mortgage in london. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 i suppose you could ask who is the better off someone who lives in a 3 bed semi in rochdale who is paying a £100k mortgage or someone who earns twice as much and lives in an identical house but with a £500k mortgage in london. It's for that exact reason that I don't live in London. My brother though, has different priorities in life and he chooses to live down there. I think that the cost of housing has a direct limitation on your quality of life, which outweighs all the benefits that London has to offer. 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