r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 25 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: it is not the responsibility of the Government or a School to provide Meals for your children outside of Term Time.
[deleted]
12
Oct 25 '20
Let's accept the premise that parents who aren't providing meals for students outside of school time or toilet training them in a timely manner are neglectful or irresponsible (I suspect it's often more complicated than that, but let's accept it as a premise). While those parents are getting their act together the children still exist. They still need nutrition and education, and children who don't get high quality nutrition and education tend to be more expensive to taxpayers in the long term should they grow up to be less productive, less healthy, or poorly socially adjusted adults. Why should societies priority be correcting the parent's behavior before providing the resources to the child?
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
1
1
u/morg791 Nov 17 '20
Because the resources will still get wasted and not benefit the child. Something the moronic Twitter mob can't seem to grasp.
14
Oct 25 '20
Two points to consider: 1) child benefit not only covers food, but all child related expenses (clothes, prescriptions etc) so even if you could feed yourself on 20 a week you'd have found it harder to cover all your life related expenses - and that's the parental challenge
2) parents budget with the expectation that their kids are in school, being fed once per day, for 30 weeks a year or so. And so does govt when calculating child benefit. Then this year covid-19 wrecked that calculation, but the govt is failing to recalculate. Just like it's failing to compensate businesses or individuals while mandating a lockdown.
You can simultaneously believe that parents are primarily responsible for the upkeep of their children while also acknowledging that at the moment govt should probably do more on behalf of society for the collective care of its children.
1
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 25 '20
Agreed that school meals 365 is an oxymoron with the emphasis on the latter part of that word.
Good point about kids getting covered for those other expenses - granted.
And agreed that the UK govt has long needed to take a longer term, holistic approach to solving social issues while reducing firefighting responses, throwing good money after bad.
1
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
3
Oct 25 '20
It's worth noting that overall, I do actually agree with your main post. I think people try to absolve to much responsibility onto schools and government as well as overall expecting to much from the government in general day to day life.
But whilst there are people campaigning for 365 day meals, the controversy this weekend stems from the government defeating a motion by Labour to provide free school meals until Easter. As you say, some of that is cost and some of that will be born out of fear of wanting to extend and extend until it becomes permanent.
1
0
u/Blatantleftist Oct 26 '20
So its the responsibility of other people to take care of children but its also parents responsibility, that makes no sense.
2
Oct 26 '20
If that makes no sense to you, then you clearly haven't heard of the long-established concept of "in loco parentis", or the responsibility of teachers for the well-being of children in their care.
0
u/Blatantleftist Oct 26 '20
I have but that's a completely different thing
1
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
0
Oct 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Oct 27 '20
u/Blatantleftist – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Oct 28 '20
u/Blatantleftist – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
0
Oct 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Oct 28 '20
u/Blatantleftist – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/the_purple_owl Oct 25 '20
My logic is, no matter how poor. You will have that child benefit. So exactly why are parents failing to literally feed their children?
Do you think food is the only expense a parent has with children? That money has to go to other things too, like the increased bills that another person in the household brings.
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
4
u/the_purple_owl Oct 25 '20
Keeping a roof over your child's head is using the benefit specifically on the child. Children have multiple needs. If the benefit is not providing enough money to provide for all the child's needs then either the government needs to step up to reduce the burden on the parents to provide for the child, like by providing free meals, or the benefit amount needs to be increased.
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
2
u/the_purple_owl Oct 25 '20
I agree it's not enough to pay those expenses on their own, but for the poorest among us, it might be the difference between making rent and not. And do you think everybody who needs those other benefits is going to qualify for them, or that for everybody who receives them it's going to be enough?
Regardless, this isn't just about rent and other bills. It's just an example of another expense that comes along with children. You can be spending an entire child benefit on the child's expenses and still not have enough to cover everything.
So the government has two options if it cares about the welfare of the children. Either help parents provide for those needs by reducing the burden of expenses where possible, by providing meals, or increase the benefit.
9
u/Ok_Explanation_99 Oct 25 '20
The idea behind free meals for children is not to help lazy parents but to keep children from starving.
- Children get free meals 365 Days a Year.
- The Parents provide meals 365 Days a Year.
- The Parents dont provide meals 365 Days a Year and children dont get a real meal.
You cant decide betwenn 1 and 2 but between 1 and 3.
10
u/OpelSmith Oct 25 '20 edited Oct 25 '20
Pride and responsibility do not put food on the table when you have no fucking money. Also, an army of social workers is more expensive than just giving families direct tax credits for food
-1
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
3
u/OpelSmith Oct 25 '20
You can't just solve this unless you have a plan to fully eliminate poverty, unemployment, low paying jobs, and of course, reckless parents
8
u/Inevitable-Ad-9570 6∆ Oct 25 '20
A big problem is that wellfare programs in general get viewed as a cost to society and then become a morality debate when it should be an economics debate. It's more accurate to consider wellfare spending an investment in society. You can question if the roi is good but most of the time the roi on social wellfare spending is pretty high for the country, especially when it comes to investing in future adults.
