Free school meals for all primary school children...good or bad idea?

First topic message reminder :

Will it be a vote catcher for Corbyn and the labour party, or is just another last ditch attempt to get labour voters back?

"Anti- poverty campaigners today hailed Labour ’s flagship pledge to fund free primary school meals for all children with a new tax on private school fees.
The Child Poverty Action Group said Labour had made a “compelling” argument to stop kids going hungry and remove the “stigma” of free school meals for the poorest children.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn unveiled the £700million policy today and said it would be fully funded by slapping a 20% VAT charge on private school fees .
“This is a welcome move which we have long campaigned for,” said Alison Garnham, head of the Child Poverty Action Group.

Critics pointed out that the poorest kids already qualify for free school meals, and so Mr Corbyn’s plan was actually a hand-out for richer parents whose kids attend state schools"





http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-strikes-school-winner-10174672

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Money can always be spent more wisely somewhere else.....and unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

If schools are appealing to parents to set up standing orders and contribute towards the cost of their childs education (which is thanks to drastic government cuts) it stands to reason that people who can afford to pay for their childrens dinners should do.

Christ, my mum worked 3 and 4 cleaning jobs and found money for our school dinners....why does EVERYONE want something for nothing nowadays....even when they can well afford to pay for it?

How do you mean more wisely?

I cannot think of a better way to ensure all children at school are being fed healthily

A kid more healthy is less likely to become ill, which costs far more for children to attend the GP or even worse the Hospital.

Yes parents should have the responsibility of raising their children, but at school, its the schools responsibility to care for the students.

I fail to see how anyone is quibbling over costs here, when we all as a nation pay for all children to be educated. The fact that schooling costs tens of thousands, those that can afford to feed their kids, could not afford to in many cases afford their entire schooling costs. Hence why all aspects of schooling should be paid for by the state, as those costs will be recuperated by the years those children go on to work themselves. The point everyone is missing here.

That means all children can have the same start in life at school equally treated the same.

Education is important, and every child is entitled to a decent education, unfortunately budgets have been cut drastically, which is why parents are being asked to contribute....the link says ONE in every SIX schools IS NOW ASKING FOR DONATIONS.

Dolling out an extra SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION POUND A YEAR.... is what this ridiculous Corbyn bribe would cost an already failing budget.

Free education up to a certain age is every childs right....free food has never been a right, they now get it till they are 7......why change the laws now?
Less well off children are entitled to a hot meal courtesy of the government...better off kids are entitled to a hot meal too of course, and the parents should ensure they get it by paying for it.....like parents have done for generations before them.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How do you mean more wisely?

I cannot think of a better way to ensure all children at school are being fed healthily

A kid more healthy is less likely to become ill, which costs far more for children to attend the GP or even worse the Hospital.

Yes parents should have the responsibility of raising their children, but at school, its the schools responsibility to care for the students.

I fail to see how anyone is quibbling over costs here, when we all as a nation pay for all children to be educated. The fact that schooling costs tens of thousands, those that can afford to feed their kids, could not afford to in many cases afford their entire schooling costs. Hence why all aspects of schooling should be paid for by the state, as those costs will be recuperated by the years those children go on to work themselves. The point everyone is missing here.

That means all children can have the same start in life at school equally treated the same.

Education is important, and every child is entitled to a decent education, unfortunately budgets have been cut drastically, which is why parents are being asked to contribute....the link says ONE in every SIX schools IS NOW ASKING FOR DONATIONS.

Dolling out an extra SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION POUND A YEAR....which is what this ridiculous Corbyn bribe would cost to parents who can afford to pay for school meals is ludicrous.

Free education up to a certain age is every childs right....free food has never been a right, they now get it till they are 7......why change the laws now?
Pooerr kids are entitled to a hot meal courtesy of the government...better off kids are entitled to a hot meal too of course, and the parents should ensure they get it by paying for it.....like parents have done for generations before them.

If budgets have changed, then there is nothing stopping the changing back again.
That means much more has to be put into the education system.
What you are doing is saying that because the Government in charge now fails to pay the proper amount needed. That some how this cannot work, when in fact it easily can.
You want the rich to pay their fair share on this, well they already do, in the contributions they pay in tax. Which is far more than others do. Thus their contribution is far more and this should be increased anyway, that they should pay more, when they earn much more.

Sorry, did you just say free school is a right, but not free food?
Based on what exactly?
A decision rightly made that schooling should be Free in law?
Of which a decision can be made on food as well and made into law?
So again your defense is both ridiculous and actually backing the point, that if schools can be free, then this can also encompass their food at school.

