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

swallowedAfly, I'm reading, you make a great deal of sense

Poulay - thanks for posting that link, it's from March 2012 so much more up to date than the report I'd found.

I'm still a bit about where this figure of £7500 was plucked from, though it must be said that the Children's Society used it as an example of a threshold & it's really the newspaper articles & initial BBC report that have reported it as (possibly scaremongering) fact.

But I'm also very that in 2012, 2 years after the government proposed Universal Credit, they still have no actual figures on how they plan to implement it or what thresholds they plan to use.

It looks to me like they've found out it won't be as easy as they said to simplify things, and they're worried that their clever new system may end up being as complicated and costing more than the old one and are looking to cut costs.

I think they bunged some figures in, realised that too many extra children would be entitled to FSM (no surprise if there's already 700,000 in low-waged households who aren't currently getting them) & have started revising their income thresholds rapidly down.

Which will affect a lot of low-waged workers who currently get tax-credit top-ups, not just people who already get FSM and might lose them.

It seems clear that whatever system we end up with, there will inevitably be thresholds at which work (or extra hours) doesn't pay until someone gets either a pay rise or a pay cut - some people will factor that in for the sake of holding on to their career or self esteem, but it's hardly a surprise that someone in a soul-destroying job that you really would only do for the money, would choose to drop a few hours a week to slip under a benefit threshold. Or even make life decisions like having a child (or not) based on how that threshold may affect them.

If you are in a higher income bracket, maximising your income by whatever leagal means possible is be seen as prudent by many people. Things like putting money in an ISA at the right time of year to minimise the tax paid on savings - most Money sections in newspapers have articles on this kind of thing every week.

Whereas if you are on the breadline, making life decisions to legally maximise your income (by a few £s a week) is seen as feckless and sponging...
Why is there this idea that poor people are supposed to be so much more moral in their decision-making than rich people? If anything, the incentives to make decisions based on the net gain or loss to society probably fade into the background a bit, when the extra few £ you might gain is literally the difference between food on the table or hungry children.

What is with cold food?

Cheap, easy cold food tends to be some bread and cheese and maybe a slice of processed meat. (well, obviously cheap cold food is a mars bar and a bag of crisps, but anyway...) 'Hot food' implies a mixture of ingredients including meat and vegetables.

Obviously there are a million interesting things you can do with a wrap, but most of the more grown up ways of bringing food from home to work (e.g. soup, last night's left overs) rely on there being a microwave on the premises to make it taste nice.

Having said that, many schools don't provide cooked meals and provide a packed lunch for children on fsm. When it comes down to it, its about food.

Yanbu. Tragic. Govt have enough money to allow a tax reduction to those on higher tax rate though, of course. Yes, thats a reduction in tax for those who earn over £150000, as obviosly they need that extra spending money. But the country is so skint that the govt need to cut the amount of free school meals for children on/below poverty line as we are all in this together? For FUCKS SAKE.

If they do go ahead with this it's really not going to sound good when everyone beyond Mumsnet starts talking - quite rightly - like 3littlerabbits

It was bad enough for Thatcher-the-milk-snatcher back in the day, and that was "only" a bottle of milk at break time. Take away children's lunches from some of our poorer children and don't expect to get re-elected/ fasten your seat-belts for a very bumpy ride.

and not just because of bad parenting can't be bothered but for some because they're living with a disabled parent who can't cook a hot meal or really struggles to do so on a regular basis.

ooh mad cross post - that was following on from someone saying that it was the only hot meal some children got.

I'd like to pick up on the "bad parenting can't be bothered" and "lazy, feckless parents" issues.

Just feel we should have compassion not only for those that are poor, but also for all those that are struggling for whatever reason.
I feel almost everyone wants to do their best for their children, but people have a whole raft of challenges and issues to contend with that sometimes makes this difficult.
Poverty isn't the only challenge people face. The reasons people are living in poverty bring many other challenges of their own too - things like mental health, illness and disability - all sorts of challenges really which make raising children more of a challenge as well as making it more difficult to earn a good, living wage.

have no read the whole thread - but agree about the Olympics - anyone who cares about poverty should be blardy disgusted at that mahoosive waste of taxpayers money that could have paid for - how many - school meals...?
School dinners should be free to all - anything other tinkering is a waste of admin money - and could be paid for by stopping all child benefit - that way moeny if defintiely spent on children's food which shoudl be the priority anyway.

I think its worth stating again that the government haven't proposed a figure of £7500.

What they have done is cut the benefits that automatically give you a right to school food (because having too many benefits is too complicated), but now realise that they still have to provide free school meals, and will therefore have to individually assess who is entitled to free school meals, which is much simpler, only apparently it isn't because after 2 years they still can't decide how to do it.

Actually that's a great idea MrsGuy - You could reduce child benefit a little but give every child a free school meal. Yes, think that's definitely what I'd do.

Would help so much with giving children a sound idea of what makes up a balanced nutritious meal which they would take with them into adult life as well as giving them the nutrition at lunch time to help them make the most of their education throughout the school day.

Shame I got a new job yesterday really as I quite fancy running the country with you lot as my hard-working, genius minions !!

I think this would be totally unfair. I am a single mother and had a great job earning 40k 6 months ago. My job got made redundant and haven't claimed any benefit yet even though I have contributed to the system for 18 years. I am now struggling to pay my rent and food.. I am considering applying for free school meal for my daughter. Why I am made to feel ashamed reading some posts? I am looking for a job and it is not as easy..
asuwere;some families like mine find themselves in this situation at no fault of their own and it is very judgemental of you to think 'not being in work, should not pay'.Hope you never find yourself in my situation and lose your job unexpectedly like I did. After contributing to the system for 18 years why can't the system help me in turn until I stand on my feet again? what sort of society are we living in? Shocking!

