Schools providing Sanitary protection

annandale

Not everyone qualifies for Wtc which is being phased out anyway.

As for your royal family costs people 69p who actually benefits from the revenue they bring to the UK? Outside of London. And that's a side issue. They live in luxury while other people live below the line.

I'm sure I don't benefit from the royals living in Scotland. Does that justify eugenies security bill for her wedding being 2 million quid.

She does no royal engagements.

The queen is the sixth richest person on the planet. Its obscene.

unholyangel

annandale wrote: »

Not everyone qualifies for Wtc which is being phased out anyway.

As for your royal family costs people 69p who actually benefits from the revenue they bring to the UK? Outside of London. And that's a side issue. They live in luxury while other people live below the line.

I'm sure I don't benefit from the royals living in Scotland. Does that justify eugenies security bill for her wedding being 2 million quid.

She does no royal engagements.

The queen is the sixth richest person on the planet. Its obscene.

It would help posters know who you're talking to if you quote the post you're responding to.

I'm unsure if you meant comms69 or myself as I can't recall him mentioning tax credits but at the same time, the 69p figure was not mine and I disagreed with that figure (and explained why).

theoretica

Comms69 wrote: »

I think neither should be free, but that said I can understand that birth control is cheaper than the state supporting a child; so the cost is actually less.

What about toilet paper? Do you think that should be free?

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

Actually it is for each person in the country - even children and babies, although I'd point out nearly everyone is a taxpayer. However it is only their grant, it doesn't include any other costs (such as security).

Their grant in 2016-2017 was £43mill (for 2017-2018 it was around £76mill and this 2018-2019 year its £82mill) - divide that by the population and you'll get 69p. Divide it by the number of income tax payers (some of who include pensioners or those only paying a few pennies in income tax) which is usually around 30mill (25 million of whom are only paying the basic rate) and you get £1.43. Although again, that doesn't account for any other expenditure they receive. In a standard year (without weddings to host/attend), they tend to cost around £100 million in security.

Thanks, I did check two places and both said it was approximated against taxpayers. But stand corrected. Still not a huge amount

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

There are very few children who are not supported by the state to some degree.

The truth is your average working person thinks their tax contribution has elastic on it. That their meagre contribution not only pays for everything they use, but also for schemes like this for the less fortunate.

£35k a year will see you paying £7.8k a year in income tax & NI. Yet every child you have will cost the state £8k+ a year in education, healthcare and dental alone. You'll also receive child benefit, working tax credits etc and then of course theres still your share of services (armed forces etc) and infrastructure to cover too.

Yes that's what I'm saying Sorry it wasn't clear.


It's cheaper for the state to not be paying child benefit, child tax credits, health, education etc. than providing birth control

Comms69

annandale wrote: »

Not everyone qualifies for Wtc which is being phased out anyway. - no, but those in my example would.

As for your royal family costs people 69p who actually benefits from the revenue they bring to the UK? Outside of London. And that's a side issue. They live in luxury while other people live below the line. - They didn't take that money from the people living below the line. You cant take property from people simply because they have more

I'm sure I don't benefit from the royals living in Scotland. Does that justify eugenies security bill for her wedding being 2 million quid. - Unless they asked you to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it, I don't see how you were negatively impacted.

She does no royal engagements. - I'm inclined to agree, but will say that everyone is entitled to be safe. And the chances of something happening in terms of public order are obviously higher for big events like this.

The queen is the sixth richest person on the planet. Its obscene.

I just don't see her having money as an issue that affects me. She hasn't taken it from me.

Comms69

theoretica wrote: »

What about toilet paper? Do you think that should be free?

Well the alternative seems highly impractical ie kids bringing their own, but sure if the school said we need £3 per term (or whatever) to provide toilet paper I'd pay it. No problem.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

Well the alternative seems highly impractical ie kids bringing their own, but sure if the school said we need £3 per term (or whatever) to provide toilet paper I'd pay it. No problem.

I’m very curious about this, why is bringing your own toilet paper more impractical than bringing your own sanitary towels?

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

I’m very curious about this, why is bringing your own toilet paper more impractical than bringing your own sanitary towels?

Because there would be 300+ rolls of toilet paper, and it takes up more space in a bag than a pack of sanitary products?


But in anycase, I actually said I'd be happy to pay for it.

thorsoak

Comms69 wrote: »

Because there would be 300+ rolls of toilet paper, and it takes up more space in a bag than a pack of sanitary products?


But in anycase, I actually said I'd be happy to pay for it.

So, you would like us to go back to the post-war 1940s - see my post #10 in this thread? Do you also advocate taking loo rolls out of all public toilets everywhere?

Ridiculous!