Well done Jeremy Corbyn

They can 'afford' it but that is not the point. Kids of free school meals are stigmitised and many do not claim because of that.

In addition, if benefits are universal then they are for everyone and it helps build consent. You are paying into something you get back. In addition, Corbyn would pay for this by taxing public schools which is undeniably fair.

@Burnley123: Benefits should never be universal. They should be means tested. This policy is crazy. So when Prince William and Kate Middleton's child goes to school, it'll get free school meals. What???

@tynamite: Its about having a fair society. Countries that have universal benefits have lower levels of inequality and child poverty.

@Burnley123: Countries that overspend suffer in the long term. You are crazy to think that millionaire families should get benefits. You are beyond reason and should not be allowed to vote.

Is millionaires getting free money fair?

@Burnley123: you're an idiot. The reason most parents need welfare is because of their luxuries they refuse to sacrifice. Getting out of low income is easy if you're not lazy

@tynamite:


The policy in question is worse for millionaires in fact because they would now have to pay higher rates for their kids to go to (non-charitable) public schools. The reason why I want this policy is that it is good for poorer children as they will no longer be stigmitiased. Universal benefits are something also good for middle class tax payers.


Corbyn's policy is fully costed so its not about that and the (Scandanavian) countries of universal benefits are actually doing a lot better than we are.


Afraid not. I just disagree with you and have an informed opinion.

@aliceinnudieland:
If it was easy then everyone would do it. I earn slightly above average income and work damn hard for what its worth.

The economy is only big enough for an x number of middle class jobs though. Are we to say f*** em they can starve because we think we are better. Most middle class people come from middle class backgrounds anyway and by being against this policy you are screwing up things for their kids.

@Burnley123: 1. Millionaires should not be getting free money from the government.
2. You can't use the government to force equality of outcome. Some people are richer than others. Some people are more attractive than others. Some people are more popular than others.
3. If children are not bullied for being on free school meals, they will be bullied for something else.
4. Look what happened to Greece because their government defaulted on its debt. Women were prostituting themselves for the price of a sandwich.
5. Anyone who thinks that millionaires should get free money should not be allowed to vote.

@tynamite:


They do anyway with lots of tax-breaks and corporate welfare. The percent of millionaires in the country is tiny and if the policy is extended to them (so it covers everyone) it would be a drop in the ocean.


Yes but there are degrees of it. All Governments do some form of redistribution, its a question of how much and to who.


Kids get bullied for being poor but thats OK because it would have happened anyway. Just as I shouldn't feel sad about a relative dying because it happens to us all at sometime.


I have read books specifically on the Euro economic situation and can talk about it. Corruption of the Greek state and structural imbalance of the Eurozone have little (nothing actually) to do with a fully costed policy by a UK politician.


Well you voted for Brexit which will eventually amount to the same thing, but much much more so.. Well done genius, democracy is clearly safer in your hands. 😜

@Burnley123:
Thanks to benefits, the government is spending more money than it is receiving. If you made it so that everyone in the country received benefits, the deficit would be much higher and much more money would be needed to pay all the benefits. This is why paying everyone benefits including millionaires is poppycock and not feasible.

@tynamite: Explain to me your counter-argument to the Keynesian paradox of thrift, or is national Government really just the same as a household?

@Burnley123: Who the fuck knows what that is?

@tynamite: Me

@tynamite: Your belief on economics is based on the common (but utterly flawed) assumption that an national economy is exactly like a household. If a household gets into debt and has a deficit then it needs to cut spending. If it does so then its outgoings will become less than its income and it will reduce its debt over time.

That rules makes sense for a household, but is entirely different for a national economy. If I cut my spending, I don't take a paycut or risk losing my job but that is exactly what happens when a Government or a nation cut back. People saving means people not spending means business have no customers, who in turn have to cut. The depression cycle continues until it bottoms out. Hence the more you cut the less you have and a paradox of thrift.

You mention the Greek example and that is a classic case. Granted, the problems where originally caused in part by over-consumption. But its the medicine that really killed the patient. Greek had the most savage welfare cuts in hisory but the shock was so great that its economy contacted by a quarter and was LESS able to pay its debts.

Now a Government should be responsible about its deficit and should pay down its debt in good times. The situation is complex though and its wrong to think of a nation as having the same debt rules as an individual.

None of that matters to the original point though because Corbyn has a tax to pay for his policy.

@Burnley123: You make no sense. How did we get from government spending less to shops closing because people aren't spending???

@tynamite: Because Government spending goes back to the people in one way or another. The state is our biggest employer and it pays for a lot of services. If you cut that then people will have less money to spend in shops.

For more info look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

@Burnley123: The government taxing money it gives to the public sector doesn't generate any tax revenue.

@tynamite: Obviously. Not my point. 😜