Osborne to cut all free school dinners

[RonJeremy]

Aren't kids fat enough anyway?

[TJC1]

[/color]

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.

 

as a percentage of income, I will give you that one.

 

But that doesnt mean they contribute much....plus you dont have to be rich to pay for school meals and everything else, just middle income and upwards.

 

maybe your definition of rich is different to mine?

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 18:36 ----------

 

Aren't kids fat enough anyway?

 

good point. kids are fatties let them starve for a bit.

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 18:38 ----------

 

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.

 

kids are the future tax payers etc. we need at least some.

Edited September 21, 2015 by TJC1
....

[JFKvsNixon]

as a percentage of income, I will give you that one.

 

But that doesnt mean they contribute much....plus you dont have to be rich to pay for school meals and everything else, just middle income and upwards.

 

maybe your definition of rich is different to mine?

 

I'm sure I said things like people who are richer, and better off as opposed to the rich.

 

To someone who has a smaller income, all they'll be interesting in is what percentage of their income they pay out in taxes and what disposable income that they have. It would be no consolation that they pay less money than someone else who is better off then them, when that person has a lot more disposable income.

[RonJeremy]

[/color]

 

good point. kids are fatties let them starve for a bit.

 

.

 

I think that's a bit harsh, but whatever floats your boat?

[TJC1]

I think that's a bit harsh, but whatever floats your boat?

 

You brought it up!

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2015 at 20:06 ----------

 

I'm sure I said things like people who are richer, and better off as opposed to the rich.

 

To someone who has a smaller income, all they'll be interesting in is what percentage of their income they pay out in taxes and what disposable income that they have. It would be no consolation that they pay less money than someone else who is better off then them, when that person has a lot more disposable income.

 

Why should higher rate tax payers pay for your kids? You said about parental responsibility

..well there you go. Be responsible. Take your own advice.

[JFKvsNixon]

Why should higher rate tax payers pay for your kids? You said about parental responsibility

..well there you go. Be responsible. Take your own advice.

 

What are you on about? Maybe you can explain?

 

All along I said people who can pay should pay, and people who need help should get help. How have you got from that position to a position where higher tax payers are paying for my children?

[TJC1]

What are you on about? Maybe you can explain?

 

All along I said people who can pay should pay, and people who need help should get help. How have you got from that position to a position where higher tax payers are paying for my children?

 

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.

[JFKvsNixon]

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.

 

Didn't you read the post that you was quoting? I put my position down clearly. I'll do it again as you seem to have missed it:

 

All along I said people who can pay should pay, and people who need help should get help.

[TJC1]

Didn't you read the post that you was quoting? I put my position down clearly. I'll do it again as you seem to have missed it:

 

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.

[JFKvsNixon]

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.

 

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.