What do you hope for in the budget?

Oh, do you mean the scaremongering about the single person discount on council tax? That is paid over 11 months, but it is not happening. I understand that it had been specifically denied.

How are we back on this on a thread about what people hope to see in the budget?

Wasn’t the WFP an annual sum? Where does £2800 come from?

It is a reduction in income which was expected for at least the coming year.
And for many it means 11months @around £200 less per month, and the twelfth month with about £400 less.

I have scanned the whole thread, and can't find a single mention of 'freeloaders' from anyone.

Lydie45

Are you actually calling people who look after their own children ‘free loaders’ 😡

Who? It is usual to provide a quote or something to show who said what and in what context.

Lydie45

Are you actually calling people who look after their own children ‘free loaders’ 😡

Probably. Ignoring the fact that they had no-one or no facilities to care for their children and felt they were doing a good job in bringing up their own children to be responsible future citizens and taxpayers.

As an aside - everyone seems to be claiming that the money not being given to pensioners (it's not being taken from them as it wasn't theirs in the first place)
What do you mean by that? Was it a gift? No.
It is a reduction in income which was expected for at least the coming year.
Scrooge politics.

Are you actually calling people who look after their own children ‘free loaders’ 😡

😂😂

It was a problem! Mr ribs are so painful, but she doesn’t understand that her affection is less welcome than usual!😂😂

Mollygo

Sorry about Go away
I was dictating what I was saying, when our dog suddenly jumped on me!

😂

No problem

Sorry about Go away
I was dictating what I was saying, when our dog suddenly jumped on me!

Go away? 😂

Ah, sorry - I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I suppose schools vary. I was part of a group who set up a before and after school club in the 90s. It wasn’t a breakfast club but more like wraparound care, and it was staffed by people separate from the school. The parents’ fees paid their wages. One was an ex-teacher and the others had NNEB-type qualifications. I don’t think TAs were widespread in those days. Anyway, I can’t imagine anyone taking a pay cut.

I can't imagine teaching staff being expected to take a pay cut - for one thing the government is being generous to public sector workers and for another the unions (rightly) would be furious.

You think teaching staff run before and after school care?
Clubs, like sport, computing, art and science, yes. They run those unpaid uncertainly the parents who are always late to pick their children up, regard it as childcare.
One TA at our place, works in the afterschool child care session. The other staff were interviewed and appointed for the job.
I can’t comment on your last paragraph as I have no idea what it means.
Sunak used the term ‘black hole’ with regard to the WFA-the same WFA that Starmer, in opposition said it was wrong to remove. Go away

Thanks - I had hear of Pupil Premium now you mention it, but I hadn't made the connection.

I see the WFP and free breakfast clubs in the same way, really. Both would give to those who don't 'need' it (by someone else's definition) if universal, and both would disadvantage those on the edges if means-tested. In both cases, working out who should get it and ensuring it doesn't go to those who don't is expensive, so I would prefer to see universal benefits. But I am against means-testing (particularly cliff-edge means-testing) anyway, so am probably harder to convince than most.

I can't imagine teaching staff being expected to take a pay cut - for one thing the government is being generous to public sector workers and for another the unions (rightly) would be furious.

I understood the government to say that they were aware of a deficit but the so-called 'black hole' is additional to that, and they didn't know about it as it was hidden from the OBR. I dislike metaphorical expressions being used in political speeches/discussions though, as they mean different things to different people (and this is why using them is often a deliberate choice).

PP- Pupil Premium
The pupil premium grant is funding to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in state-funded schools in England.
There is a menu of things it can be used for on the Government App.

Are you saying that parents who can well afford breakfasts and preschool care should be given it for free?
It will certainly be a welcome boost for all parents, including those well enough off to pay for them, as currently the school where DGC went charges £5.50 for a 1 hour breakfast club. (£27.50pw).

Whereas another school currently charges £3 for care plus 50p per food/drink item from the breakfast menu.

Not sure what the government has in mind for funding.
Will staff currently employed be expected to take less money if the government decides on a smaller amount?

I’ve only heard that the winter fuel allowance would be used to fill the black hole which they previously said didn’t exist.

(They knew it existed because Starmer told Sunak it was wrong to remove the WFA to fill the black hole when Conservatives were in power.)

What are PP children?

I'm confused by this, too:
I’m still reeling from the idea that it’s OK to take WFA from pensioners on the grounds that they can afford to be with out it, but give free breakfasts and childcare to parents and children who can well afford it.

Are you saying that pensioners who can afford to manage without a benefit should get it, but not children whose parents can afford to pay for breakfast clubs? Or should everyone get what they need, or nobody? Or something else?

