Free breakfasts for school kids?
Discussion
Fittster said:
Just give the schools the power to kick them out. If you can't behave in school you shouldn't be there.
So now the child is not only in a neglectful home but unable to access the place where people actually want to help them. The fact is there are many kids who cannot behave in school but it isn't their fault, they have been brought up I. An environment where the only way to get through is shouting etc. that isn't appropriate in school but our role is to help them as best we can and kicking them out should always be a last resort. Making sure such kids have a good breakfast is an excellent part of that, despite what many on ph seems to think giving kids from neglectful homes a decent leg up from the state does not make them think like their parents that they can live off it, but actually gives them the best opportunity to achieve something with their lives. Deva Link said:
Kermit power said:
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
You're making stuff up now just to annoy yourself.If the kids were living with their father then the father would get the child benefit.
OzzyR1 said:
Kermit power said:
It's quite simple. They are not his kids, but because he earns over £50k, then the cost of their child benefit will be deducted from his tax allowance because he is married to their mother.
The whole thing is a complete farce.
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
Obviously Osborne never actually thought he'd need to implement this - the idea was clearly to say "look, everyone is sharing the pain", before getting the economy back on a stable enough footing to be able to say they no longer need to enact it. That didn't happen, so now we get a complete f
k up of a scenario implemented. How can it possibly be considered remotely fair that a household with an annual income of £99,999.99 gets full access to a benefit which is denied in its entirety to a household with an annual income of £60,000?
It's a total disgrace that someone on £50K is complaining about not getting benefits to be quite honest.The whole thing is a complete farce.
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
Obviously Osborne never actually thought he'd need to implement this - the idea was clearly to say "look, everyone is sharing the pain", before getting the economy back on a stable enough footing to be able to say they no longer need to enact it. That didn't happen, so now we get a complete f
k up of a scenario implemented. How can it possibly be considered remotely fair that a household with an annual income of £99,999.99 gets full access to a benefit which is denied in its entirety to a household with an annual income of £60,000?For Christ's sake, these are benefits we are talking about, a means by which (at the time of implementation), it was hoped kids wouldn't have to go to school with holes in their shoes.
Just shows what a sense if entitlement is prevalent in society today that people on £50K+ think they should be in receipt of a state handout. Jesus Christ.
And as for those complaining that its unfair that they earn £60k and get nothing when a couple who earn £40k each get the full whack, my heart bleeds for you. Either earn more yourself or get your partner out & bringing some money in if you want more cash.
Life isn't fair in many ways. Get over it.
Jesus, never thought I'd see the day when PH is arguing about whether you should receive benefits dependant on whether you are bringing in £50k or £100k pa.
king mile!It doesn't matter where you set the limit, it shouldn't be done in such a way that one household can get a full benefit whilst earning 40% more than another who receives none at all. That's before you even consider the huge disparity in tax that those two households already pay.
The only fair way to have implemented this would've been to base it on household income, but that's too difficult for HMRC to do with their lovely 1970s computer systems, so lots of families get f
ked over instead.For the record, we'd be losing it whichever way it got measured, so I'm not complaining that I'm being hit in the pocket one way but not the other. I just think it's completely wrong to make the change in the way it has been made as a matter of principle.
Kermit power said:
Are you positive about that? There has been plenty in the news recently about it being always paid to the mother.
Positive. It's normally paid to whoever the child lives with. Could be grand-parents.In an acrimonious divorce situation where the mother didn't have the children it would be ridiculous if she still got child benefit.
By the way, it's also paid by our benefits system for lots of children in Poland etc.
Kermit power said:
markh1973 said:
CraigyMc said:
Oakey said:
Look at the outrage from those earning £60k who've lost their family credit.
A mate of mine got married to a lady who had two kids from a previous relationship.He's about to start paying through the nose for them, simply because he makes just over 50k.
C
The whole thing is a complete farce.
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
Obviously Osborne never actually thought he'd need to implement this - the idea was clearly to say "look, everyone is sharing the pain", before getting the economy back on a stable enough footing to be able to say they no longer need to enact it. That didn't happen, so now we get a complete f
k up of a scenario implemented. How can it possibly be considered remotely fair that a household with an annual income of £99,999.99 gets full access to a benefit which is denied in its entirety to a household with an annual income of £60,000?It's f
king bonkers.C
Kermit power said:
It's quite simple. They are not his kids, but because he earns over £50k, then the cost of their child benefit will be deducted from his tax allowance because he is married to their mother.
