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

Money isn't as real to me as hungry kids though flatpack

TheOriginalSteamingNit - well said.

flatpack the way I would run my household budget if it were not enough is to share what food I had with my neighbours' children even if it meant we adults had to go hungry.

This is just about feeding a few children who don't have that much in their lives. I can't imagine the everyday details of living for those who qualify on £16k. I just know it's wrong. Simply wrong, that we're OK about children no longer having a lunch which some even see as a stigma.

Banging on about how little money this country has spare, and using that to try and justify taking food from the mouths of children is laughable when you then look at how much money is being spent on the Jubilee celebrations and the Olympics. Is this the fucking twilight zone?!

Thirdhill

The point about the household budget is that, if you take the money out of taxes to pay for this, you're not feeding next door's kids from your food. You're taking food away from your unborn grandchildren to feed next door's kids.

Unless we get the debt down, then the 'cuts' now are barely a taste of the hell that we'll have to go through. You've seen what it's like in Greece at the moment. Spending has to come down, or we'll be like that in 18 months. It's horrible, but the misery can't me magicked away with other people's money.

I feel really sad about this. I can't believe the government would penalise children in this way. Health-wise it's just suicide, I can't imagine what some of these poor mites will end up having in their packed lunches. Sadly for some children this is probably the best meal they get.

As others pointed out there are better places to make cuts than going after families who are already on low incomes.

Ok DoE, let's unpack this.

Where is the evidence that cutting back FSM improves educational outcomes?

Because that is supposed to be your only remit, is it not? Maintaining and improving national educational outcomes.

Or did the DoE suddenly become the Treasury?

Suppose your household finances were low, and Alvin Hall or whoever came round.

Do you think he would say: 'right, in the next month I want your overdraft cleared and your credit cards paid off. This will mean spending no money at all in the meantime. Do not buy food, do not pay bills. Times are tough, and the overdraft is big, so this must be your only priority. When it's paid, we'll deal with the fact that you've all starved to death in the meantime. Oh, but also, you're going to need to host a big sport party in your garden, and buy an insanely wealthy woman a yacht and stay at home from work to toast her amazing success in being alive for a fair while. Yes, I know you need your wages, but nonetheless.'

They could reschedule PFI payments on Building Schools for the Future as a means of unlocking finance for social welfare.

Up here in the highlands you must be earning less than £6450 a year to qualify for free school dinners and not be in receipt of working tax credit. I thought it was the same everywhere

Flatpack - I don't pretend to understand all of it, nor have all the answers. But I do know that:
(a) we have a lower national debt as a proportion of GDP than for most of the 20th Century (after the 2WW we were REALLY in dire straights;
(b) we have lower debt repayments than many other EU countries
(c) we ARE a rich country compared to most in the world
(d) running a household budget and a national budget are two completely different things

And if we really ARE in such dire straights as you say, we should be looking at radical solutions like cancelling the Olympics; raising taxes for everyone in work; a higher 'luxury sales tax' on high-cost items; withdrawing from all foreign wars PDQ; shutting some embassies round the world - I don't know, but the list is ENDLESS of the things we should do if we really are in a dire financial state, before taking hot dinners away from poor children.

Banging on about how little money this country has spare, and using that to try and justify taking food from the mouths of children is laughable when you then look at how much money is being spent on the Jubilee celebrations and the Olympics. Is this the fucking twilight zone?! - Not to mention the billions of aid we send abroad.

TheRealMrsHannigan

Total Olympic bill: £10Bn

Jubilee bill: £2Bn

Welfare bill in 2012: £150Bn

Pensions bill in 2012: £137Bn

NHS bill in 2012: £125Bn

Education bill in 2012: £90Bn

Deficit in 2012: £170Bn

The jubilee and olympics are inconsequential compared to the costs of the welfare state.

There has to be a better option than this proposal though flatpack - for one thing there's the Jubilee and Olympic celebrations MrsH mentions, or for another there's collecting taxes more effectively as others have mentioned.

There are always options and priorities to consider.

There has to be a better option than this which is immoral and short-sighted and would also be deeply unpopular

I should fucking hope the NHS bill is massive, and massively bigger than the jubilee bill! But if we're doing the 'household budget' trope, you still don't spend 'only' £32 on a Jo Malone candle when you're £17k in debt, do you?

flatpack, we all know, don't we, that throwing figures at us doesn't change the fact that the cost of free school meals is not going to make an impact on the economy. There are plenty of other choices. Do the list of figures prevent you from exercising a little judgement?

At least be less cowardly and say out straight, as asuwere has done, you think it is a good idea to stop feeding these kids and why. Stop hiding behind a long list and make a choice. Or are you telling us you'll cut them all? If so, say so.

Even if it's because they have so many other problems that they won't notice if you take away a bit of food from them.

This is an appalling idea, literally 'taking food from the mouths of babes', what kind of country have we become? Does this Government have no shame??

The arrogance of the Tories knows no bounds, they're not even trying to hide their hatred of poor people anymore.