As an aside - everyone seems to be claiming that the money not being given to pensioners (it's not being taken from them as it wasn't theirs in the first place) is being used for different things. Some say it's to pay train drivers and doctors, others to foreign aid, and now it's suggested that it's going to undeserving children. I haven't seen the figures, but don't see how it can be spread as thinly as that.

Working age people that aren’t working, excluding medically unfit and not necessarily mental health problems which can be abused. If you are fit you should not get benefits. It is too easy today to claim benefits. Nearly 40 years ago my mother who contracted polio in 1916 aged 8 months was first denied a mobility allowance even though she was asked to walk across a room without her callipers. I said she must object and ask for assessment at home, and she got it. My mother wasn’t even registered as disabled until she was 56 as my grandparents just treated her the same as their other children. My mother is my idol and role model.

theworriedwell

I'm fine with breakfast clubs being financed, I'm not so fine with the children who that PP is intended for are the ones providing the finance. Surely that £1345 should be spent on them directly not providing breakfast for their better off class mates.

I was quite surprised to read that PP is not spent on them directly and that is seen as acceptable.
Granted, there are benefits to others e.g. if funding is used for support, the other children in class benefit from that.
If it means PP children can attend extra curricular activities, the other children get to see their friends there and just occasionally, a bigger group booking gets a discount, which benefits all the children.

Being used to feed children without PP?

I agree with the theory that breakfast clubs will give the children an energy boost and even allow parents to get to work.

BUT

I’m still reeling from the idea that it’s OK to take WFA from pensioners on the grounds that they can afford to be with out it, but give free breakfasts and childcare to parents and children who can well afford it.

theworriedwell

growstuff

I don't think it's being touchy when posts are misinterpreted - or assigned to the wrong poster.

Thanks for the feedback.

Maybe have a look at the two posts I got for daring to mention a third reason for breakfast clubs.

This is obviously a very cliquey place so I will leave you all to it.

If you've left you won't be reading this, but I'll try anyway in case it was just you being even touchier than the rest of us . (Seriously - there is no need to flounce over this. Worse things happen).

You may think I was being touchy, but this is far from the first time people have quoted me directly and then attributed things to me that are the opposite of what I think. If we are going to quote posters, the least we can do is represent their viewpoints accurately.

Yes, there are times when things could have been better expressed, and misunderstandings occur, but that is the time to clear things up by asking, not to summarise someone else's point of view and boil it down to something they didn't say and don't mean, such as 'DD doesn't agree with subsidies'. That is not just wrong, it is the actual opposite of my view.

If it's being touchy to point that out, well, so be it.

growstuff

I don't think it's being touchy when posts are misinterpreted - or assigned to the wrong poster.

Thanks for the feedback.

Maybe have a look at the two posts I got for daring to mention a third reason for breakfast clubs.

This is obviously a very cliquey place so I will leave you all to it.

growstuff

I wrote some words in bold to emphasise them. That's how I would speak.

Now who's being offended?

FWIW The devil is in the detail. I think the idea would be that they would be heavily subsidised (and maybe free) for children from poorer families. That's what already happens. As I've written before, some schools use much of their Pupil Premium funding on breakfast clubs. PP is worth £1345 for each eligible child (over £7 a day) and there are some schools where over 50% of the pupils are eligible. That's a significant amount of money and enables schools to ensure that all children can attend if they want.

I'm fine with breakfast clubs being financed, I'm not so fine with the children who that PP is intended for are the ones providing the finance. Surely that £1345 should be spent on them directly not providing breakfast for their better off class mates.

There must be things that could be provided for the children entitled to PP, I remember (a while ago so might not be exactly right) that at my children's old school the PP could be spent on things like music lessons, equipment (laptops and the like) and if the family opted in 50% could be saved over the years so that child could go on one of the very exciting trips they ran in 6th form. Things like visiting the Amazon or going on an African safari.

So for me tax payers should be funding it and leave the PP for the children it was intended for.

I don't think it's being touchy when posts are misinterpreted - or assigned to the wrong poster.

Doodledog

theworriedwell

Just realised it was Doodledog who didn't agree with subsidies/means testing. I know locally they aren't cheap so I don't think our local ones are going to be much help for poorer families unless there is help for people struggling to pay.

I think Labour have a plan to make them free but not sure of ages that would apply to.

Excuse me? I do agree with subsidies. I think breakfast clubs and many other things should be free at point of use.

I also disagree with means-testing as a general principle. Sometimes it might be necessary but only when there is no choice, and there usually is a choice.

