To ask why do people not working claiming FSM get this for free?

[Sprinkledusting]

I’ve just discovered if you claim FSM and even if you’re not working, you can send your child to morning/after school club for free. And not just in our school either.
There are also sports clubs and holiday clubs during school holidays that state they are free for those who claim FSM. To claim free school meals your income has to be so low that you’re not working full time or not working at all, which of the people I know, most are not.
But those who are working have to pay for breakfast club/holiday clubs.

Can someone explain to me the logic behind this? As I simply don’t understand it.

Same you didn't have a permanent form of contraception whilst holding those views.

you see the little "show quote history" click on that. its all there.

Please show me where I said I have a suggestion to cure disability.

Naptrappedmummy · Today 13:02
Not jealousy of neglected children, frustration that we as a society enable children to be born only to be neglected and make it easy for the parents to continue to do this.

YuleDragon · Today 13:03
"enable children to be born only to be neglected and make it easy for the parents to continue to do this."

Continue to do what? Try and make the best of a crap situation.. or is the usual "Oh i don't mean YOU" in regards to the disabled carers?

Naptrappedmummy · Today 13:05
So let’s prevent the crap situation as per my earlier suggestion.

YuleDragon · Today 13:06
I'd love to know how to prevent my child being disabled.. i mean, what's the miracle cure there Einstein?

So.. come on miss "Prevent the crap situation" How we preventing the crap situation i was discussing? Waiting for your miracle prevention.

I can see this, for a sports club.

but for before/after school care - that’s just time away from their family that they love, for nothing really. Unless there’s food involved.

That is strange, because entitledto does give a rent element and a council tax support element.

I very clearly meant prevent children from being produced whose parents cannot afford them. Not ‘preventing disability’. I thought this would be obvious?

Not true, you have to earn less than that but will receive benefits on top, most likely putting your income up to similar to 2 adults on minimum wage. I am sure that lots of families getting fsm have a similar income to lots of families who don't qualify.

@Naptrappedmummy pretty sure you are the poster that thinks most state schools are shit and you are hoping to send yours to private.

You say you hate the Tories but I think you are too much Tory for the Tories. The Nazis did forced sterilisation.

I think with all benefits, some people do better out of them than others. I don’t think assessing every individual’s circumstances could possibly work.

But it’s better for everyone that those benefits exist because we never know when we might need them ourselves. It’s better to think that you should receive a bit more (and I strongly believe that you should!) rather than begrudging other people, because the more people who think that way, the more likely the government will get away with reducing them even more.

i know people who do very well from the benefits system but I wouldn’t swap lives with them for a second (even though my life isn’t exactly great!).

Just the wealthy have children then. Got it. 👌

No, the employed. You shouldn’t need to be wealthy and I’m in favour of UC top ups for those working FT who earn a pittance

What if you are made redundant? 🤔

Hi I earn 39k a year. I'm single. My dd had adhd and we get dla for her high rate care and that increases income on uni credit. I applied for fsm and I get them so not everyone doesn't work

But that was my point.. the only reason i 'cannot afford them' is because since having them one of them has ended up disabled and required me to quit work and be a full time carer, reliant on benefits.

So.. how do you suggest we prevent THAT crap situation, since you appear to have all the answers and think those of us on benefits all neglect our kids?

It's somewhere warm to be after school - important for the many families who have to choose between "heat or eat". Somewhere that frequently provides space to do homework, which may not be available in a crowded home. THese provisions often provide toast or snacks.

There's often a safe and secure outside space to play in, which is not something all children have access to.

Yes I get that 19k is nothing, but it's a bit disingenuous of people to say they live on £7.5k and I can understand that people can't work much if at all in external jobs if they are disabled/carers but equally I can get that those parents who earn very little are not in a wholly dissimilar position financially.
It's a shame in this day and age that the government always says that it is too difficult to work out household incomes from all streams so that benefits could be given on a more fair/quickly reactive basis, although I guess this is what UC is trying to do and increasingly the fact that people who have full time jobs need to be topped up by benefits at all, but also there is an implied social contract expected from people who receive benefits (ie feed and clothe your DC above all else and use the benefits 'wisely' for want of a better word) and I think that upsets people too when it appears to be disregarded in favour of other things (not that I am implying anyone on this thread is doing this)

You think Labour will do any better? Maybe you think Starmer will gallop in on his white charger and tax 'The Rich' oooh 80% of earnings so benefits can be raised,nay tripled at least so women can continue breeding with feckless idiots and then expect said tax payers to pick up the tab cos 'choices'? Jesus wept.

Well there you go. You have met someone who you think is gaming the system. That doesn’t mean that the families of every child on FSM, or every child getting additional support is also gaming the system. Just like some people work out how to fleece their taxes, their mortgages, make excessive claims on their insurance policies, take time off work when they aren’t sick, etc etc, some do, most don’t.

As others have said using FSM as the criteria for additional support for families is a way of targeting those in need without them having to jump through hoops to get it, which many wouldn’t or couldn’t do. It might seem like a blunt instrument but it is the easiest way to do it.

Do you also object to younger aged children ( and in some areas older children ) automatically being given a free meal at lunchtime, because I expect some of those children have parents with very comfortable incomes and lifestyles, but instead of targeting the poorer children it has been decided that the benefit to all children is worth the cost. The problem with this system is that some schools are finding that they have to persuade FSM eligible families to claim FSM ( though technically they don’t need to) so that they can then access the additional support like Pupil Premium.

It’s a bit like the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who could claim pension credit, which is a gateway to additional benefits, but don’t. Perhaps that is something you object to as well. Some people understand the benefits system, others don’t .

24000 annual income after tax is perfectly liveable especially if you don't incur the costs of going to work. You would need a cheaper home of course.

I was FSM kids, sometimes my parents didn’t eat so I could have dinner. I genuinely cannot even empathise with anyone who feels jealous about this situation.

So no disabled/ill people who can’t work can have children?

Once you start with that sort of social cleansing where does it stop?

Who gets to decide what is an adequate income?

How much are we talking?

Do we alter the cut off in line with inflation?

What do we do with the unemployed people who refuse to be sterilised? (Prison? That will get very expensive very quickly)

What about the unemployed people that have been forced into sterilisation who then go on to be fully employed? How do we un sterilise them?

What about the people who slip through the net and have a child it has been decreed that they can’t afford? What happens to them and the child?

to qualify for free school meals, the income level is less than £7,400
Children are likely to be able to study better if they have lunch - same goes for breakfast
the holiday club is more likely to be about a free bowl of cornflakes than a trip to the zoo FFS.

Well the people I know who send their child for free aren’t struggling too much, they don’t want for anything. And have a new toy every week seemingly”

I don’t believe that.

That's nonsense.