I'm so sorry you lost your job Asamum - it is so hard being out of work and looking for one in this economic climate. You must be a very capable person though to have been on 40k so I'm sure things will look up for you soon
Meanwhile I'd definitely start claiming what you're entitled to including the FSMs for your daughter, which will actually benefit the school and the other children there by enabling access to extra funding, as well as benefiting your daughter.
As you say you've paid into the funds for 18 years. If you need a little help now I certainly wouldn't hesitate, especially when you're feeling you need the support.
It will help you get back on your feet all the sooner too.
And please take no notice of any idiots on here with discouraging posts to others.
Sadly some people need to make themselves feel better by putting other people down ( is how I see it)

Asamumnonsense - you should see what you can get. DH was like that and it took a month and half to get him to claim and then mainly because tax credit operator insisted he should.

We were surprised at amount of help - DC weren't at school then but council tax was dropped for period he was out of work, 100 a month, and he got some unemployment money. It all helped eek our savings out for longer. We also got some grant as I was about to give birth to our third and last DC.

He only out of work three months - and only claimed for half that but it helped enormously. It took pressure of us a little as we knew we'd last longer and wasn't such a hole to get out of when he was back in work.

Bloody hell, the Liberal government brought in free school meals in 1907 for a reason, are we going back to the times of Thomas Malthus? It seems scarily likely :(

Obviously there are a million interesting things you can do with a wrap, but most of the more grown up ways of bringing food from home to work (e.g. soup, last night's left overs) rely on there being a microwave on the premises to make it taste nice.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this :-) I always used to take in leftovers and eat them at lunch, and there were no microwave facilities at my workplace. Stir fries, curries, cold meat and fish cooked the night before, greens, potatoes etc. etc. There's actually quite little that needs to be heated up. Soup ... now there I agree.

Actually that's a great idea MrsGuy - You could reduce child benefit a little but give every child a free school meal. Yes, think that's definitely what I'd do.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. There should be nutritious food available at schools for those that want it and teaching kids about food is a good idea as well.

I just think it's utterly crap that some parents care so little for their kids they can't give them decent (or even a quarter decent) meals at home. Do these parents not take their children to the doctors when they are ill, or give them medicine when they are sick either?

"I always used to take in leftovers and eat them at lunch, and there were no microwave facilities at my workplace."

Was there a fridge? I don't think it would be a good idea for a kid to be carrying a chicken curry around for hours till lunch.

samandi what would you do then - put them all in care?

If the care system was half decent, then yes. A parent who can't be bothered to wash their own child's clothes or feed them is probably not going to be bothered about taking them to the doctor or dentist, or providing any other kind of basic care either. It's wilful neglect.

Some people on this thread have little experience of the society we live in and therefore lack any understanding of poverty. They are lucky to be so ignorant. Sadly, this government seems to be full of people like that.

What about the parents who don't eat so that their children can have food? Is that a reasonable solution?

Oh come on people, we are a rich country, we are NOT in such dire straights that we cannot afford to provide a hot meal at lunchtime for children from the poorest families. Something that will help them to concentrate at school, reduce disruption and improve outcomes. We shouldn't even be having this debate.

Exactly. Reading this thread is like reading an article on a school in the Third World. "For most children, this is the only meal they get all day." "Parents send their children to school because they know they'll get a free meal." See this article from the UN. It makes me sick that people on here are actually arguing that in the UK we should not be feeding our poorest children, who are poor through no fault of their own.

Anyway... reading the actual article, this isn't even on the cards and i don't see this ever happening. Say what you like about the government, no government can afford headlines about starving children on their watch.

Unfortunately samandi the current state system is a very poor parent offering poor outcomes to the children it already ends up looking after and it also costs a lot to look after DC like this rather than support some families.

Also in a lot of cases you can find the parents are giving what food there is to the DC ,and its still not enough, and they are going without. ( Was shocked to meet some in RL - we live near a very deprived area)

Unfortunately some parents live chaotic disorganized lives for variety of reasons including sporadic ill health or general inability to cope with everyday life. There are also shockingly high numbers of children acting as their parents carers in this country.

It hard to see how people can argued that theses DC lives should be made any harder or their access to food restrict - though many on here seem quite happy to do that.

Samandi Wilfull neglect is a little harsh. Perhaps it's due to a lack of education, thinking that chips from the chippy are cheaper, or that a mars bar and a packet of crisps is nicer, so better. Perhaps the clothes aren't washed regularly because they have nowhere to wash and dry them, just a bath and no heating to dry stuff in winter. Or perhaps it's due to depression or mental illness. Don't judge too harshly sweetie, you may be there one day.

AKMD - there are thread posted on this site where teachers post, including this one, where they say this is their experience.

But you are right the government isn't saying it will do this - it apparently hasn't got as far as to work out what it does want to do with all these lives even after a few years thought.

Yea - a lot of poorer people are on meter sometimes expressing a preference as they can't run up large bills. Means they pay more for energy - and they washing and drying clothes is so much harder to achieve.

The also often pay more for electrical goods like washing machines - through weekly pay schemes such as Brighthouse - as they can only afford to pay weekly and not save up. They often know pay more but it is how they can actually get the goods.