Yet another £600 million down the drain

michaels

I think there is some sort of economic 'externality' in effect. I gain if my kids lessons are not disrupted by other children who are behaving inappropriately because of their poor nutrition.

Niv

Hadrian wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why I should, by taxation, feed someone elses children? I brought up and fed well my two children in the days when pay was by todays standards abysmal. I clothed them and housed them without any help from anybody. Oh, I forgot, I received ten shillings (50p) 'Family Allowance' for the first, nothing for the second child.
I earned £11 week in 1963. (x 14.7 for 2013 prices - Govt RPI stats.), so that works out as £161.70p a week in todays money. Some get that in, whatever it's called, "Family Allowance" today!!!
If you want children work it out before whether or not you can afford to keep them without state help. As The State has no money it's MY money.

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it can be applied to anything the state spends money on. I have no kids so why should I pay for state schools full stop? I have never needed to go to hospital so why should I pay for NHS. I dont have grandparents so why should i pay for state pensions / winter fuel allowance, the list goes on.

CLAPTON

Niv wrote: »

From the test group there was a 90% take up in free school meals and a marked improvement in academic achievement (something like 20%). Assuming the take-up would be 90% if this goes live then I would expect the economies of scale to kick in and the wastage will be swallowed up in the cost savings made. On top of this I do not know how much it costs to administrate the current free school meals scheme which of course will no longer be needed and the meals would not be means tested – this should also therefore give a saving to further reduce the cost burden of this scheme.
I do not have a child and am on the fence with this benefit as it is a slippery slope in my opinion, however the results of the test case (assuming genuine) are compelling and make it hard to be too against this move. I hope that to fund this child benefits are slightly reduced or at least frozen for a few years.

nearly all experiments in schools (new reading schemes, increasing school hours, reducing school hours, extra physical exercise, less physical exercise, free school meal, after school clubs, breakfast clubs) all lead to 'significant' improvements in results.

It does make one wonder what methodology was used to measure 'improvement' and by whom.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

It does make one wonder what methodology was used to measure 'improvement' and by whom.

The same as those used by politicians when they want to crow about something.

Loughton_Monkey

Niv wrote: »

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it can be applied to anything the state spends money on. I have no kids so why should I pay for state schools full stop? I have never needed to go to hospital so why should I pay for NHS. I dont have grandparents so why should i pay for state pensions / winter fuel allowance, the list goes on.

It's really a matter of degree.

There is a "line" which in my opinion should not be gone beyond. Some of it is debatable, but my own thinking says:

It should be a "given" that we use public money to provide for things that are impossible for individuals to do alone, like

Defense
Law Enforcement
Infrastructure for Roads, Railways, Ports etc.
Fire Service
....

Then there are things that are theoretically possible, but are best supplied centrally, like

Education
Health System
Basic 'safety net' Pension....

These, arguably, could/should have a degree of 'personal contribution' at point of use. There already is (prescription cost, geriatric care, student fees, National Insurance)

Then we get into a more emotive area that governments tend to do, by majority opinion, such as:

Housing supply and subsidy
Basic safety net benefits for unemployment, sickness, disability

It is when you study the pure cost of the latter (something around £3,500 every year for every man, woman and child in UK, I believe) that you start to think things are a bit wrong.

The more we spend on benefits, whether we like it or not, we are building up a society that relies more and more on "The State". We see - for example - the huge number of people who retire on near-subsistence levels. I firmly believe this is because they felt that "The State" was providing their pension so they didn't see the need to do anything themselves.

We already see a large number of people who either don't work, or work part time knowing that it is "uneconomic" to work more. This is a structural fault in our benefits system.

And now we are reaching a point at which feeding ones own children is becoming a prime responsibility of "The State". We must ask ourselves whether it will encourage "certain types" of parents deliberately not to give their kids breakfast, in the sure knowledge that s/he will get fed at lunchtime? I think it will.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The same as those used by politicians when they want to crow about something.

so you know it's nonsense too

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It's really a matter of degree.

There is a "line" which in my opinion should not be gone beyond. Some of it is debatable, but my own thinking says:

It should be a "given" that we use public money to provide for things that are impossible for individuals to do alone, like

Defense
Law Enforcement
Infrastructure for Roads, Railways, Ports etc.
Fire Service
....

Then there are things that are theoretically possible, but are best supplied centrally, like

Education
Health System
Basic 'safety net' Pension....

These, arguably, could/should have a degree of 'personal contribution' at point of use. There already is (prescription cost, geriatric care, student fees, National Insurance)

Then we get into a more emotive area that governments tend to do, by majority opinion, such as:

Housing supply and subsidy
Basic safety net benefits for unemployment, sickness, disability

It is when you study the pure cost of the latter (something around £3,500 every year for every man, woman and child in UK, I believe) that you start to think things are a bit wrong.

The more we spend on benefits, whether we like it or not, we are building up a society that relies more and more on "The State". We see - for example - the huge number of people who retire on near-subsistence levels. I firmly believe this is because they felt that "The State" was providing their pension so they didn't see the need to do anything themselves.

We already see a large number of people who either don't work, or work part time knowing that it is "uneconomic" to work more. This is a structural fault in our benefits system.

And now we are reaching a point at which feeding ones own children is becoming a prime responsibility of "The State". We must ask ourselves whether it will encourage "certain types" of parents deliberately not to give their kids breakfast, in the sure knowledge that s/he will get fed at lunchtime? I think it will.

If you think parents are going to deliberately not feed their infant children breakfast because they know someone else well give them lunch then I would politely suggest your reference points for the world at variance with the facts.

If you're this worried about the nanny state then turn down your free bus pass, your winter fuel allowance and the part of your state pension that exceeds what was taken from you in national insurance. If you're on any kind of nhs prescription then I hope it's not expensive because I know you won't want other people to pay for you.

vivatifosi

Niv wrote: »

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it can be applied to anything the state spends money on. I have no kids so why should I pay for state schools full stop? I have never needed to go to hospital so why should I pay for NHS. I dont have grandparents so why should i pay for state pensions / winter fuel allowance, the list goes on.

Taken to extremes, the opposite point can also be made. We had this same debate here about the argument about withdrawing child benefit for high paying families.

In this respect, why should people who are not getting anything from the state but on very low incomes - for example those on between minimum wage and say, £18k - pay for the children of much wealthier people to eat?

Think here of people who may struggle to pay rent, never be able to afford their own home, but are now expected through taxation to provide school meals for the children of those earning two or three times as much as them?

That's the flip side of universality. It can seem very unfair to those on low incomes and receiving no benefits and struggling to make ends meet.

Very few people do not see the sense in a safety net. But this is not about a safety net. If it was, it could be expanded to all those on UB. However this is also about poor non-parents paying to feed the children of rich parents and I cannot see how that is right.

Niv

CLAPTON wrote: »

nearly all experiments in schools (new reading schemes, increasing school hours, reducing school hours, extra physical exercise, less physical exercise, free school meal, after school clubs, breakfast clubs) all lead to 'significant' improvements in results.

It does make one wonder what methodology was used to measure 'improvement' and by whom.

I know where your coming from. From all these tests and trials we should have a super race of kids by now right? :-)

But seriously, I am not suggesting I believe all results as presented by the media as it seems to me that the media are only after headline grabbing news and I guess equally the organisations appointed to undertake the study wants a positive result as it may lead to them being used again (if if they are technically independant).

CLAPTON

Niv wrote: »

I know where your coming from. From all these tests and trials we should have a super race of kids by now right? :-)

But seriously, I am not suggesting I believe all results as presented by the media as it seems to me that the media are only after headline grabbing news and I guess equally the organisations appointed to undertake the study wants a positive result as it may lead to them being used again (if if they are technically independant).

I haven't read the original documents but it was reported that
-there was a 20% improvement in 'results'
- the kids who already had free school meals also showed a similar improvement

my conclusion is that whatever caused the effect it clearly wasn't the food, as if it were there should be no change in the kids already receiving free school meals (or paid for school meals )


their conclusion was that this 'proved' their case even more because before the stigma of receiving free school meals held them back.


well maybe

but as I said I haven't seen the 'original' research