to think a £7500 income cap on free school meals is a deathwish?

[thirdhill]

I'm so shocked to see the Children's Society analysis reported in most papers today about proposals to introduce a £7500 income cap on free school meals.

My initial reaction is this is sheer vindictiveness, taking away a meal from kids in dire need. Will the money spent on a daily lunch for a few children save our economy? Or perhaps we can be relied on to not care anymore? Or is there a wider picture nobody is reporting? My understanding is that the present income cap is £16k, which already seems a challenge for a family of say four.

Sarah Teather, the Minister, is a lib dem MP but this must tar both parties for many and seems an absolute deal breaker for mobile voters. Straw that broke the camel's back, death wish, etc.

Curious if anyone knows any more to this.

TIA

stealth but those children may not be neglected. They may simply be poor. happymum didnt mention wilful neglect. She was talking about children not getting fed.

"The fact is millions of people who can't afford to look after themselves without benefits go on and have children they can in no real way support."

millions? and this is a fact is it? where did you learn this fact?

HappyMummy Is that the generous welfare state that pays me £55.00pw to look after four disabled people. To work an eighteen hour day, everyday, with no holidays, no respite care, and no physical help at all? Even on an eight hour day that works out as less than an pound an hour.

The £7500 mentioned by the Children's Society is an "earning threshold" not an income threshold.

Meglet - to take you as an example - it looks to me like the govt. has worked out and that under it's fabulous new Universal Credit System (which will eventually replace Tax Credits?), someone in your position might end up entitled to free school meals when you aren't under the current rules. And then thought "Oh No, we can't have that, more children will be designated as under the poverty line and attract pupil premium funding to their schools." And then changed the rules so that doesn't happen.

If the Children's Society report is correct (don't know much about them either way) and the current rules already mean that 700,000 children under the poverty line don't receive free school meals - e.g. because their parent get Working Tax Credit but are very low-waged - then that's a scandal already and we should be trying to fix the rules to make sure more children not less get a decent hot meal in the middle of the day.

I don't care about the parents of these children, much. I don't care if they are lazy, feckless, poor planners, I don't care if they're drug dealers. I don't want to be part of a society that punishes their children for this. They will already be subject to massive educational and health inequality, let's withold food from them as well

The state provides a free education. I'm not sure why it should automatically provide a free meal as well. If children were not at school they would have to be fed and that should be the responsibility of parents. FWIW when my dc were at primary school, it cost me more than £1.80 per day to give them a healthy and nutritious packed lunch which was the option I chose because I was not convinced the school meal was either healthy or nutritious.

What is a problem is children might suffer because they have parents who haven't thought about the number of children they can afford or who expect the state to provide for all their needs.

Those who can't need help and lots of it, those who won't need to be put in more difficult places.

i think we're asying the same MrsDV. There may be some families where the only thing masking the parents wilful neglect of their child is the fact they receive a school dinner. Which is bad. But I doubt there are many. There will be more where the child eats a poor diet and the parent barely eats - down to money.

Shocking! Food is really expensive and a school meal might be the only proper meal a child might get. I think this Government wants people to be in a benefit trap they way they are carrying on reducing tax credits etc.

Quite stealth This government seem intent on taking John Major's back to victorian values to a whole new level.

We are to be punished out of poverty.

"Those who can't need help and lots of it, those who won't need to be put in more difficult places."

can you explain what you mean by this please? those who cant do what and those who wont do what?

Marriedinwhite, I think the point people are making is that most people do try to plan their families so they can finance them independently, but that ill health, unexpected long term redundancy or similar bad fortune can put them in a position they never expected to be in, where finding enough food for the family is a daily battle.

Other people are making the point that it is a long term health time bomb if young children are malnourished over a long period of time, and it will be more expensive for all of us in the end.

Here Here Stealth

What do you mean married in white?
"Those who can't need help and lots of it, those who won't need to be put in more difficult places."

But married they are not out of school and are not allowed to be out of school.
They are in school, by law, from the age of 5 to 16.

There is no choice unless we all HE and god knows how the country would cope if we all did that.

So we are required by law to send our children to an institution that does not feed them.

Our only choice is to pay for a meal over which we have no control or to send them with an assortment of cold food.

I can feed all of the 3 dcs I have at home for the price of one school meal.

If I paid for all of mine to have lunch that would cost me £5.25 a day for ONE meal. For others it would cost £6.60!

"HappyMummy Is that the generous welfare state that pays me £55.00pw to look after four disabled people. To work an eighteen hour day, everyday, with no holidays, no respite care, and no physical help at all? Even on an eight hour day that works out as less than an pound an hour"

I doubt very very much that £55pw is all you get in benefits. CA is meant to be a welfare benefit not a living wage as looking after your family is what people do. Factor in CTC, CB, HB/Morgage Support, no council tax paymeny, FSM, free trips and prescriptions etc and i'd guess its far more than thousands earn.

Agree with married, providing free education should be standard but its a parents job to feed any children they choose to bring into the world.

These Tory bastards have the exact same mentality as the Victorians who made children split rope in the workhouses.

Funnily enough it didn't prevent poverty. The only thing known to ever prevent poverty is a welfare state.

Punishing poor kids has NEVER worked and even if it did it's fucking immoral.