So all kids are entitled to free food, just as they already have with their education.

Your answers were excuses Syl to deny Free Food and not reasons.

What's wrong with a packed lunch?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Education is important, and every child is entitled to a decent education, unfortunately budgets have been cut drastically, which is why parents are being asked to contribute....the link says ONE in every SIX schools IS NOW ASKING FOR DONATIONS.

Dolling out an extra SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION POUND A YEAR....which is what this ridiculous Corbyn bribe would cost to parents who can afford to pay for school meals is ludicrous.

Free education up to a certain age is every childs right....free food has never been a right, they now get it till they are 7......why change the laws now?
Pooerr kids are entitled to a hot meal courtesy of the government...better off kids are entitled to a hot meal too of course, and the parents should ensure they get it by paying for it.....like parents have done for generations before them.

If budgets have changed, then there is nothing stopping the changing back again.
That means much more has to be put into the education system.
What you are doing is saying that because the Government in charge now fails to pay the proper amount needed. That some how this cannot work, when in fact it easily can.
You want the rich to pay their fair share on this, well they already do, in the contributions they pay in tax. Which is far more than others do. Thus their contribution is far more and this should be increased anyway, that they should pay more, when they earn much more.

Sorry, did you just say free school is a right, but not free food?
Based on what exactly?
A decision rightly made that schooling should be Free in law?
Of which a decision can be made on food as well and made into law?
So again your defense is both ridiculous and actually backing the point, that if schools can be free, then this can also encompass their food at school.

So all kids are entitled to free food, just as they already have with their education.

Your answers were excuses Syl to deny Free Food and not reasons.

Why do you think all primary school children should now be entitled to free meals when that's never been the case Thor?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

If budgets have changed, then there is nothing stopping the changing back again.
That means much more has to be put into the education system.
What you are doing is saying that because the Government in charge now fails to pay the proper amount needed. That some how this cannot work, when in fact it easily can.
You want the rich to pay their fair share on this, well they already do, in the contributions they pay in tax. Which is far more than others do. Thus their contribution is far more and this should be increased anyway, that they should pay more, when they earn much more.

Sorry, did you just say free school is a right, but not free food?
Based on what exactly?
A decision rightly made that schooling should be Free in law?
Of which a decision can be made on food as well and made into law?
So again your defense is both ridiculous and actually backing the point, that if schools can be free, then this can also encompass their food at school.

So all kids are entitled to free food, just as they already have with their education.

Your answers were excuses Syl to deny Free Food and not reasons.

Why do you think all primary school children should now be entitled to free meals when that's never been the case Thor?

Simple reason, inclusive to all.

If the rich already pay far more in their taxes, they end up paying far more of the costs spread out, than the majority of parents, for children's schooling. So the rich would have to also take the greater share of these costs. Are then their children not also entitled to free food at school?

Raggamuffin wrote:What's wrong with a packed lunch?

The reasoning seems to be that every child should have a hot meal at least once a day, and parents are not supplying this.

A packed lunch isn't the only option when hot food is available....just pay for the dinners, like generations of parents have always done....whats the problem?

I wonder what these poor kids with useless parents who cant cook a proper meal (according to the government) do in school holidays.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why do you think all primary school children should now be entitled to free meals when that's never been the case Thor?

Simple reason, inclusive to all.

If the rich already pay far more in their taxes, they end up paying far more of the costs spread out, than the majority of parents, for children's schooling. So the rich would have to also take the greater share of these costs. Are then their children not also entitled to free food at school?

Why should free school meals be inclusive for all?
Benefits are for people who are financially poor......free school meals after the age of 7 is a benefit.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Simple reason, inclusive to all.

If the rich already pay far more in their taxes, they end up paying far more of the costs spread out, than the majority of parents, for children's schooling. So the rich would have to also take the greater share of these costs. Are then their children not also entitled to free food at school?

Why should free school meals be inclusive for all?
Benefits are for people who are financially poor......free school meals after the age of 7 is a benefit.

For the man reasons I already provided you with in previous posts, that you clearly either failed to read or skipped over them.

Free schooling is a benefit and even more so when healthy kids, are thus better equipped to learn at school are they not? Thus better equipped to learn. Have a much higher chance of succeeding at school. Going on then to better paid jobs. They will then end up paying more in taxes than most, repeating the cycle.

There is no reason that the top bracket of earners could bare the burden of a couple of percent rise in Tax. To provide extra of not only schools but the NHS. Another benefit everyone receives.

So Free school means below the age of 7 is also a benefit and the cost is vastly taken up by those most wealthy.

That means Free school meals inclusive to all schoolchildren.

I would have thought that feeding your children, or paying someone else to do so, was a basic requirement of having them.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought that feeding your children, or paying someone else to do so, was a basic requirement of having them.

So who pays for your medical bills or schooling itself you received?

So parents are responsible for paying and raising their children.

Whilst at school, is the schools responsibility to look after them.

I don't agree with free food in school no matter where the money is coming from or who is paying for it.
If money is spare it can go to far worthier causes....obviously its not spare hence why Corbyn is promising to charge parents of the privately educated kids to foot the bill.


Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with food....whether  that is home cooked food or food when at school parents who can afford it (the majority) should pay.

When did it become an entitlement to get something for nothing even when you can well afford to pay?

I am repeating myself now....I wont change my views so I will bow out of this thread.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought that feeding your children, or paying someone else to do so, was a basic requirement of having them.

So who pays for your medical bills or schooling itself you received?

So parents are responsible for paying and raising their children.

Whilst at school, is the schools responsibility to look after them.

Parents already get free this and free that, so why they get anything else for free? Do they not think they should actually pay something for their own children.

Syl wrote:I don't agree with free food no matter where the money is coming from or who is paying for it.

Apart from under 7's or people who are too poor to afford it.

Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with food....whether  that is home cooked food or food when at school parents who can afford it (the majority) should pay.

When did it become an entitlement to get something for nothing even when you can well afford to pay?

I am repeating myself now....I wont change my views so I will bow out of this thread.

That is what your only real reason is here Syl on this.

You do not agree with free food.

Again parents already bare the responsibility of feeding their children, when they are within their care.

I mean are you telling me, that when ever your son had friends stay over, you expected the parents to provide a pack lunch for their dinner in the evening and then enough for breakfast. You see when another child is placed in the care of someone else, like ourselves looking after other children. We would not expect the other parents to provide their food for the stay over.

Would you?

So why claim its the parents responsibility to feed their children, when they never do placed into the care of others, but you expect them to. Whilst their child is in the care of the school.

Explain that one to me?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So who pays for your medical bills or schooling itself you received?

So parents are responsible for paying and raising their children.

Whilst at school, is the schools responsibility to look after them.

Parents already get free this and free that, so why they get anything else for free? Do they not think they should actually pay something for their own children.

Really Rags?

I thought it was the children getting this free, as its for them?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Parents already get free this and free that, so why they get anything else for free? Do they not think they should actually pay something for their own children.

Really Rags?

I thought it was the children getting this free, as its for them?

It's the parents who save money - money they should spend on their children.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:





But seriously... have a go on us witch... it's a energy price comparison website site... I went on it and got with extraenergy... much cheaper than anyone else by miles!!!

But my summer bills are a lot less......and in comparison to neighbours who are on various tariffs with different companies my bills are not too bad.

I will keep an eye open though Tommy.

Go on 'USWITCH' Web site... it's a gas and electricity fuel comparison site...

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:I don't agree with free food no matter where the money is coming from or who is paying for it.

Apart from under 7's or people who are too poor to afford it.

Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with food....whether  that is home cooked food or food when at school parents who can afford it (the majority) should pay.

When did it become an entitlement to get something for nothing even when you can well afford to pay?

I am repeating myself now....I wont change my views so I will bow out of this thread.

That is what your only real reason is here Syl on this.

You do not agree with free food.

Again parents already bare the responsibility of feeding their children, when they are within their care.

I mean are you telling me, that when ever your son had friends stay over, you expected the parents to provide  a pack lunch for their dinner in the evening and then enough for breakfast. You see when another child is placed in the care of someone else, like ourselves looking after other children. We would not expect the other parents to provide their food for the stay over.

Would you?

So why claim its the parents responsibility to feed their children, when they never do placed into the care of others, but you expect them to. Whilst their child is in the care of the school.

Explain that one to me?

I don't agree with free hand outs to people who don't need them, and that includes food.

Simply put, when my sons friends stayed over I fed them because I could afford to.

I didn't rob Peter to pay Paul, force someone else to pay for the food, or take the money from somewhere far more important in order to feed anyone else.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really Rags?

I thought it was the children getting this free, as its for them?

It's the parents who save money - money they should spend on their children.

But its the children that get this free.

How will parents benefit, when they pay their fair share of tax.