I can't believe some people are still blaming Gordon Brown for a Worldwide recession. Did he also cause the terrible state of most of Europe's finances? What about Japan? U.S.A? A ridiculous argument that the recession we're in was caused by Labour.
If it wasn't for Gordon Brown we would be in even more debt now- see Ireland, Greece, Iceland etc.

There are many alternatives to these cuts see www.redpepper.org.uk/countering-the-cuts-myths
It simply isn't true that there's no alternative to these barbaric attacks on women, children, the elderly, disabled and sick whilst the rich are getting richer and richer.

So flatpack, you'd rather have some children starve than see your taxes raised?

sorry i am just working this out. i am a lone parent on IS. i receive IS, CB, CTC and HB. i have just added this up and it comes to £16,007.88 a year. currently my son is entitled to free school dinners. are the government now saying that anyone in my situation wouldn't be entitled to free school meals for their dcs? because my income is what the govt has said is the minimum my family of myself and two dcs needs to live on (otherwise why would i be able to get these benefits if teh govt didn't think i needed them?) so how on earth can they say that i would suddenly need to be surviving in less than half of that to be entitled to free school dinners? i dont understand. have they done the math? are tehy suddenly about to cut the benefits so that i will only be getting £7500? (i am re-training to get back into work so hopefully wont be on them forr much longer).

can someone explain thsi to me. i dont understand.

TheOriginalSteamingNit
Suppose your household finances were low, and Alvin Hall or whoever came round.

Do you think he would say: 'right, in the next month I want your overdraft cleared and your credit cards paid off. This will mean spending no money at all in the meantime. Do not buy food, do not pay bills. Times are tough, and the overdraft is big, so this must be your only priority. When it's paid, we'll deal with the fact that you've all starved to death in the meantime. Oh, but also, you're going to need to host a big sport party in your garden, and buy an insanely wealthy woman a yacht and stay at home from work to toast her amazing success in being alive for a fair while. Yes, I know you need your wages, but nonetheless.'

Thank you TheOriginalSteamingNit, for the best explaination I've seen of why these cuts are not only immoral but will not work.

Wibblybibble

"I'm going to just post that repeatedly* until people STFU about 'their' taxes and how they want them to be spent like the bunch of whining overgrown two year olds the average higher rate taxpayer clearly is.

*Not actually true, I'm going to continue with doing my work which is about 500 times harder than your whiny arsed husbands' work and yet miraculously doesn't pay £100k."

I am going to assume the above was directed at my post. If you read my post properly you will see I am not whining about paying tax or how much we pay what I am saying is that you can't constantly penalise those who earn more. Yes people who earn more should pay more and I agree with the various tax bands as they stand. What I don't agree with is just hiking up what we pay to try and pay for the current mess we are in. Neither me or my husband are responsible for that.

Please could you STFU about higher rate taxpayers - we don't whine we work hard and pay our dues just like those on lower incomes. Higher rate taxpayers contribute significantly to the coffers - please don't lump us in with the millionaire tax evaders.

The only thing I was whining about was cutting free school meals.

BTW how do you knowyour job is harder than my husbands?

Yes the country is in debt.

NO WAY should this be paid for by poor kids.

Make the selfish rich bastards pay it.

Department of education go fuck yourselves.

The problem is, JugglingWithTangentialOranges, that everyone has their own 'special' area that they're worried about. Welfare, education, healthcare - doesn't matter, it'll upset someone. As I pointed out, the costs of the Jubilee and Olympics is inconsequential compared to welfare spending. And I simply don't think that there's £170Bn of tax rises in the British economy that could plug this gap.

Thirdhill, every penny matters. We have to get spending down, we have to start paying off the debt. Where do you want to cut £170Bn from? Healthcare? Education? How about pensions?

These are hard decisions. People will suffer. It's easy to just keep spending money you haven't got (as Labour did) because it makes you feel good. It's much harder to cut spending, which is why so few governments ever manage it. Nobody likes cutting spending, it makes them unpopular and politicians like to be popular.

i'm disgusted

So basically do they even realise from their ivory towers, that on planet earth, real life there are and will be further kids going through a school day hungry, often without breakfast in the first place, then going home to what? Nothing at home either.

What do they think this will achieve?

Please get Jamie Oliver into schools again, or round to SamCam and Dave Cam to sort this out. How can Dave Cam, a father himself think this is morally correct?

If Labour left us with massive debts, it is NOT the answer to get poor families further into stress to fix it.

The spinoffs from this and all the other ridiculous government measures and cuts to families will wreck lives. Literally. Poverty will increase in 6 mths. Add on an increase in a host of other domestic related social problems and family life will be pretty grim for parents and kids in thousands of homes across the country.

So so angry and sad about this.

What can be done? petition to government? Volunteering meals at schools? Heck, I'd turn up with my portable BBQ to cook tea for kids in need.

Feel useless need to do something to help, anyone else?

Fph people won't suffer. Children will suffer. People with disabilities will suffer. The vulnerable will suffer. If you're middle class and earning an ok amount you'll need to cut back a bit but your children won't starve.