Lib Dems finally do something

WARNING: This section may contain jokes or topics of an offensive nature.
Recommended for over 18's only. Send Admin a PM to request exclusion.

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
It took three and half years but the Lib Dems finally prove they serve some purpose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... Clegg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All primary school children up to the age of seven to be given free school lunches from September. This is common sense in so many ways as far as I am concerned, and quite simple economics.

- Research shows the benefits on learning and development of good nutrition, so this policy will reduce long-term costs as academic inequalities should be reduced.

- Children should now have healthier meals which will reduce the costs of obesity in the future. This is a very big step in getting children getting used to eating proper food - get them young and eating in a group and it'll stop the dumb situation of a kid getting to their teenage years and 'not liking vegetables'.

- It is also a good piece of behaviour change policy, especially for the most deprived household. To stereo-type very badly (apologies) - families who have had benefits reduced will be spending less on booze, fags, trainers and junk food, and the money saved by the government from reducing those benefits will now be spent on ensuring all children get a proper lunch. The kid whose lunch was a bag of value crisps and a lump of supermarket processed fat and cardboard bread because his parents know nothing about food and spend money on other things will now get a proper meal and at the age of five and six will get in the habit of eating a balance and sensible meal.

- And, importantly, because the free meals apply to all children regardless of income, that kid who now gets a proper meal does so on equal terms. He won't be the free-school meals kid with his special voucher for others to avoid or pick on, but he'll be in the dinner queue and sat at the table with all the richer and more aspirational children.

- It'll be a big relief on food-banks, as the growth in usage of those is expensive for charities to keep funding.

- It's been trialled over a few years in the North East and head-teachers etc have highlighted how much of an impact it has had on behaviour and academic performance.

With such sensible policies from the coalition like this I may have to think long and hard prior to voting in 2015.

I have no kids and have no intention of ever wasting my money/free time doing so, but I still think this will benefit me through the long-term benefits for our whole country, and because it's jolly nice.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
They sold their soul in 2010.
User avatar
Joey
Posts: 2927
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:45
Location: League One
Ideally it would be up to the age of 12 but considering how things are, this will do. Still far from making for all the "broken promises" as Nick Clegg put it in his election campaign.

Lib Dems are having all their strings pulled by the Tories.
User avatar
taxidave
Posts: 3510
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:56
Location: Crewe station buffet, wish I'd stayed there!
I find it odd that people, including some on this forum, consider this to be a good idea and yet complain when rich pensioners get bus passes, free tv licences and heating allowances but think that those millionaires still able to have sex will have school dinners provided free for their offspring is a great move forward. :roll:
User avatar
Joey
Posts: 2927
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:45
Location: League One
taxidave wrote:I find it odd that people, including some on this forum, consider this to be a good idea and yet complain when rich pensioners get bus passes, free tv licences and heating allowances but think that those millionaires still able to have sex will have school dinners provided free for their offspring is a great move forward. :roll:
If they're millionaires they will pay more tax than less well off people, technically they'll be paying for their kid's school dinners and other people's kids too.

I have no problem with the heating allowance, free bass and TV licences. However the issue is when subsidies such as heating allowance go to those who don't need it. My grandparents in the past have tried to make it so they don't receive heating allowance because they don't need it, yet they still receive it.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Joey wrote:
taxidave wrote:I find it odd that people, including some on this forum, consider this to be a good idea and yet complain when rich pensioners get bus passes, free tv licences and heating allowances but think that those millionaires still able to have sex will have school dinners provided free for their offspring is a great move forward. :roll:
If they're millionaires they will pay more tax than less well off people, technically they'll be paying for their kid's school dinners and other people's kids too.

I have no problem with the heating allowance, free bass and TV licences. However the issue is when subsidies such as heating allowance go to those who don't need it. My grandparents in the past have tried to make it so they don't receive heating allowance because they don't need it, yet they still receive it.
But through your own argument on millionaires, if a pensioner does not need the money for heating then they are likely to use it by buying things from shops and service providers, saving it in banks so their children and grand children will have it to spend, or give it to charity. All of which will benefit the economy.
Admin
Site Administrator
Posts: 892
Joined: 19 Nov 2009, 21:34
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
But through your own argument on millionaires, if a pensioner does not need the money for heating then they are likely to use it by buying things from shops and service providers, saving it in banks so their children and grand children will have it to spend, or give it to charity. All of which will benefit the economy.
And through your argument, if tax was reduced so as not to give the benefit of free heating to those that dont use it etc, then wouldnt the normal tax payer have more money to spend in shops and on service providers, thus benefiting the economy?
User avatar
taxidave
Posts: 3510
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:56
Location: Crewe station buffet, wish I'd stayed there!
Joey wrote:If they're millionaires they will pay more tax than less well off people, technically they'll be paying for their kid's school dinners and other people's kids too.

