All that's going to happen is that I'll still pay but slightly less per term, we are paying £2.70 per day so that's more than the £437 per year that's been quoted.
knowing our children's school they'll find a way to make money from the scheme by still charging for lunch and saying costs have gone up etc ! !
Thoughts ?
Well my thoughts are why am I paying to feed your kids when you can clearly pay for it yourself. Helping out those in genuine need is one thing but this is something else.
Well my thoughts are why am I paying to feed your kids when you can clearly pay for it yourself. Helping out those in genuine need is one thing but this is something else.
How do you know what I can afford ?
...and will save families an [b][u]average[/u][/b] of £437 per child per year..
Are you annoyed that you will be saving more than average ?
You can buy my lunch if you don't like the idea of not paying out for stuff 😉
I think the government have already put it out to commercial tender, and awarded the school lunches contract to a well respected, high quality private sector provider....
[img] http://globaltoynews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec87bd6d970b017615d64955970c-320wi [/img]
I'd rather pay for some children whose parent's can afford it than run the risk of children in need not being fed.
The tax break for married couples is ****ing ridiculous though.
why am I paying to feed your kids when you can clearly pay for it yourself.
Oh here we go. Perhaps you also think that parents who can afford it should pay for their children's text books ? Why not eh ?
It's hardly the same thing ernie. Education is a right, I don't expect anyone to pay for my kids meals.
How do you know what I can afford ?
Because free meals are already available to those who can't afford to pay and have been for quite some time so if you weren't able to afford meals you would already be getting them for free.
Oh here we go. Perhaps you also think that parents who can afford it should pay for their children's text books ? Why not eh ?
No I certainly don't think that.
Education is a right
And food isn't ?
It's a fact that hungry children make worse pupils. Hot nutritious food can only help. And it's part of the learning experience, and hopefully of a life-long habit, which recognises the importance of healthy hot balanced meals.
If you lot without kids can do things like swan off to the pictures of an evening, actually ride your bikes at the weekend, go on holiday outside a hideously priced 6 week window, have a lie in on a Sunday if you fancy, and enjoy a disposable income, then surely a few school meals isn't too much to begrudge us
You bastards!!!!
I'm rather surprised by this too - I don't mind paying for my son's lunch on the days he has it (he has packed lunch three days a week usually).
But, I can see that if everyone gets a school lunch free, then almost all kids will end up having school lunches (as was the case when 'I were a kid') rather than some having packed lunches and so on. Given some of the crap I've seen kids taking in for their packed lunches every day (even though the school has, for want of a better term, a 'no junk' policy on school lunches), I can see that this might well be a good thing and mean that many of the kids get better food.
Anyway, it's for you suvverners, doesn't affect me, so argue away ernie! 😀
so argue away ernie!
I thought it was you who was arguing ? I support it.
Lifer - Member
I'd rather pay for some children whose parent's can afford it than run the risk of children in need not being fed.The tax break for married couples is **** ridiculous though.
+1
even though im married I think its wrong
it's for you suvverners
I thought it was going to be nation-wide (eventually)
How do you know what I can afford ?
If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.
...........and after 5thelefants comment ill leave the discussiuon
Where does it stop though, showers for all kids, free clothes, etc. etc. What ever happened to responsible parenting?
This is electioneering at its worst, the Lib Dems trying to buy Middle Class votes.
If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.
I can't believe Tory government policy is being attacked with bollox like that.
No wonder British politics is in such a dire crises.
they should be taken into care.If you can't afford to feed your children
5thElefant +1
What if you have no children? Obviously this money hasn't appeared out of fresh air so a tax will be brought in to fund it.
Childless families be among the parents needed to cover this ridiculous idea.
Thoughts ?
I should be paying to feed my kids, if the school makes a profit that's a bonus as long as the meals are good which at the 2 schools my kids go to they're excellent.
knowing our children's school they'll find a way to make money from the scheme
Yeah those schools are always lining their own pockets. Well.. maybe the school's pockets.. and we all know those damn schools spend all their money on fast cars and coke.. well.. actually they spend it on educating our kids.. but HOW DARE THEY RAISE MONEY TO SPEND ON OUR KIDS' EDUCATION?!
Leaving aside the fact that this is a combination of another conference headline grab and a trade off with Tory tax plans for married couples (and openly admitting I don't know the specifics of what was proposed by Clegg ie, is his £600m or son of new money or does it come from elsewhere etc) I cant see the fuss.