The whole thing is a complete farce.
Exactly. Getting married is almost always a stupid thing to do.The whole thing is a complete farce.
Kermit power said:
Well done on missing the point by a country fking mile!
It doesn't matter where you set the limit, it shouldn't be done in such a way that one household can get a full benefit whilst earning 40% more than another who receives none at all. That's before you even consider the huge disparity in tax that those two households already pay.
The only fair way to have implemented this would've been to base it on household income, but that's too difficult for HMRC to do with their lovely 1970s computer systems, so lots of families get fked over instead.
For the record, we'd be losing it whichever way it got measured, so I'm not complaining that I'm being hit in the pocket one way but not the other. I just think it's completely wrong to make the change in the way it has been made as a matter of principle.
Let's change its name to 'Child Care Allowance' then. Just the change of a couple of pointless words and the whole problem is solved.king mile!It doesn't matter where you set the limit, it shouldn't be done in such a way that one household can get a full benefit whilst earning 40% more than another who receives none at all. That's before you even consider the huge disparity in tax that those two households already pay.
The only fair way to have implemented this would've been to base it on household income, but that's too difficult for HMRC to do with their lovely 1970s computer systems, so lots of families get f
ked over instead.For the record, we'd be losing it whichever way it got measured, so I'm not complaining that I'm being hit in the pocket one way but not the other. I just think it's completely wrong to make the change in the way it has been made as a matter of principle.
DonkeyApple said:
Kermit power said:
Well done on missing the point by a country fking mile!
It doesn't matter where you set the limit, it shouldn't be done in such a way that one household can get a full benefit whilst earning 40% more than another who receives none at all. That's before you even consider the huge disparity in tax that those two households already pay.
The only fair way to have implemented this would've been to base it on household income, but that's too difficult for HMRC to do with their lovely 1970s computer systems, so lots of families get fked over instead.
For the record, we'd be losing it whichever way it got measured, so I'm not complaining that I'm being hit in the pocket one way but not the other. I just think it's completely wrong to make the change in the way it has been made as a matter of principle.
Let's change its name to 'Child Care Allowance' then. Just the change of a couple of pointless words and the whole problem is solved.king mile!It doesn't matter where you set the limit, it shouldn't be done in such a way that one household can get a full benefit whilst earning 40% more than another who receives none at all. That's before you even consider the huge disparity in tax that those two households already pay.
The only fair way to have implemented this would've been to base it on household income, but that's too difficult for HMRC to do with their lovely 1970s computer systems, so lots of families get f
ked over instead.For the record, we'd be losing it whichever way it got measured, so I'm not complaining that I'm being hit in the pocket one way but not the other. I just think it's completely wrong to make the change in the way it has been made as a matter of principle.
Child benefit could be used however parents saw fit. If that meant helping towards the cost of having one of the parents staying at home to raise the kids, then that was fine.
Make it a child care allowance, and you have to spend it on someone else looking after your kids. The tax system is already massively skewed against having a single earner, with Cameron's promise to allow sharing of the non-working spouse's tax allowance nowhere in sight, and this would just take it even further in that direction.
fbrs said:
OzzyR1 said:
Oh, and on the actual topic of the thread, I would be in favour of giving all kids a free breakfast.
For the sake of 50p/day, I would rather a kid has a decent meal than goes without just because a parent can't be arsed to do their duty. All those saying that all free meals should be cancelled as its up to the parents to sort it should maybe have little think. Put yourself in the shoes of a 6 year old who is hungry purely because their parent(s) don't give a st. Would you withhold a meal from the child to punish the parent? Don't be so bloody stupid.
There are many wastes of my tax that the Govt spends money on. Giving a meal to a kid who needs it is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things and very much the right thing to do.
agreed and you know what, the poor kids of these fvcking people actually stand a better chance of learning something and not turning into the vermin their parents areFor the sake of 50p/day, I would rather a kid has a decent meal than goes without just because a parent can't be arsed to do their duty. All those saying that all free meals should be cancelled as its up to the parents to sort it should maybe have little think. Put yourself in the shoes of a 6 year old who is hungry purely because their parent(s) don't give a s
t. Would you withhold a meal from the child to punish the parent? Don't be so bloody stupid.There are many wastes of my tax that the Govt spends money on. Giving a meal to a kid who needs it is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things and very much the right thing to do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff