Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign
Discussion
What gets me is that it is difficult to ascertain truth in any of this. The hysterical, 'the tories are starving kids' lot would have us believe that there is no safety net and families and single mums have literally pennies to buy food.
What is the truth? has anyone done a factual breakdown of what say a jobless single mum with 2 kids would get a month?
Frankly, I find it disgraceful that anyone would use the words 'starving kids' in modern Britain. There are places around the world where children genuinely have no way of getting food and to compare ourselves to that kind of situation is disgusting.
What is the truth? has anyone done a factual breakdown of what say a jobless single mum with 2 kids would get a month?
Frankly, I find it disgraceful that anyone would use the words 'starving kids' in modern Britain. There are places around the world where children genuinely have no way of getting food and to compare ourselves to that kind of situation is disgusting.
This thread is fascinating and terrifying.
We have posts from people who have experienced poverty first hand, and those who deal with it day to day.
I believe that we could improve this, but the choices we make as a society to do so are not easy and will be rejected by many.
Regrettably, I don’t believe that our society has the balls to make the tough decisions required.
austinsmirk said:
Factor in I get involved with welfare, food parcels and so on at work.
I cannot begin to tell you how much gets chucked because people won’t eat or accept it. Secondly people demanding certain food along with “ I’m not eating that muck”
If we could dispense chicken nuggets, rustlers burgers and blue slush, we’d have a higher success rate.
I also see a lot of household expenditure lists and bank account info.
Very expensive phone, tv, car loans , sky high car insurance for stupid unaffordable cars, and goodness knows what else are prominent. People will not switch to direct debit meters for fuel so they pay through the nose for it. I regularly see monthly costs way beyond mine and I work. You tell them and they won’t shift. It’s decades of living week to week. Paying UC out monthly and giving control has been an utter disaster
We have entire departments at work literally nurse maiding entire households for every moment of their waking lives. I mean it, ringing them to make sure they go to the doctors, have taken their children to school, are budgeting from their UC. This is why places like sports direct exist so the terminally stupid can buy clothes and shoes with no zips, buttons or laces other wise they’d never dress themselves.
I struggle to find single lone female families. They is always some bloke knocking around in the background.
Absent fathers are clearly an issue of course. They’ll be many and I suspect on here too putting a night on the booze and Coke before contemplating ensuring a child from 10 years ago is ok. Equally some of these men are such violent, abusive morons the poor women can only try to cut ties and move on. It doesn’t help we don’t have large multi generation families now living in close proximity akin to the perhaps the Asian community. A community I’d say are actually very good at looking after families and their elders. Yr young white mum running from some abusive fool can get isolated very quickly. A kid at 19 will barely know how to cook anything and the view of cooking staples up for pence ain’t happening. It’s what can go in an oven or microwave or deep fat fryer.
Of course don’t forget those on UC all got chucked an extra free £1000 for the year when COVID struck. Back to the point, tell me how the spare £20 a week they’ve all had since March won’t cover lunch for a week in half term ?
Money ain’t the answer here. But spotting the signs of abused, vulnerable children is. But on those estates people will say and do nothing. They’ll live watching and hearing abuse and hunger and do nothing.
And dads. Dads dads. I’m sure their are millions out there who need to step their game up.
Thank the lord...this is 100% accurate and outlines exactly what the issues are. I cannot begin to tell you how much gets chucked because people won’t eat or accept it. Secondly people demanding certain food along with “ I’m not eating that muck”
If we could dispense chicken nuggets, rustlers burgers and blue slush, we’d have a higher success rate.
I also see a lot of household expenditure lists and bank account info.
Very expensive phone, tv, car loans , sky high car insurance for stupid unaffordable cars, and goodness knows what else are prominent. People will not switch to direct debit meters for fuel so they pay through the nose for it. I regularly see monthly costs way beyond mine and I work. You tell them and they won’t shift. It’s decades of living week to week. Paying UC out monthly and giving control has been an utter disaster
We have entire departments at work literally nurse maiding entire households for every moment of their waking lives. I mean it, ringing them to make sure they go to the doctors, have taken their children to school, are budgeting from their UC. This is why places like sports direct exist so the terminally stupid can buy clothes and shoes with no zips, buttons or laces other wise they’d never dress themselves.