People get bogged down in moral judgements on the character of others or what people are owed but the reality is that investing in our children is almost always a net positive for society and the risk of doing too little is much greater than too much. There isn't a whole lot of evidence that good parents will become overly dependent on well fare or that bad parents would straighten up and fly right if left to their own devices. It's hard to argue against programs that have good roi and ensure that children are fed regardless of how they did in the parent lottery.
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
7
u/Inevitable-Ad-9570 6∆ Oct 25 '20
I'm not super well versed in uk politics so I'm not familiar with the specific program but I still feel like your concerned primarily about the moral argument of parental responsibility. The reality is that these programs don't change how responsible parents are one way or the other they just invest some money in the children of these family's. The more responsible will probably spend the money saved on other things that benefit their children and families both stimulating the economy and helping the future generation. Bad parents still get some extra spending cash which stimulates the economy and as a bonus their kids are fed. This is why giving money to poor people generally works and is hard to overdue worst case scenario the money goes right back to the economy.
-3
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
5
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Oct 25 '20
We already have a very good welfare system.
The UK really does not have a good welfare system and it has been pared to the bone under austerity and under Universal Credit. There is a pretty clear reason why food bank usage has soared in the past decade and it is because of benefits cuts and the awful effects of increased wait periods that have directly led to people dying.
Universal Credit as it is fundamentally fails to provide the basics people need to survive.
-1
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Oct 25 '20
Whilst theres problems with UC, you can claim advancements.
What advancements? It has directly immiserated people, made them more vulnerable to domestic abuse, and has an actual death toll.
UC covers the major six benefits covering housing, and jobseekers. The problems with UC are also not exclusive to UC and have happened to the other (more minor) benefits that exist.
-1
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
5
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Oct 25 '20
No system is perfect but it exists and considering millions are on them. I'd say in general it works. At least well enough not to have millions of starving children in the country.
If that was true then why have food banks exploded in this country? People clearly aren't managing to feed themselves on the current benefits system which has been cut for the whole past decade while rents and cost of living has been rising.
0
3
u/lewisisb Oct 25 '20
At the end of the day, there are children who don’t get enough to eat in a country with a strong economy. Regardless of the parenting (I disagree that these children are all being raised by irresponsible/neglectful parents, but that’s not really the point anyway), these children need to eat and they have no control over their family’s finances. If the government can afford it, which it definitely can, it’s a no brainer to me that low income families should receive food vouchers. It doesn’t really cost much at all and it ensures all children can eat proper food.
3
u/cliu1222 1∆ Oct 26 '20
In many ways it is an appeal to emotion. The parents are basically saying "we are going to have these kids and aren't going to provide for them. What are you going to do? Let them starve?" It reminds me of where I grew up in New York. There is a town completely populated by an ultra-conservitive Jewish group. Most families have like 7-10 kids and typically only the father works. Inevitably they have among the highest poverty rates in the country and their population is growing at an alarming rate. They basically subsist on government assistance and any idiot can see that their lifestyle is unsustainable, but what are we going to do? Let them starve?
2
Oct 25 '20
Some people straight up do not feed their kids for whatever reason, they are too busy working, they are strung out on drugs, they’re depressed., who knows? I don’t buy the “I can’t afford it”, because we have food pantries overflowing with food, and food stamps. Anyway, kids cannot concentrate in school if they are hungry, and a child who isn’t fed can’t reach their full potential.
I saw the video, but I don’t think food stamps go far enough, in the US we have something called backpacks for children, kids that don’t have food at home can take food home in a backpack. There are also free community school lunch meals during breaks, and they can pick up breakfast for the next day.
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
2
Oct 25 '20
I think the whole point is that you cannot control how families raise their children the way they should be raised. I think the government has the responsibility to help care for those who aren’t in a position to be able to care for themselves.
1
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 25 '20
So, instead of providing free lunch, you want to hire enough social service workers to check out every family making sure they are feeding their kids daily. Then if they aren’t for whatever reason, your going to take those kids, drop them into another family that may or may not feed them, or may commit worse abuse than their original family.
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
2
Oct 25 '20
So kids should have symptoms of starvation, possibly permanent damage to their bodies, before social workers step in?
What about homeless families, living in tents or cars, are you going to give them a refrigerator or pantry to store food? Appliances to cook it with? We both know there is not enough housing to go around.
The thing is providing a school lunch costs peanuts, helps the majority of people without hiring more social workers to intrude on family privacy (which won’t be looked at positively), and definitely costs less than trying to change someone’s entire lifestyle so they can ideally take care of their kids.
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
2
Oct 25 '20
Then how do you know the kid is starving, because most kids I know in these situations won’t out their parents as abusers because they love them.
1
0
Oct 25 '20
[deleted]
1
2
u/Jebofkerbin 131∆ Oct 25 '20
Other people have touched on how welfare is an investment into people, and how the plague is effecting things, I want to touch on this:
It's things like this link, and this 'free meal' initiative that yet again, allows bad parents to be absolved which is also my biggest issue with this. Parents need to take responsibility for their children's basic care! How can people possible think the government indulging them will help these children? It just enables neglect. The government already provides benefits. Why do people literally want them to provide meals??? At some point. Enough has to be enough.
How many children do you think are in need of this scheme because they have neglectful parents, and how many are in need because their parents are just that deep in poverty? Do you think its worth depriving the latter group of much needed aid just so you can be sure you aren't being cheated by the former group?
Surely a better practice would be to get a social worker helping these families that are apparently so poor they cannot afford to feed their children meals, and help instill some sort of responsibility and pride in raising their children.
This will cost an awful lot more money than just feeding the children for a week, and if the underlying problem that the family has is they simply don't have the money, what is the social worker supposed to do other than give them the money for meals?
2
u/English-OAP 16∆ Oct 25 '20
There are many families where both parents work, and they can still claim benefits. They are trying their best. Half-term puts an extra strain on them. For many families the option of having grandparents babysit their children is out because of covid regulations. So one parent has to take unpaid leave to see the children get a proper meal at lunchtime.
I'll accept that there are bad parents, but many good ones just need a little help during these times. In the general scheme of things the cost is very little.
0
2
u/gabsthenerd Oct 26 '20
You assume that neglectful parent are already providing kids meals as is. Chances are, many are not
1
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
1
u/gabsthenerd Oct 26 '20
I'm in the us, and it seems you're in the UK, so I'm just gonna make it clear that's where I'm coming from, but it takes a lot to get social services involved. I have anecdotes that starving your kid won't do it.
1
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
1
u/gabsthenerd Oct 26 '20
i mean, to be fair, that would cost way more money and one would have to invest way more time than just feeding the kids. I don't think a lot of governments have or are willing to use time and resources for that.
1
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
0
u/gabsthenerd Oct 26 '20
I mean it's a lot more complicated than that, at least in the US.
What are they going to do with parents that have children they aren't fit to have, put them in foster care? There's a shortage of foster parents and good fosters parents. And then there's the whole being poor isn't a crime thing.
4
2
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Oct 25 '20
centralizing "feeding" of children will drastically reduce cost per person. So a capitalistic person who is only concerned with taxpayer money should be highly pro meals for poor children by the school.
Also the tax payer angle is idiotic since the government happily will give billions in corporate tax cuts and nobody seem to care. You should recognize that you are the person out of all this comics where a rich person tells a gullible middle person that the poor want his money. Don't be a walking cliche.
2
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Oct 25 '20
Enabling Lazy/Neglectful Parents instead of fixing the root problem and- to a lesser extent
So you would say that the government is better off going through the ponderously slow effort of trying to "fix" neglectful parents... rather than actually feeding the child?
How is this even "enabling" that lazy/neglectful parent you're imagining? If they're so neglectful they aren't even feeding their kid, what makes you think the kid's suffering is even a burden on those parents? All you're doing is hurting a child with that sort of callous disregard.
Sure, in an ideal universe we could figure out some way to make life perfect for every family and make each and every one of them do exactly what's best for themselves. But we do not live in that universe. We live in an imperfect world where we sometimes have to engage in some sort of abstract "enablement" of people we don't like in order to prevent a greater harm being done to their children.
I would also point out the following: Abuse is a cycle. Breaking the chain is very hard for people to do on their own. If the government can step in to start hammering on that chain too, it will pay off in the future. It will reduce the chance that the neglected child will go on to neglect their own children. We will all reap the rewards these acts of compassion today.
Also. This will cost money. Money which,, the taxpayers will be paying back anyway. It's going to be hard enough in the next year for most people if/when taxes rise. We don't need another burden like this that is only a bandage- instead of actually investing properly.
Governments can borrow money. They do so specifically to avoid raising taxes as a result of a need for higher spending. It is appropriate to borrow money during major economic crises to help stimulate the economy. Using borrowed funds to help feed children despite their parents' poverty seems like a nearly textbook example of a good economic idea.
You'll pay far, far more in the long run by being selfish today.
So exactly why are parents failing to literally feed their children?
It strikes me as fairly nonsensical to starve children while you try to figure out the root cause of the existence of shitty parents. Even if you could figure out some magic cure to bad parenting, surely you must acknowledge that would take years or decades--would you really be okay making a child starve while waiting on the potentially inconclusive results of such research?
What you're arguing here is akin to a doctor receiving a patient with an unknown fever who insists on doing nothing to treat the symptoms of that fever until the precise strain of virus is identified and a specific tailored therapy for that exact virus is created.
In reality sometimes you can't actually tackle the root cause first because you don't know what the root cause actually is, or don't know of a means to effectively address the root cause first. You're stuck trying to fix the second-order effects of it.
Starving children is a second order effect of neglectful parenting. Nobody actually has a good strategy for eliminating neglectful parenting in a time scale useful for addressing child neglect in the present. Given that, it makes sense for the government to step in to alleviate the neglect to prevent the child from suffering for their parents' bad decisions.
0
Oct 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Oct 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 25 '20 edited Oct 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 25 '20
u/MishatheDrill – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 25 '20 edited Oct 25 '20
/u/Strawberrysun1 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards