Tuesday, 30 September 2014

There’s Another Message, Frank…

..and that’s that you shouldn’t have children you can’t afford:
More than 1.5 million poor children over the age of eight lose out on free school meals because their parents are in work, a leading anti-poverty campaigner reveals today.
They ain’t free. We, the taxpayer, are paying for them. Money spent on this is not available for something else.
Labour MP Frank Field told The Independent that research by his office had uncovered that parents in receipt of working tax credits no longer qualify for free school meals, even if their income is below the eligibility threshold of £16,190 a year.
Which is a given, when you set up a maze of requirements and eligibility criteria for handing someone money back.

Why not simply not tax them so much (or at all) in the first place?
“One and a half million poor children are being punished by the system because their parents are working for their poverty,” said Mr Field.
“As well as trying to cover their rent and utilities, these families are told that they must somehow find huge sums in their budget to make sure their children get a decent meal at lunchtime.
“The clear message given to poor parents is that it doesn’t pay to work – the total opposite to government rhetoric.”
Actually, the message it should be sending is: ‘You breed ‘em, you’ll have to feed ‘em..’

For all families.

7 comments:

Bucko The Moose said...

Only in the socialist west does a wage of 16k per year equal poverty

Ian Hills said...

Perhaps before they leave for work these supposed victims of society could make up some sandwiches for their little darlings.

Of course some social fascist heads try to ban packed lunches but they can always be nicked for child cruelty, ie starving their young wards.

PJH said...

" Why not simply not tax them so much (or at all) in the first place? "

Hang on - aren't these families using *more* public services (NHS, council services, schools etc. all paid for with the proceeds of theft from the taxpayer) not less, so they should actually be being taxed /more/, not /less/?

What was your first sentence again?

"you shouldn’t have children you can’t afford: "

Ah - there we go.

Anonymous said...

The parents could always put their 84inch hi-def TV's, numerous Xboxes and mobile phones onto eBay and use the money to feed the offspring they chose to have. Or would that affect their human rights?
Penseivat

Trevor said...

"Why not simply not tax them so much (or at all) in the first place?"

While I agree with you that people should keep as much of their money as possible, I also think that as a matter of principle everyone - including those on low incomes - should pay some tax. There are far too many who pay little or nothing at all: having 'no skin in the game' they happily elect spendthrift politicians, especially at local level.

JuliaM said...

"Only in the socialist west does a wage of 16k per year equal poverty"

Part of that is the high cost of living in some areas. Suggesting people move is now 'social cleansing', rather than sound advice.

"Perhaps before they leave for work these supposed victims of society could make up some sandwiches for their little darlings."

Solve their own problem? That's heresy!

"...so they should actually be being taxed /more/, not /less/?"

Good point!

JuliaM said...

"Or would that affect their human rights?"

A rhetorical question..? ;)

"...I also think that as a matter of principle everyone - including those on low incomes - should pay some tax."

I can see the value in that, even if a nominal sum.