The principle of universal benefit is supported among other factors by the fact that it leads to better uptake from those that it is meant to target. If the result is better nutrition for young kids than means testing that it seems like a good idea to me?
With that in mind I can't see why Frank Field is objecting to it this morning - need to check the link on that one.
This is electioneering at its worst, the Lib Dems trying to buy Middle Class votes.
None of the other parties would stoop to do anything so shameful and mercenary though, would they?
At least you can see the thinking behind it being broadly benevolent, and public spirited. Some kids who weren't getting a hot meal, now will.
The Tories on the other hand.... A tax break for getting married? Why on earth should you get a tax break for that? Now THAT is electoral bribery for 'our type of people'
Because free meals are already available to those who can't afford to pay and have been for quite some time so if you weren't able to afford meals you would already be getting them for free.
or like a lot of people I'm on the cusp of being able to afford it...which leaves not very much in the pot...
oohh no Im back
I cant help it
Investing in children is investing in the future of the country
all the selfish **** that resent children being fed on their tax money forget that those kids will be paying for your NHS care when you are in your dotage, so even in your small minded worlds there will be a benefit to you.
What if you have no children?
What a fantastic question.
The Tories on the other hand.... A tax break for getting married? Why on earth should you get a tax break for that?
Tax break, no. Treat marriage like a company. Combining your tax allowance would do that.
You can then have one of the partners looking after the kids if they wish, rather than the insane system we now have of making both partners go out to work and making them employ a third party for child care. Then you have a complex benefits system to bodge the fact they can't afford it due to the huge double taxing.
Yay! I'm married and have kids 🙂
Remind me who I have to vote for now?
I've not got kids but am happy to see this introduced. It's a good thing IMO.
Investing in children is investing in the future of the country
all the selfish **** that resent children being fed on their tax money forget that those kids will be paying for your NHS care when you are in your dotage, so even in your small minded worlds there will be a benefit to you.
That may well be true but a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise you end up wanting the state to fund the entire cost of raising a child. I don't resent paying for kids that have a genuine need; I do resent subsidising the kids of people who can well afford to pay for it themselves.
Tax break, no. Treat marriage like a company. Combining your tax allowance would do that.
IF there are kids to be looked after then yes I'd agree with that but not just because you are married. Why should you get a benefit just for being married?
It's aimed at a specific age group and designed to ensure that all children in that group get at least one nutritious balanced meal. It's probably cheaper to go for a blanket approach than means testing.
Oh, and for the "I don't have kids, why should I pay for [i]{insert moan of the moment}[/i]" who do you think will look after you should you fall ill or get old? Yup, someone else's children.
Kimbers, nice idea but wrong example perhaps? NHS will be long gone by then, but pensions on the other hand 😉
Define 'well afford' ... ?
It's like 'well good'.
Well 'ard?
Kimbers, nice idea but wrong example perhaps? NHS will be long gone by then, but pensions on the other hand
You think any of us lot will actually be able to 'retire'?
[img] 
[/img]
If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.
Well, well what a complete **** you are sunshine. It may come as a surprise but in life sometimes, just [i]sometimes[/i] circumstances can change. A few years ago I was coasting through my career quite happily when out of the blue I was made redundant. What followed was 6 very scary months whilst I struggled to get back into an already depressed job market. Thankfully I did before the money ran out, just. Others aren't so lucky and hit hard times. So what would you suggest then? You have obviously given this great consideration before making a [s]stupid idiotic comment[/s] reasoned contribution to the thread. Maybe we should totally dismantle the welfare state and make it everyone for themselves? Moron.
If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.
Well that is, actually, bollocks.
Running my own small business, when we had our kids I earned decent money. Last year we would have been entitled to free school meals, such were the size of our profits.
So, how exactly does one 'budget' for children in a scenario like that? Or should we not have had any in case I had subsequent lean years?
BTW, this year I am a high rate tax payer. But we will still get the free meals next year now 🙂
Say what you think, Coyote, don't hold back 🙂
(glad things have worked out...)
Hah Coyote - another good example of what a daft comment that was.
Just think, if he'd had free school meals when he was younger he might have been able to hav thunk that through more betterer.
Wouldn't let my kids eat free school lunches. Guaranteed to be some nasty processed food which is not very good for them.
Get with the program LHS! I think you'll find that was in the dark, terrible pre St Jamie days. He's going to kill this instead, for a Mexican rice with chipotle pork & avocado salsa, for the little dears....
[img] 
[/img]