That means those who earn more, pay more.

That means that parents who earn more, do not benefit, as they put in much more of the cost, through their taxes. So would parents benefit, when schooling is free for children? So is medical health free for children, just as free school meals should be.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

But my summer bills are a lot less......and in comparison to neighbours who are on various tariffs with different companies my bills are not too bad.

I will keep an eye open though Tommy.

Go on 'USWITCH' Web site... it's a gas and electricity fuel comparison site...

OK...I will check it out. x

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the parents who save money - money they should spend on their children.

But its the children that get this free.

How will parents benefit, when they pay their fair share of tax.

That means those who earn more, pay more.

That means that parents who earn more, do not benefit, as they put in much more of the cost, through their taxes. So would parents benefit, when schooling is free for children? So is medical health free for children, just as free school meals should be.

They're benefiting by saving money they should be spending on food for their children.

It's enough that schooling and medical health is free (including prescriptions).

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

That is what your only real reason is here Syl on this.

You do not agree with free food.

Again parents already bare the responsibility of feeding their children, when they are within their care.

I mean are you telling me, that when ever your son had friends stay over, you expected the parents to provide  a pack lunch for their dinner in the evening and then enough for breakfast. You see when another child is placed in the care of someone else, like ourselves looking after other children. We would not expect the other parents to provide their food for the stay over.

Would you?

So why claim its the parents responsibility to feed their children, when they never do placed into the care of others, but you expect them to. Whilst their child is in the care of the school.

Explain that one to me?

I don't agree with free hand outs to people who don't need them, and that includes food.

Simply put, when my sons friends stayed over I fed them because I could afford to.

I didn't rob Peter to pay Paul, force someone else to pay for the food, or take the money from somewhere far more important in order to feed anyone else.

So you never expected the other parents to pay for his food or provided him with any food.

But you want deny the school to have a system, where schools could afford to have free school dinners. By those who can afford to, paying more taxes.

See how I can make your views, become mine?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But its the children that get this free.

How will parents benefit, when they pay their fair share of tax.

That means those who earn more, pay more.

That means that parents who earn more, do not benefit, as they put in much more of the cost, through their taxes. So would parents benefit, when schooling is free for children? So is medical health free for children, just as free school meals should be.

They're benefiting by saving money they should be spending on food for their children.

It's enough that schooling and medical health is free (including prescriptions).

How are they saving money if they end up paying more tax?

You may think its enough, but I do not think its enough.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're benefiting by saving money they should be spending on food for their children.

It's enough that schooling and medical health is free (including prescriptions).

How are they saving money if they end up paying more tax?

You may think its enough, but I do not think its enough.

Of course they're saving money - they should feed their own kids.

People who don't have school-age children also pay tax - sometimes very high rates.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How are they saving money if they end up paying more tax?

You may think its enough, but I do not think its enough.

Of course they're saving money - they should feed their own kids.

People who don't have school-age children also pay tax - sometimes very high rates.

They already do feed their own children, when in their care.

Did these people who dont have children , also in the majority have a free education?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course they're saving money - they should feed their own kids.

People who don't have school-age children also pay tax - sometimes very high rates.

They already do feed their own children, when in their care.

Did these people who dont have children , also in the majority have a free education?

I didn't complain about free education.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

They already do feed their own children, when in their care.

Did these people who dont have children , also in the majority have a free education?

I didn't complain about free education.

Never said you did.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree with free hand outs to people who don't need them, and that includes food.

Simply put, when my sons friends stayed over I fed them because I could afford to.

I didn't rob Peter to pay Paul, force someone else to pay for the food, or take the money from somewhere far more important in order to feed anyone else.

So you never expected the other parents to pay for his food or provided him with any food.

But you want deny the school to have a system, where schools could afford to have free school dinners. By those who can afford to, paying more taxes.

See how I can make your views, become mine?

Nope...even I can work out that I am not agreeing with you Thor.

Why should people who are already paying thousands to educate their children privately pay for other peoples childrens food?
Maybe some parents who send their kids to state schools have more money than the parents who choose to educate privately.....some people have different priorities in how to spend their cash.

Bottom line is IF people can afford it they should pay for it......and this includes meals at school.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you never expected the other parents to pay for his food or provided him with any food.

But you want deny the school to have a system, where schools could afford to have free school dinners. By those who can afford to, paying more taxes.

See how I can make your views, become mine?

Nope...even I can work out that I am not agreeing with you Thor.

Why should people who are already paying thousands to educate their children privately pay for other peoples childrens food?
Maybe some parents who send their kids to state schools have more money than the parents who choose to educate privately.....some people have different priorities in how to spend their cash.

Bottom line is IF people can afford it they should pay for it......and this includes meals at school.

The point is I can easily turn your arguments into my favour.

Like for example you said, you could afford to pay for your son's friends dinner.

The same is applied to those who pay more taxes, as they can afford to do so.

You ask why again, how many more times to I post the reasons for you?

So people are affording it by paying more taxes.

So they will be paying for this in their taxes, those who have children.

Isn't it being paid for by raising fees for private schools?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Nope...even I can work out that I am not agreeing with you Thor.

Why should people who are already paying thousands to educate their children privately pay for other peoples childrens food?
Maybe some parents who send their kids to state schools have more money than the parents who choose to educate privately.....some people have different priorities in how to spend their cash.

Bottom line is IF people can afford it they should pay for it......and this includes meals at school.

The point is I can easily turn your arguments into my favour.

Like for example you said, you could afford to pay for your son's friends dinner.

The same is applied to those who pay more taxes, as they can afford to do so.

You ask why again, how many more times to I post the reasons for you?

So people are affording it by paying more taxes.

So they will be paying for this in their taxes, those who have children.

Thor...it makes no difference which way to phrase it, I don't agree.

Where do you think this extra £700 million is coming from?

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't it being paid for by raising fees for private schools?

Which means rich parents bare the brunt of this extra cost.

As I explained earlier, private schools get vat and ta breaks, unlike other businesses.

Hence why is anyone quibbling here people benefit ting or that school meals should be free?

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't it being paid for by raising fees for private schools?

That's Corbyns plan Rags....it'll never come to fruition though.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The point is I can easily turn your arguments into my favour.

Like for example you said, you could afford to pay for your son's friends dinner.

The same is applied to those who pay more taxes, as they can afford to do so.

You ask why again, how many more times to I post the reasons for you?

So people are affording it by paying more taxes.

So they will be paying for this in their taxes, those who have children.

Thor...it makes no difference which way to phrase it, I don't agree.

Where do you think this extra £700 million is coming from?

Taxes or more costs to private schools.

The point you miss Syl, is there a a cycle in life on costs. That at some point, all these adults, will get to an age where they need help and care far more often. Who is the future doctors, nurses, cares etc?
These children and why they all must start with the same benefits in life. As they would here at schools. It is to these children, who are future tax payers and who are essential for this country as a system to run.
The better prepared you make children for adult life. The better all round for everyone

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't it being paid for by raising fees for private schools?

Which means rich parents bare the brunt of this extra cost.

As I explained earlier, private schools get vat and ta breaks, unlike other businesses.

Hence why is anyone quibbling here people benefit ting or that school meals should be free?

And as I said earlier, some parents who send their kids to state schools are also rich. Why should other parents pay for their childrens meals?

Parents should pay for their own kids.......if they resent that maybe they shouldnt have had any in the first place.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Which means rich parents bare the brunt of this extra cost.

As I explained earlier, private schools get vat and ta breaks, unlike other businesses.

Hence why is anyone quibbling here people benefit ting or that school meals should be free?

And as I said earlier, some parents who send their kids to state schools are also rich. Why should other parents pay for their childrens meals?

Parents should pay for their own kids.......if they resent that maybe they shouldnt have had any in the first place.

Then just place more tax on the rich.

Parents do pay for their own kids, and some rich parents end up paying for countless other kids and adults through their taxes, via costs for schooling and medical health.. That is sharing the burden of costs.

Who said anything about people resenting?
Only you seem to be suggesting that.
This is about all kids having the best chances, through the right needs provided in life to succeed.
It then benefits everyone.

They can have the best chances via their parents paying for them to eat.

Raggamuffin wrote:They can have the best chances via their parents paying for them to eat.

They already do when their children are in their care.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

And as I said earlier, some parents who send their kids to state schools are also rich. Why should other parents pay for their childrens meals?

Parents should pay for their own kids.......if they resent that maybe they shouldnt have had any in the first place.

Then just place more tax on the rich.

Parents do pay for their own kids, and some rich parents end up paying for countless other kids and adults through their taxes, via costs for schooling and medical health.. That is sharing the burden of costs.

Who said anything about people resenting?
Only you seem to be suggesting that.
This is about all kids having the best chances, through the right needs provided in life to succeed.
It then benefits everyone.