I have no problem with the heating allowance, free bass and TV licences. However the issue is when subsidies such as heating allowance go to those who don't need it. My grandparents in the past have tried to make it so they don't receive heating allowance because they don't need it, yet they still receive it.
That is exactly the point I was making. Why do you consider it to be wrong for the very rich to receive heating allowances but ok for their kids to get free meals.
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
taxidave wrote:Why do you consider it to be wrong for the very rich to receive heating allowances but ok for their kids to get free meals.
Surely the announced policy only applies to state-funded primary schools...? How many of The Very Rich send their kids there...?
User avatar
taxidave
Posts: 3510
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:56
Location: Crewe station buffet, wish I'd stayed there!
asl wrote:
taxidave wrote:Why do you consider it to be wrong for the very rich to receive heating allowances but ok for their kids to get free meals.
Surely the announced policy only applies to state-funded primary schools...? How many of The Very Rich send their kids there...?
I am sure a lot of the "new" rich, footballers for example, will still send their kids to the local primary school; I cannot imagine Wayne Rooney sending his kids off to boarding school just so that they can learn to speak proper.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Admin wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
But through your own argument on millionaires, if a pensioner does not need the money for heating then they are likely to use it by buying things from shops and service providers, saving it in banks so their children and grand children will have it to spend, or give it to charity. All of which will benefit the economy.
And through your argument, if tax was reduced so as not to give the benefit of free heating to those that dont use it etc, then wouldnt the normal tax payer have more money to spend in shops and on service providers, thus benefiting the economy?
Depends how deep you look into it. One could argue if a person in their twenties has more disposable cash it'll all be spent on tax-avoiding Amazon to buy foreign made goods to use whilst drinking tax-avoiding Starbucks coffee, leaching money out of the economy. Old folk on the other hand probably more likely to be in the local butcher, baker, grocer, pub, etc keeping money in the local economy with multiplier effects. I know that is a big if and just an argument for arguments sake.
Admin
Site Administrator
Posts: 892
Joined: 19 Nov 2009, 21:34
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:I know that is a big if and just an argument for arguments sake.
Really RCS, I wouldn't have guessed with your posts LoL :)
C.V
Admin wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:I know that is a big if and just an argument for arguments sake.
Really RCS, I wouldn't have guessed with your posts LoL :)


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Joey
Posts: 2927
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:45
Location: League One
taxidave wrote:
Joey wrote:If they're millionaires they will pay more tax than less well off people, technically they'll be paying for their kid's school dinners and other people's kids too.

I have no problem with the heating allowance, free bass and TV licences. However the issue is when subsidies such as heating allowance go to those who don't need it. My grandparents in the past have tried to make it so they don't receive heating allowance because they don't need it, yet they still receive it.
That is exactly the point I was making. Why do you consider it to be wrong for the very rich to receive heating allowances but ok for their kids to get free meals.
I don't consider it "wrong", it's just a scheme that could do with some fixing to improve it. My main issue is that the Tories and members of the public are so quick to criminalize the poor for having a spare bedroom or getting an extra £10 on their benefits, when such schemes as heating allowance throw money at people when they don't need it.
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
It's often far more expensive to apply means-testing than it is simply to pay everyone. Let's say it costs £100pa to means-test a single person (it well might: staff costs, IT costs, etc) for a benefit worth £500pa. If only one person in a batch of ten fails the test, the overall cost to provide the benefit is £5500pa - whereas, if you just pay everyone £500pa, the overall cost is just £5000pa. Multiply the number of applicants by several million and you can see the reason they do it, plus you get the added bonus of having a far simpler benefit to manage.

It works similarly with small businesses: as an independant IT contractor with very few needs to purchase assets, I pay flat-rate VAT (13.5% for the first year, 14.5% thereafter) - although I obviously charge it at 20% for my services. Although the result is that I clearly pay less VAT as a result, HMRC calculate that they will save money because they don't have to process complicated VAT returns - maybe not from me and my simple returns, but overall from the entire elligible community. Just a shame there's nothing similar for corporation tax!
Post Reply