What is the fucking point of providing a free education for kids who are too hungry/faint to concentrate properly on it?

HappyMummy you obviously haven't a clue. Life is hard, life is tight. Just remember that there was a time when this household brought in a very good wage. We didn't choose this, just as we didn't choose for people like you to be rude to us and to judge us.
Thank you for your kind thoughts and sympathy, much appreciated.
All the best,
Benefit Scrounging Scum.
Yep, that's how posts such as yours, make people like me feel.
Think on.

"CA is meant to be a welfare benefit not a living wage as looking after your family is what people do"

people who care for family members very often have to give up work in order to provide the level of care the person needs. are you honestly saying that £55 a week is enough of an allowance to replace the lost income of even a minimum wage job?

ctc and cb are not benefits given to people just for being carers, tehy would still have these benefits regardless of whether their family member was disabled or not because tehy would still have teh children.

Why is it a parents job to feed their kids but not pay for their education? Eh? You brought them into the world you pay for them.

I mean, why should a childless person pay for your kids to go to school?

Oh wait some people deserve their portion of the welfare state.(and yes free education and healthcare are part of a welfare state)

Happy mum of one, IMO you just think poor people are undeserving because that's your argument taken to it's logical conclusion.

There was a really interesting programme on Radio 4 a while ago about free school meals in Sweden. Don't know about you, but I'd always thought that Sweden was a more middle class country that didn't suffer from the same social deprivations as us.

There was a borough in Sweden where they carried out an experiment. They brought in free school meals for every child in the borough, regardless of income. The rule was that nobody could bring in any food or drink, though of course they could go home for a meal. The meals were freshly cooked and very healthy. The children could eat as much as they liked (this proved crucial). The exam results soared.

They then realised some children were coming to school on a Monday morning absolutely starving - they'd eaten just crap since their last school lunch. They decided to give the kids a free breakfast. Again, a healthy breakfast - bread, cheese, ham, fruit - no limit to how much they could eat. The rule was they couldn't eat at home first. The exam results went sky high.

They were at the point of deciding to give free evening meals before the children went home. The problem was that they would then have to limit social security money for the children, given all food was eaten at school during the week. Parents were up in arms.

It was such an enlightening programme. I work in a college and many students don't have lunch - it's clear they can't afford it. So many buy Coke and crisps for breakfast (which is clearly more than buying bread and eggs etc) and misbehave all morning.

I wish we had a government that would think long term and look at what other countries are doing.

OK I see there are a fair few who say that if your parents shouldn't have had you, you should not eat. And some who think you'll be OK because social services will sort out what your parent/s were so bad at. Isn't this like where we all agree it wasn't my job or their job or your job, and that it was definitely somebody's job, but nobody did it, in the end? Assuming you're not an uncivilised psychopath who can't see past your existing condition.

Can't child benefit be set at the same income cap as free school meals? All those experts with their figures can surely show us losing CB from £16k will easily pay for a few lunches. Oops we had trouble with £40k, would there be riots with £16k? Why do some of us get charitable relief for our children's education if the nation cannot afford to feed a lot more children? Restricting it to children, here, so we don't raid the coffers of the old and sick etc.

Perhaps we can avoid all this by cancelling obstetric services if people can't prove they can feed their kids for say 16 years? Darn, that will still leave the ones whose fortunes changed after they were born, and those who didn't "fail to be born". All over the world there are people who walk away from hungry children, maybe we need to try that here too?

booyhoo - The millions of families in receipt of tax credits and the enormous outcry at any reduction in these is fairly clear evidence that millions of people are not financially supporting their children.

Boffin mum - "I think the point people are making is that most people do try to plan their families so they can finance them independently, but that ill health, unexpected long term redundancy or similar bad fortune can put them in a position they never expected to be in, where finding enough food for the family is a daily battle."

I have to disagree with this, many people simply factor tax credits etc in as money they have. Mumsnet is full of stories of people who are scrapingf by but have another child on the way. Of course there are some people who have unexpected changes in circumstances, but I do not think that this is the majority.

I wish we had a society that was less entitled and prepared to take responsibiity for the individual actions within it.

What I mean by those who can't is that those who have become disabled and cannot work need help and lots of it; likewise those who are unemployed and cannot find work, any work, need help and lots of it. I do not think those who start from no work and no home and who produce several children in a thoughless manner shoudl be allowed to be entitled to live as well as though who have planned and who are prepared to work. I have no truck for the ex executive who was on 60-70k and who refuses from a sense of pride to work for 25k.

"booyhoo - The millions of families in receipt of tax credits and the enormous outcry at any reduction in these is fairly clear evidence that millions of people are not financially supporting their children."

that isn't the same as "millions of people who can't afford to look after themselves without benefits go on and have children they can in no real way support."

you have no proof at all that the above is true or indeed 'fact'

It is a ridiculous notion that feckless, disorganised, drug addled parents who do not feed their children now will suddenly be spurred into providing a hot meal if FSM are withdrawn.

The point I am making is who decided and why did they decide that my taxes were enough to cover every part of my (and those who do not currently pay tax) childrens' 'free' education - apart from the bit where they get fed?

When was this decision made? I would be willing to place bets that it was made a very long time ago. In a different age for reasons that we would probably think about now (when I say 'we' I dont mean the Tories obviously)