It hasn't come into fruition yet, if/when it ever does, I imagine many parents will resent paying higher taxes to subsidise other people.

We are not talking of higher taxes to pay for essential services, but higher taxes to pay for food for people who could very likely have more spare cash than they do.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They can have the best chances via their parents paying for them to eat.

They already do when their children are in their care.

So do you think that children at private schools should be fed via the taxpayers' money then? After all, they're not in their parents "care" are they?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Then just place more tax on the rich.

Parents do pay for their own kids, and some rich parents end up paying for countless other kids and adults through their taxes, via costs for schooling and medical health.. That is sharing the burden of costs.

Who said anything about people resenting?
Only you seem to be suggesting that.
This is about all kids having the best chances, through the right needs provided in life to succeed.
It then benefits everyone.

It hasn't come into fruition yet, if/when it ever does, I imagine many parents will resent paying higher taxes to subsidise other people.

We are not talking of higher taxes to pay for essential services, but higher taxes to pay for food for people who could very likely have more spare cash than they do.

I am sure some already resent paying higher taxes, no matter if this came to frutition, but the fact is they should pay their fair share.

Your saying its not essential to feed children a proper meal everyday?

Really?

Again what you keep missing is the burden is paid by those who pay more taxes, thus those paying more with children, will have a greater burden of the cost. Which means its fair.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

They already do when their children are in their care.

So do you think that children at private schools should be fed via the taxpayers' money then? After all, they're not in their parents "care" are they?

Yep

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you think that children at private schools should be fed via the taxpayers' money then? After all, they're not in their parents "care" are they?

Yep

So you don't approve of the plan to not only make them pay for their own children to eat, but to pay for other people's children to eat then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yep

So you don't approve of the plan to not only make them pay for their own children to eat, but to pay for other people's children to eat then.

They already do with their tax costs end up paying for other children.
Do you think they charge their kids friends for staying and give them a food bill?

Well, I want all schools to be inclusive.

Private schools are inclusive

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't approve of the plan to not only make them pay for their own children to eat, but to pay for other people's children to eat then.

They already do with their tax costs.

Well, I want all schools to be inclusive.

Private schools are inclusive

Did you miss this bit?

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn unveiled the £700million policy today and said it would be fully funded by slapping a 20% VAT charge on private school fees .

The people with children at private schools will pay more tax so that other people's children can have free meals. They're own children won't get free meals, otherwise there would be a reduction in the fees.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

They already do with their tax costs.

Well, I want all schools to be inclusive.

Private schools are inclusive

Did you miss this bit?

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn unveiled the £700million policy today and said it would be fully funded by slapping a 20% VAT charge on private school fees .

The people with children at private schools will pay more tax so that other people's children can have free meals. They're own children won't get free meals, otherwise there would be a reduction in the fees.

I have read that bit already and commented

And?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't approve of the plan to not only make them pay for their own children to eat, but to pay for other people's children to eat then.

They already do with their tax costs end up paying for other children.
Do you think they charge their kids friends for staying and give them a food bill?

Well, I want all schools to be inclusive.

Private schools are exclusive

Edit

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It hasn't come into fruition yet, if/when it ever does, I imagine many parents will resent paying higher taxes to subsidise other people.

We are not talking of higher taxes to pay for essential services, but higher taxes to pay for food for people who could very likely have more spare cash than they do.

I am sure some already resent paying higher taxes, no matter if this came to frutition, but the fact is they should pay their fair share.

Your saying its not essential to feed children a proper meal everyday?

Really?

Again what you keep missing is the burden is paid by those who pay more taxes, thus those paying more with children, will have a greater burden of the cost. Which means its fair.

I'm saying parents who can afford to pay should pay for their childs school meal...stop twisting my words..

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am sure some already resent paying higher taxes, no matter if this came to frutition, but the fact is they should pay their fair share.

Your saying its not essential to feed children a proper meal everyday?

Really?

Again what you keep missing is the burden is paid by those who pay more taxes, thus those paying more with children, will have a greater burden of the cost. Which means its fair.

I'm saying parents who can afford to pay should pay for their childs school meal...stop twisting my words..

They will through their taxes and the ones who can afford will pay more through their taxes.

So they would already be paying for their kids meal at school

I have an idea.....maybe fee paying parents should pay a bit more so parents who send their children to state schools wont have to fork out for their uniforms too.

Syl wrote:I have an idea.....maybe fee paying parents should pay a bit more so parents who send their children to state schools wont have to fork out for their uniforms too.

Better solution, just get rid of uniforms.

Next