I struggle to find single lone female families. They is always some bloke knocking around in the background.
Absent fathers are clearly an issue of course. They’ll be many and I suspect on here too putting a night on the booze and Coke before contemplating ensuring a child from 10 years ago is ok. Equally some of these men are such violent, abusive morons the poor women can only try to cut ties and move on. It doesn’t help we don’t have large multi generation families now living in close proximity akin to the perhaps the Asian community. A community I’d say are actually very good at looking after families and their elders. Yr young white mum running from some abusive fool can get isolated very quickly. A kid at 19 will barely know how to cook anything and the view of cooking staples up for pence ain’t happening. It’s what can go in an oven or microwave or deep fat fryer.
Of course don’t forget those on UC all got chucked an extra free £1000 for the year when COVID struck. Back to the point, tell me how the spare £20 a week they’ve all had since March won’t cover lunch for a week in half term ?
Money ain’t the answer here. But spotting the signs of abused, vulnerable children is. But on those estates people will say and do nothing. They’ll live watching and hearing abuse and hunger and do nothing.
And dads. Dads dads. I’m sure their are millions out there who need to step their game up.
End of thread IMO.
austinsmirk said:
Factor in I get involved with welfare, food parcels and so on at work.
I cannot begin to tell you how much gets chucked because people won’t eat or accept it. Secondly people demanding certain food along with “ I’m not eating that muck”
If we could dispense chicken nuggets, rustlers burgers and blue slush, we’d have a higher success rate.
I also see a lot of household expenditure lists and bank account info.
Very expensive phone, tv, car loans , sky high car insurance for stupid unaffordable cars, and goodness knows what else are prominent. People will not switch to direct debit meters for fuel so they pay through the nose for it. I regularly see monthly costs way beyond mine and I work. You tell them and they won’t shift. It’s decades of living week to week. Paying UC out monthly and giving control has been an utter disaster
We have entire departments at work literally nurse maiding entire households for every moment of their waking lives. I mean it, ringing them to make sure they go to the doctors, have taken their children to school, are budgeting from their UC. This is why places like sports direct exist so the terminally stupid can buy clothes and shoes with no zips, buttons or laces other wise they’d never dress themselves.
I struggle to find single lone female families. They is always some bloke knocking around in the background.
Absent fathers are clearly an issue of course. They’ll be many and I suspect on here too putting a night on the booze and Coke before contemplating ensuring a child from 10 years ago is ok. Equally some of these men are such violent, abusive morons the poor women can only try to cut ties and move on. It doesn’t help we don’t have large multi generation families now living in close proximity akin to the perhaps the Asian community. A community I’d say are actually very good at looking after families and their elders. Yr young white mum running from some abusive fool can get isolated very quickly. A kid at 19 will barely know how to cook anything and the view of cooking staples up for pence ain’t happening. It’s what can go in an oven or microwave or deep fat fryer.
Of course don’t forget those on UC all got chucked an extra free £1000 for the year when COVID struck. Back to the point, tell me how the spare £20 a week they’ve all had since March won’t cover lunch for a week in half term ?
Money ain’t the answer here. But spotting the signs of abused, vulnerable children is. But on those estates people will say and do nothing. They’ll live watching and hearing abuse and hunger and do nothing.
And dads. Dads dads. I’m sure their are millions out there who need to step their game up.
When you introduce a social safety net there will always those who turn it into a hammock.I cannot begin to tell you how much gets chucked because people won’t eat or accept it. Secondly people demanding certain food along with “ I’m not eating that muck”
If we could dispense chicken nuggets, rustlers burgers and blue slush, we’d have a higher success rate.
I also see a lot of household expenditure lists and bank account info.