I have no idea why so many people assume that the two things are incompatible, but it’s maddening when their own prejudices (assuming that’s where the misunderstandings arise) are superimposed on my posts. It’s the same when I say that people should not lose their pension or savings because of means-tests - that doesn’t mean that I don’t think those without pensions or savings should get little or nothing - just that those who have saved (after fair taxation) should not be dragged down by means-tests that assume we should all survive on what we ‘need’. They should be able to keep their savings on top of the pension they have earned.

If someone has saved £10, why should they have to pay £15 for entry to something that is free to those with savings of less than £12? They are then £3 worse off than the person who spent their own tenner and still gets the free ticket, bus fare, prescription or whatever. If people want to spend any surplus (after tax) on whatever they like nobody should tell them they don’t ’need’ it and means-test it away. If there are those who can’t afford to save, that is also wrong, and should be sorted out, but it is a separate issue.

My philosophy is simple. We should all contribute according to ability and all get back according to need. If someone is unable to contribute financially (eg because of illness or disability, or caring for someone who is ill or disabled, that is absolutely fine, but I don’t agree with the rest of us being forced to subsidise the lifestyle choices of those who want to stay at home, or who fiddle taxes, or otherwise play the system. If someone can afford to take time off to look after children, or to retire early, to work part-time or whatever they like, they’ll get no complaints from me - but nobody should expect those choices to be funded by those in work. It costs money to live in a civil society with the sorts of services we all expect. Why should some manage to get access to those services without paying for them when others are forced to do so?

I absolutely agree with universal healthcare, education, affordable housing etc for those who do contribute, regardless of how much or how little they pay, (so long as it is a proportionate share). That includes breakfast clubs. Someone who pays £1 a week into the system should have the same provision as someone who pays £1m, but both should be able to spend their remaining money how they like.

To me it goes without saying that all children should have the same provision. It’s not their fault if they have parents who won’t work.

TL:DR? The soundbite answer is that one can agree with subsidies without supporting means-tests. Fair taxation should sort out who pays what, and if we all paid a fair share we wouldn’t need further means-tests.

Oh well this is a touchy thread. I knew you were against subsidies or means testing from what you said, apologies that I didn't interpret it exactly right.

theworriedwell

Just realised it was Doodledog who didn't agree with subsidies/means testing. I know locally they aren't cheap so I don't think our local ones are going to be much help for poorer families unless there is help for people struggling to pay.

I think Labour have a plan to make them free but not sure of ages that would apply to.

Excuse me? I do agree with subsidies. I think breakfast clubs and many other things should be free at point of use.

I also disagree with means-testing as a general principle. Sometimes it might be necessary but only when there is no choice, and there usually is a choice.

I have no idea why so many people assume that the two things are incompatible, but it’s maddening when their own prejudices (assuming that’s where the misunderstandings arise) are superimposed on my posts. It’s the same when I say that people should not lose their pension or savings because of means-tests - that doesn’t mean that I don’t think those without pensions or savings should get little or nothing - just that those who have saved (after fair taxation) should not be dragged down by means-tests that assume we should all survive on what we ‘need’. They should be able to keep their savings on top of the pension they have earned.

If someone has saved £10, why should they have to pay £15 for entry to something that is free to those with savings of less than £12? They are then £3 worse off than the person who spent their own tenner and still gets the free ticket, bus fare, prescription or whatever. If people want to spend any surplus (after tax) on whatever they like nobody should tell them they don’t ’need’ it and means-test it away. If there are those who can’t afford to save, that is also wrong, and should be sorted out, but it is a separate issue.

My philosophy is simple. We should all contribute according to ability and all get back according to need. If someone is unable to contribute financially (eg because of illness or disability, or caring for someone who is ill or disabled, that is absolutely fine, but I don’t agree with the rest of us being forced to subsidise the lifestyle choices of those who want to stay at home, or who fiddle taxes, or otherwise play the system. If someone can afford to take time off to look after children, or to retire early, to work part-time or whatever they like, they’ll get no complaints from me - but nobody should expect those choices to be funded by those in work. It costs money to live in a civil society with the sorts of services we all expect. Why should some manage to get access to those services without paying for them when others are forced to do so?

I absolutely agree with universal healthcare, education, affordable housing etc for those who do contribute, regardless of how much or how little they pay, (so long as it is a proportionate share). That includes breakfast clubs. Someone who pays £1 a week into the system should have the same provision as someone who pays £1m, but both should be able to spend their remaining money how they like.

To me it goes without saying that all children should have the same provision. It’s not their fault if they have parents who won’t work.

TL:DR? The soundbite answer is that one can agree with subsidies without supporting means-tests. Fair taxation should sort out who pays what, and if we all paid a fair share we wouldn’t need further means-tests.

Great points Dickens