Free school meals

[Blackteadrinker77]

AIBU to be disgusted that our government has voted to effectively take 1 million children's free school meals away?

www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2018/mar/13/one-million-children-hungry-new-plans-free-school-meals

YABU
the guardian as usual is massaging the figures.
When I grew up in the 1950s/1960s I came from a 'poorer' than average family and all 3 of us children had to pay for our school meals
Why should everything be 'free' to 'all' - when I read the thread about how much was spent on some posters holidays (£1000s per year) why should their kiddiwinkles get free meals

So, where should the money come from to feed other people's children?

Why are people so determined to have someone else do everything for them.

"Oi, you! My child wants a meal. What are you going to do about it?"

For anyone complaining about an MP pay increase, there's an easy solution. Glaringly obvious. Become an MP. Why not?

In short: if everyone on Universal Credit were entitled to free school meals, then by the time it was rolled out across the country, 1.8 million children would have a free school meal every day. The new means test will see only about 650,000 children on free school meals. That’s a difference of just over a million

You can dress it up any way you like but the truth is that a million children will not get free school meals.

And it must be a lot easier for schools to administer if all children under a certain age is entitled to a free meal.

It might be easier but its wasteful, why give children free school meals if their parents can afford it or as pp pointed out are not for some other reason unable to provide it? The money is needed in other areas.

cucaracha Wed 14-Mar-18 10:47:54

Of course it should be available to all, and the quality should be better!
Why always reserve something for a certain category? If kids go to state school, they should all be treated the same. Fine if some parents don't want to pay for extra, like school trips and sport, but this is going backward.

Why should the taxpayer pay to feed kids of people that can afford to feed them themselves? Free school meals should be means tested and not given to all.

Blackteadrinker77 but those children are not all living in poverty. I get CTC, I would get a very small amount of universal credit if I had to make a new claim now. NO WAY are my kids living in poverty and the suggestion that they are is ridiculous. We simply should not get FSM. As usual people are making a fuss about things without reading the details. This change isn't exactly generous in some ways but is better than what went before, just not better than the temporary blip created by the thoughtless and ill planned roll out of UC.

Why should everything be 'free' to 'all'

I'm not saying it should be free for all although I wouldn't be against that.

So, where should the money come from to feed other people's children?

From taxes where it already comes from before this change.

You can dress it up any way you like but the truth is that a million children will not get free school meals.

But how many of those extra million children actually need a free school meal?

why should tax payer for for other people's kids and struggle with their own? Why should some parents never even see their kids all week because they are at work for the privilege of paying for others? ridiculous system

The benefit of universal entitlement is that it doesn't stigmatise, and among older children in some schools there is stigma attached to FSM. For the youngest children it helps establish good eating routines etc - my son eats loads of things at school he would never eat at home. I think FSM would be universal for reception only, Year 1 and 2 should pay and the money go to make the income limit higher for older children.

Why should some parents never even see their kids all week because they are at work for the privilege of paying for others? ridiculous system

They shouldn’t. But the answer is better services for all, not a race to the bottom with more austerity.

Universal FSM or similar universal benefits such as winter fuel payments are immoral. They take money from the poor and give it to the better off. These benefits should directed to where they are needed.

But the trouble is, Cuckwho, that if you make a benefit means-tested, then not everyone - far from everyone - who is entitled to it will apply for it or even know that they are eligible, or that the benefit exists. So then you get old people dying of hypothermia because they can't afford to put both bars of the heater on.

It's strangely more cost-effective to make the benefit universal than to fund the extra resources (in the form of outreach, advertising, social services) needed to target it.

Making a benefit universal also destigmatizes it - so older people who would never want a 'handout' will gladly receive an automatic age-related payment.

i don't know anyone who can afford to have 5 children

Not sure I implied I couldn't afford them. Just things are tight and I can't afford 5 lots of school dinners as that's £2.50 a day where I am hence why they take a packed lunch and get a cooked meal at night. I would not mind though my reception age child's free dinner to go to an older child whose parents can't afford a cooked meal at all. I think that makes more sense because I can currently afford to feed my child.

And for those judging. All 5 have the same father. We were financially secure when all were born but I have decided to go it alone rather than spend the rest of our lives with someone who was cheating on us. I earn a wage, albeit not a big one snx pay my taxes and I do not expect anyone else to pay for my children.

However, should I find myself in a position of not being able to provide them with food, I would like to think I live in a society that helps its own when things are tough. Some parents are actually in that situation right now and I don't care if it's even their own fault. Their child shouldn't have to go hungry because of it.

This only applies to England

All p1, p2 and p3 pupils in Scotland get free school meals and Glasgow are going to extend this to p4 and North Lanarkshire is going to extend free school meals to all year round rather than just during term time. All of which I think is great, and thankful for devolution.

Relative poverty is a thing
It might be, but it makes a mockery of the whole thing, and it denies help for the ones who really genuinely need it.

My kids are poor because we are not going to Disney World this summer, like other kids from the school. Poverty should be defined as the lack of minimum basics, not as the lack of luxury that others can afford around you

In the US, it's (I think) below $24,600 for a family of 4. I don't know the daily costs of life in the US, and it's a big place, I would be very interested to read what the UK poverty level is.

Storm in a tea cup. Fuelled by ignorance.

The cut off is a family income between 18,000 and 24,000 per year.

And utterly acceptable income to be able to afford to pay for your children’s lunches.

It might be easier but its wasteful, why give children free school meals if their parents can afford it or as pp pointed out are not for some other reason unable to provide it? The money is needed in other areas.

In my city, 75% of the children in the city are at or below poverty level. Because of that, all school lunches are free. However, my family earns about $130K a year. We are a little uncomfortable accepting the free meals when we are capable of paying.

Relative poverty is defined as below 60% of median household income. Of course relative poverty should be about how your income compares to others around you - how else would it be measured?

But how many of those extra million children actually need a free school meal?

It's estimated around 65% take up rate from the links I've read today. So 35% have decided they don't need them.

If we miss one child who needs it then it's too high in my opinion.

NO WAY are my kids living in poverty

Great! They shouldn't be, but many are.

I love how all the Tory haters here and putting their fingers in their ears and ignoring the fact checks etc

steff13, presumably it would cost more to adminstrate a payment scheme than it does to pay for remaining 25%. I think it would probably be more wasteful to make you pay.

why should tax payer for for other people's kids and struggle with their own? Why should some parents never even see their kids all week because they are at work for the privilege of paying for others? ridiculous system

I don't want to sound like a twat but it's not about that - this is about helping children who through no fault of their own are now being denied something that their parents are struggling to provide. The choices made by those parents obviously impacts this but again, not always that clear cut - but these children are already living this and anything which means they can get a small step up to try and match their better-off peers is so so vital!

I don't think a lot of people are aware of just how hard it still is to break free from this - you don't have access to books, to study aids, to clubs or holidays... and a FSM is just one, small way for these children to have the energy and nutritional benefits needed to help them get the most out of what they can access.

Yes, too many kids are living in poverty. But we wont have money to help those families if we are giving money away to families that don't need them by ridiculously generous FSM criteria.

VioletteValentia I take it from your posts that you are relying on tax payers to fund your life choices? DH pays 40% in tax and we don't have children. If you are relying on others to pay for you, you should be a bit less vitriolic about it.

I take it from your posts that you are relying on tax payers to fund your life choices? DH pays 40% in tax and we don't have children. If you are relying on others to pay for you, you should be a bit less vitriolic about it.

No, I’m not. It’s possible to be anticapitalist without being poor.