Very expensive phone, tv, car loans , sky high car insurance for stupid unaffordable cars, and goodness knows what else are prominent. People will not switch to direct debit meters for fuel so they pay through the nose for it. I regularly see monthly costs way beyond mine and I work. You tell them and they won’t shift. It’s decades of living week to week. Paying UC out monthly and giving control has been an utter disaster
We have entire departments at work literally nurse maiding entire households for every moment of their waking lives. I mean it, ringing them to make sure they go to the doctors, have taken their children to school, are budgeting from their UC. This is why places like sports direct exist so the terminally stupid can buy clothes and shoes with no zips, buttons or laces other wise they’d never dress themselves.
I struggle to find single lone female families. They is always some bloke knocking around in the background.
Absent fathers are clearly an issue of course. They’ll be many and I suspect on here too putting a night on the booze and Coke before contemplating ensuring a child from 10 years ago is ok. Equally some of these men are such violent, abusive morons the poor women can only try to cut ties and move on. It doesn’t help we don’t have large multi generation families now living in close proximity akin to the perhaps the Asian community. A community I’d say are actually very good at looking after families and their elders. Yr young white mum running from some abusive fool can get isolated very quickly. A kid at 19 will barely know how to cook anything and the view of cooking staples up for pence ain’t happening. It’s what can go in an oven or microwave or deep fat fryer.
Of course don’t forget those on UC all got chucked an extra free £1000 for the year when COVID struck. Back to the point, tell me how the spare £20 a week they’ve all had since March won’t cover lunch for a week in half term ?
Money ain’t the answer here. But spotting the signs of abused, vulnerable children is. But on those estates people will say and do nothing. They’ll live watching and hearing abuse and hunger and do nothing.
And dads. Dads dads. I’m sure their are millions out there who need to step their game up.
It's been going on so long that to change a multi generation attitude towards their 'welfare rights' will take decades, if it can ever be done.
Part of the problem is that we don't have real heroes anymore to aspire to. For today's youth it's some rapper who has been to prison, is in a gang and boasts of how much money he has made dealing drugs.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/artic...
https://theundefeated.com/features/jay-z-pusha-t-n...
And for the ultimate welfare queen with the entitlement attitude you can't beat Angel Adams/Brown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8_Gk4uXMo0
272BHP said:
What is the truth? has anyone done a factual breakdown of what say a jobless single mum with 2 kids would get a month?
I posted this a few pages back based on the entitledto.co.uk website. “ Fascinating that link. I did a calc on a single mum with two kids, no savings, looking for work in a council tax band B house with £550 a month rent.
Entitlement is £395 per week, or £1711 per month which is £20,540 a year.”
Edited by panholio on Tuesday 27th October 21:43
panholio said:
272BHP said:
What is the truth? has anyone done a factual breakdown of what say a jobless single mum with 2 kids would get a month?
I posted this a few pages back based on the entitledto.co.uk website. “ Fascinating that link. I did a calc on a single mum with two kids, no savings, looking for work in a council tax band B house with £550 a month rent.
Entitlement is £395 per week, or £1711 per month which is £20,540 a year.”
Edited by panholio on Tuesday 27th October 21:43
Probably more like £35,000 once you start adding costs for commuting and lunches and take away and less efficient meals (less prep time etc)
The benefits system is broken when you’d be better off not working unless you’re earning well into the £30,000 range.
Obviously ignores the Dads contributions... I assume in the above case they don’t exist.
Mr Whippy said:
The benefits system is broken when you’d be better off not working unless you’re earning well into the £30,000 range.
Very. There should be a substantial difference in discretionary income between a household where no one works and one where one or more do. At the moment that seems to be completely arse about face. It's a perfectly reasonable choice to live off the state when it pays you the same or more than you'd earn working.
mjb1 said:
For anyone who works at all, it's highly unlikely they're kids will qualify for free school meals - the threshold is £7400 earned income per year, which is about 16 hours a week at min wage. For some reason, state benefits aren't taken into consideration, so it's really only families who live entirely on state benefits who qualify. And they could be better off financially than a single parent who's trying to work (around school times). The state benefits should be sufficient for parent's to feed their kids at lunch time during school holidays, at worst we're talking about a loaf of bread and something to put on it - pennies.
What is a rather worrying though, is that 17.3% of children in England qualify - that's a lot of kids with parents who aren't working...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54693906
Apologies if O/T - are either of the following OK?What is a rather worrying though, is that 17.3% of children in England qualify - that's a lot of kids with parents who aren't working...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54693906
1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
Mr Whippy said:
You’d need to work full time at £28,000 a year to begin being better off.
Probably more like £35,000 once you start adding costs for commuting and lunches and take away and less efficient meals (less prep time etc)
The benefits system is broken when you’d be better off not working unless you’re earning well into the £30,000 range.
Obviously ignores the Dads contributions... I assume in the above case they don’t exist.
Child maintenance is not taken into account as income in the case of benefits, it’s for the children. So you could potentially Be getting anything up to £5/6k a year on top depending how well the ex is doing in life and how many kids are in the equation.Probably more like £35,000 once you start adding costs for commuting and lunches and take away and less efficient meals (less prep time etc)
The benefits system is broken when you’d be better off not working unless you’re earning well into the £30,000 range.
Obviously ignores the Dads contributions... I assume in the above case they don’t exist.
Countdown said:
mjb1 said:
For anyone who works at all, it's highly unlikely they're kids will qualify for free school meals - the threshold is £7400 earned income per year, which is about 16 hours a week at min wage. For some reason, state benefits aren't taken into consideration, so it's really only families who live entirely on state benefits who qualify. And they could be better off financially than a single parent who's trying to work (around school times). The state benefits should be sufficient for parent's to feed their kids at lunch time during school holidays, at worst we're talking about a loaf of bread and something to put on it - pennies.
What is a rather worrying though, is that 17.3% of children in England qualify - that's a lot of kids with parents who aren't working...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54693906
Apologies if O/T - are either of the following OK?What is a rather worrying though, is that 17.3% of children in England qualify - that's a lot of kids with parents who aren't working...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54693906
1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
Wombat3 said:
crankedup said:
biggbn said:
zetec said:
Just watching ITV news about the free school meals issue. These poor children who’s parents can’t afford to feed them....they can wear Nike Air Max trainers though
...and? This validates their selfish decision to buy big brand tat over cheap, nutritious food? I'm not sure how many times this has been said, or will be, but its not the kids fault. They are kids. Powerless. And hungry. What's your solution. Let them eat Air Max? misallocating that budget at the expense of feeding the children. Each should be fully investigated and if that parent(s) are evidenced to be mistreating/abusing their children then being hauled before Justice Courts is required. Justice for the children must prevail and those children be brought into a new care system.
Ringfence a suitable percentage of the money allocated and convert it into food vouchers, demeaning?
Possibly, effective.
Certainly
Countdown said:
Apologies if O/T - are either of the following OK?
1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
1,2,3 should all use adjusted net income which includes dividends and any other taxable/declarable income.1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
But yes, when you see people at the bottom gaming the system so successfully, then can hardly begrudge those further up (who are contributing income tax and ni) claiming what they can.
Whole system is far too generous really. Universal credit are an attempt to rehash the benefits system into a slightly less generous form. Bit obviously anything like that is widely unpopular with the general public, and politicians shy away from anything that might cost them votes.
mjb1 said:
Countdown said:
Apologies if O/T - are either of the following OK?
1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
1,2,3 should all use adjusted net income which includes dividends and any other taxable/declarable income.1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
But yes, when you see people at the bottom gaming the system so successfully, then can hardly begrudge those further up (who are contributing income tax and ni) claiming what they can.
Whole system is far too generous really. Universal credit are an attempt to rehash the benefits system into a slightly less generous form. Bit obviously anything like that is widely unpopular with the general public, and politicians shy away from anything that might cost them votes.
mjb1 said:
Whole system is far too generous really. Universal credit are an attempt to rehash the benefits system into a slightly less generous form. Bit obviously anything like that is widely unpopular with the general public, and politicians shy away from anything that might cost them votes.
It may be less generous in certain areas, but one of its positives is that the rate of benefit withdrawal as income rises is lower and more consistent. The old system had "cliff edges" where the rate of benefit withdrawal for additional income could exceed 100%.The rate is still too high at 63% (I would like to see that reduced) but is a marked improvement on the old system in that area.
