Free School Meals

[Alison]

Funny all this mention of people on the dole with big tellys.

Funny thing is, you only have to buy a big telly once. So you've got a job, you buy a big telly.

Then say you end up out of a job. Big tellys go for peanuts second hand, so you won't get much for it. And what would you do for cash once that's gone? You'd end up with no telly at all, and the kids would be piss bored and getting up to all sorts of trouble.

So rather than stave off being skint for another week, you decide to keep the thing that stops the kids driving you mental.

Rotting on the vine for £56/wk presents you with choices like this all the time. Care to switch places?

Absolutely not, I'd rather have my crap 10 ton TV and my hubby in permanent work than a 56" TV I bought then, on the "never" and no other income now than JSA with no money to feed my kids. Sorry but whatever people say, there are no JSA claimants living in mansions with sports cars living in Britain, It really really doesn't happen, its a myth created by right wing bigots, yes there are those that don't want to work Christ I've met the prat's but most do, most would give their lives for a job but canny get one. We must recognise those that try and not condemn everyone on benefits. Just my view.

Alison

 

[technodup]

Well, simply put, how do you expect this to work?

"Hello, is this joe blogs the plumbers? Do you take food vouchers? No please don't hang u-"

Food vouchers for use in participating food stores. AFAIK council tenants get things fixed for them and the rest can use some portion of the voucher (which would be a card) for other services. It's not the practicalities that make this difficult.

Child benefits limits on those out of work? "Sorry kid, your mum lost her job. I know those school shoes are too small but you'll have to live with the ingrown toenails. Stop crying! Eventually the leather will burst open and your toes will dangle out."

I meant limiting it to children already in existence. i.e. stopping (or rather not starting) it for any children conceived whilst on the dole. If you can't afford to pay for them why should I?

The assumption you're making is that being on the dole is attractive or even sustainable for the majority of people on it.

It clearly is sustainable with around 3m on one form or another.

The reality is you just see your life savings disappear in a poof of smoke and end up going through two winters with the gas cut off. I know, been there done that.

First world problems. Unless you're elderly a couple of months of a cold house won't kill you. And remind me again why people working for a pittance have to go without so people on the dole (by choice or otherwise) can heat themselves?

 

[Alison]

]It clearly is sustainable with around 3m on one form or another.

Your assuming that because there is 3m unemployed that they are all scrounging and there of their own design, I think you will find the majority are anything but, there are so much less than 3m jobs available? 3000 maybe but 3m :shock: now you would seriously be living in cloud cuckoo land if you thought that :roll:

Jobs are not rolling off a belt they really are few and far between and hundreds apply for the lowest job, I'd clean your bog just to get my kids Christmas pressies don't think that most unemployed wouldn't believe me they would, but even bogs are in short supply.

Alison

 

[Bats]

Aye, even fancypants qualified-to-the-hilt jobs are at a ratio of 1:85 to applicants. There's more people of working age than jobs.

Food vouchers for use in participating food stores. AFAIK council tenants get things fixed for them and the rest can use some portion of the voucher (which would be a card) for other services. It's not the practicalities that make this difficult.

How much is some portion? What if the bill is bigger than the value of that portion, or even the total value of the voucher?

What if the bloke doesn't participate? This voucher mustn't work in a cash machine, else it'd defeat the object?

It is, by far, the practicalities making it difficult.

I meant limiting it to children already in existence. i.e. stopping (or rather not starting) it for any children conceived whilst on the dole.

Is this going to be backdated nine months? People can't see into the future, find out they're going to get made redundant in a week or so, then use the foreknowledge to go buy a pack of jonnies.

I'm still concerned about what happens to the sprog in this scenario?

If you can't afford to pay for them why should I?

Two things.

First, you're not. Welfare comes from state funds, earned through taxes. If you'd like "your part" of the tax income to not go on welfare, then maybe you should write your MP.

Tell him to get on the case of closing tax loopholes, where big companies like starbucks dodge theirs. Then, you can sleep easy at night, knowing someone else is paying for welfare. Try not to think about if they then go ahead spending your taxes on nukes or something.

Second, it's called progressive taxation. You are taxed based on your ability to pay, with the intent of keeping the level just below that which would negatively impact your quality of life.

In exchange, you get loads of stuff. Like a police force, hospitals, and safe roads. Welfare ties into this because it stops you from having to step over the corpses of starved paupers on your walk to work.

It's something you agreed to by making use of any of that stuff. If you'd like to opt out, there's loads of under regulated, totally free market companies that will put you on a Big Metal Bird somewhere else.

It clearly is sustainable with around 3m on one form or another.

Thanks to over reliance on food banks, etc. Which is also welfare, except taken from kindness rather than taxation.

It's far higher than that once you factor in zero hour contracts, etc. While we're on the topic, how does the upswing in unemployment whenever the economy collapses fit into your "they're all lazy" theory?

First world problems. Unless you're elderly a couple of months of a cold house won't kill you.

And what if we were an elderly couple? You said it yourself, it'd kill us.

And remind me again why people working for a pittance have to go without so people on the dole (by choice or otherwise) can heat themselves?

If people working can't afford to heat the house, that is part of the problem.

This is wonderful rhetoric this, "let's make work pay by cutting benefits" logic. Punishing the out of work because those in work don't have it very good.

Here's a dead clever idea, I found it on a penguin wrapper: If people in work have it crap, how about we make being in work better?

You can start with the bloody minimum wage/living wage gap. Are you happy that someone doing 40hours a week is, in your line of thinking, still having you pay for all their stuff?

 

[technodup]

There's more people of working age than jobs.

A good thing, or else employers would have to take on any old shite.

Food vouchers for use in participating food stores. AFAIK council tenants get things fixed for them and the rest can use some portion of the voucher (which would be a card) for other services. It's not the practicalities that make this difficult.

How much is some portion? What if the bill is bigger than the value of that portion, or even the total value of the voucher?

Eh? What difference does it make if it's a card, voucher or cash? If they don't have enough they don't have enough.

What if the bloke doesn't participate? This voucher mustn't work in a cash machine, else it'd defeat the object?
It is, by far, the practicalities making it difficult.

Bollocks. Businesses could choose to participate or not. Each area covered for each service, it's quite simple. Some landlords don't take DSS, some do.

I meant limiting it to children already in existence. i.e. stopping (or rather not starting) it for any children conceived whilst on the dole.

Is this going to be backdated nine months? People can't see into the future, find out they're going to get made redundant in a week or so, then use the foreknowledge to go buy a pack of jonnies.

Read what I said again. People (on here) might not agree with me often but on this point I'd bet my house that the public at large would overwhelmingly agree that those on the dole shouldn't be churning out kids and expecting everyone else to pay for them. But this is RB, there must be something in the old paint fuddling the brains..

Second, it's called progressive taxation. You are taxed based on your ability to pay,

Which imo is morally wrong. What is wrong with everyone paying the same rate of tax? That is inherently fair.

In exchange, you get loads of stuff.

Your world sounds great.

It's something you agreed to by making use of any of that stuff.

Are you for real?

First world problems. Unless you're elderly a couple of months of a cold house won't kill you.

And what if we were an elderly couple? You said it yourself, it'd kill us.

Not if you use the winter fuel bribe for it's 'intended' purpose.

You can start with the bloody minimum wage/living wage gap. Are you happy that someone doing 40hours a week is, in your line of thinking, still having you pay for all their stuff?

I'd have income tax kick in significantly above minimum wage, leaving them more money without it being churned at huge expense through the state machine. And when it does kick in it's the same rate for everyone. No tax credits, no living wage controls, no allowances, no loopholes. Flat and fair.

 

[Bats]

Unironic flat tax advocacy. Bloody hell, you're beyond fixing.

Everyone stay very still. Ayn Rand fans have movement based vision.

 

[Neil]

Second, it's called progressive taxation. You are taxed based on your ability to pay,

Which imo is morally wrong. What is wrong with everyone paying the same rate of tax? That is inherently fair.

You're playing dumb for pay, here, aren't you...

The truly rich / high earners, don't pay anywhere near the same proportion / rates of taxation as the proles, and you know it.

Notionally, the tax rate may be higher, but there's that special, magical, something-something that means that there's only very limited amounts of income that's applied to.

 

[videojetman]

I find this thread fascinating, my main annoyance is politicians who are there for our benefit are living a life of comfort and extravagance, until all politicians live like the average hard worker, they will not gain the respect of the low paid working classes.
But getting back to the benefit system, where i live the general situation is most of the benefit claimants can afford their cigs and alcohol, their massive 50 inch telly, their 1 million watt stereo systems, while idiots like me furnish their lifestyle.
And if it was so hard for them on benefits then i'm sure they would all be running around frantically looking for any kind of work.
Sadly though most benefits where i live are used for their luxury lifestyles.
Right i'm off to earn some more taxes for the lazy scum who laugh at me going out at 6am every day.

 

[technodup]

Second, it's called progressive taxation. You are taxed based on your ability to pay,

Which imo is morally wrong. What is wrong with everyone paying the same rate of tax? That is inherently fair.

You're playing dumb for pay, here, aren't you...

The truly rich / high earners, don't pay anywhere near the same proportion / rates of taxation as the proles, and you know it.

Notionally, the tax rate may be higher, but there's that special, magical, something-something that means that there's only very limited amounts of income that's applied to.

The truly rich are a red herring, always going to be a target for the jealous. They will always find ways to reduce their liability, as would anyone in their position.

What I find unfair is that someone who studies, works hard, applies themselves etc is rewarded with a higher income tax bracket than someone who trundles through life blaming everyone else for their own failings. There's nothing progressive about that.

 

[Koupe]

Unironic flat tax advocacy. Bloody hell, you're beyond fixing.

Everyone stay very still. Ayn Rand fans have movement based vision.

Coffee/screen interface achieved