Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

Janepig

peachyprice wrote: »

It's more likely they'd sent their child in with a scant packed lunch than find the £40 cash for school dinners. So no it's not obvious because it's not necessarily the case.

Not sure I understand the point, but personally I was paying £80 per month for dinners, and switched to packed lunch because I just couldn't justify that cost any more. They don't have a scant packed lunch (well DS does because he eats like a bird) because if you're careful you can do plenty cheaply. But on a like for like basis, when I was paying for dinners for my two, that's an £80 per month bill that an FSM parent doesn't have. In anyone's book that's a big saving.

Jx

Soleil_lune

kingfisherblue wrote: »

I didnt mean that anyone was benefit bashing, I was merely responding to the posts that suggested that those on FSM didn't pay for trips or had them subsidised. We don't always have concessions made corus, at least not in my area.

Incidentally, I agree that those working may not always be able to afford trips etc either.

Fair enough KFB. It's a sensitive subject and many do get irked that some seem to get so many concessions, just as people on benefits get irked at the 'sponger' label. But as I said, though some milk the system and demand every freebie going, many others don't do this, and often don't choose to be in the position they are in. Like I said, despite insinuations from a few, people aren't benefit bashing, just pointing out how it is (for them...)

Soleil_lune

Janepig wrote: »

Not sure I understand the point, but personally I was paying £80 per month for dinners, and switched to packed lunch because I just couldn't justify that cost any more. They don't have a scant packed lunch (well DS does because he eats like a bird) because if you're careful you can do plenty cheaply. But on a like for like basis, when I was paying for dinners for my two, that's an £80 per month bill that an FSM parent doesn't have. In anyone's book that's a big saving.

Jx

Exactly. Even though the parent who has a child on FSD doesn't get £40 a month for each child in cash, they are still that amount better off a month in their budget. I know many who have chose to send packed lunches because of exorbitant price of school dinners.

peachyprice

Janepig wrote: »

Not sure I understand the point, but personally I was paying £80 per month for dinners, and switched to packed lunch because I just couldn't justify that cost any more. They don't have a scant packed lunch (well DS does because he eats like a bird) because if you're careful you can do plenty cheaply. But on a like for like basis, when I was paying for dinners for my two, that's an £80 per month bill that an FSM parent doesn't have. In anyone's book that's a big saving.

Jx

You just can't get past the fact that some people who are on benefits DON'T HAVE £40 per child, per month to spend on school dinners. They're not 'saving' it, because they can't afford to spend that much in the first place, they spending far less and children are going hungry, which is the whole point of FSM's in the first place.

Person_one

Janepig wrote: »

To me it's priorities. If I didn't have the spare cash to fund school trips or whatever, I would cancel the sky subscription, go without my weekend Chinese, not buy a huge tv, look at budgeting on the food shopping, and a million other cutbacks so that my kids would not go without. I wouldn't expect other families to dip into their pockets to fund them for me when I already get money off the state to help pay for these things.

Jx

Yeah but, you have all that stuff in the first place...

alleycat`

Person_one wrote: »

Better a few 'gamers' get away with it than a single child be left behind.

Its the price we pay, but its acceptable for the benefits.

I concur with this when it is a minority.

It is at what point this minority becomes too large is where it gets a bit murky.

I don't begrudge any child or any person having the right to good education and a good welfare state, when required.

It is when it isn't required and people think too many others are taking the proverbial it'll end in tears for everyone.

As it stands at the moment, the major concern is who is going to pay for pretty much everything over the long term.

Ageing, long lived populations are going to be a major headache for the country financially.
This is an observation and not a suggestion about anything as i know i have none of the answers to these difficult problems

supersaver2

I work in a school and the policy is if you can bring in prove of benefit entitlement you get a discount on school trips or don't have to pay. Really not sure I agree with this policy, you only have to look at the benefits board to see in plenty of situations people who are not working and living on benefits actually have more money, free prescriptions, dental, FSM etc than a parent who goes out to work and earns just that little to much. It's a crazy world where this can happen!

Janepig

Person_one wrote: »

Yeah but, you have all that stuff in the first place...

And FSM parents don't? :cool:

Oh I forgot, they're all paupers living on beans on toast. Without the toast.

Jx

Janepig

peachyprice wrote: »

You just can't get past the fact that some people who are on benefits DON'T HAVE £40 per child, per month to spend on school dinners. They're not 'saving' it, because they can't afford to spend that much in the first place, they spending far less and children are going hungry, which is the whole point of FSM's in the first place.

Neither do I. And neither do many many parents who don't get FSM and have to pay full whack for everything.

You just can't get past the fact that there are opinions on this that differ from yours but are just as valid.

Jx

Person_one

Janepig wrote: »

And FSM parents don't? :cool:

Oh I forgot, they're all paupers living on beans on toast. Without the toast.

Jx

Don't believe everything you hear/read.