JagLover said:
mjb1 said:
Whole system is far too generous really. Universal credit are an attempt to rehash the benefits system into a slightly less generous form. Bit obviously anything like that is widely unpopular with the general public, and politicians shy away from anything that might cost them votes.
It may be less generous in certain areas, but one of its positives is that the rate of benefit withdrawal as income rises is lower and more consistent. The old system had "cliff edges" where the rate of benefit withdrawal for additional income could exceed 100%.The rate is still too high at 63% (I would like to see that reduced) but is a marked improvement on the old system in that area.
Countdown said:
mjb1 said:
For anyone who works at all, it's highly unlikely they're kids will qualify for free school meals - the threshold is £7400 earned income per year, which is about 16 hours a week at min wage. For some reason, state benefits aren't taken into consideration, so it's really only families who live entirely on state benefits who qualify. And they could be better off financially than a single parent who's trying to work (around school times). The state benefits should be sufficient for parent's to feed their kids at lunch time during school holidays, at worst we're talking about a loaf of bread and something to put on it - pennies.
What is a rather worrying though, is that 17.3% of children in England qualify - that's a lot of kids with parents who aren't working...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54693906
Apologies if O/T - are either of the following OK?What is a rather worrying though, is that 17.3% of children in England qualify - that's a lot of kids with parents who aren't working...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54693906
1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
I don't do that, nor do I claim anything off the state, quite the reverse.
I do however structure my finances so that my tax expenditure is as efficient as possible.
Structuring your tax is as much part of efficiency as googling to get the best price on a product, massaging the figures to claim money off the state is IMHO fraud.
Countdown said:
Apologies if O/T - are either of the following OK?
1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
On 1 & 2 I think you have your "facts" wrong. Dividends count towards the total so they still wouldn't get FSM/Child Benefit.1. PH Directors pays himself > £7,400 which enables his kids to get FSM (£50k divs)
2. PH Director pays himself > £7,400 which enables him to retain Child benefit (£50k divs)
3. PH PAYE puts £Xk into a SIPP so that his earnings are below £50k so retains Child benefit.
4. PH Director asks how to transfer his mum’s house into his name so the Council cant use it for care fees
The convoluted point I’m making - there’s a lot of criticism of people on benefits and yet lots of us, even those on very high salaries, will game the system in order to maximise how much WE can claim off the State. People in glas houses etc......
3 may well be something that could be done but I'm really not sure how much sense there would be in it to gain £20 a week in child benefit (plus £13 for every other kid). Maybe if they have 4 kids and are earning 54k a year it might make some sense. But then in that situation they are also providing for themselves in retirement so will be less of a drag on the system at that point (in theory).
4 will also have financial consequences in due course. But is a whole different topic that has been discussed several times. My view? People shouldn't be required to sell off assets - that will have been taxed at least once at some point - for basic care provision that is available to everyone at "zero" cost (though the notion of things being "free" is the start of where we go wrong in this country). If people want enhanced provisions, then sure, sell the assets. But not for basic care.
So only one of these may be "gaming" the system. But in my view there's a very big difference with tax avoidance and not paying anything at all/being a net drain on the system.
Murph7355 said:
4 will also have financial consequences in due course. But is a whole different topic that has been discussed several times. My view? People shouldn't be required to sell off assets - that will have been taxed at least once at some point - for basic care provision that is available to everyone at "zero" cost (though the notion of things being "free" is the start of where we go wrong in this country). If people want enhanced provisions, then sure, sell the assets. But not for basic care.
.
Point 4 is a lot more complicated than many people unfamiliar with tax law think..
For starters if the elderly person still lives in their home and gifts it then it becomes a "gift with reservation of benefit".
Also there is already an anti-avoidance provision for carehome fees
AprilKing said:
If you transfer your assets to your children or to a trust during your lifetime and you later need care, your transfer may be regarded as deliberate deprivation of assets.
https://www.aprilking.co.uk/blog/gifts-with-reservation-of-benefit/As a general rule if you have thought of something that might avoid tax/care home fees etc then HM R&C have been trying to tackle it for years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff