[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...it’s the children that ‘go without’, though....however people judge other parents and for whatever basis they feel they have...it’s the children who are being ‘punished’...

Yes and no... I think when children go without, it's often (tragically) inevitable... when things like this are taken away across the board, most parents will do whatever it takes to have it impact their kids the least, which means that they will siphon funds out of other things to keep their kids properly fed. And that's how people end up with unpaid bills and debt spirals, with the stress and anxiety of being chased by creditors for years, or eventual insolvency and everything that comes with that. The irony there of course is that that also actively damages the economy... FAR more than just helping people out in the first place.

I'll never forget what things were like for me in my mid-20's with a toddler and **** all money. She would never, ever have gone without but I can vividly feel that jolt of absolute panic that would come with an "unexpected bill" because other finances were so close to the wire. Or the feeling of walking 2 miles to the shop in shoes with holes in them so that she could have decent clothes and a decent buggy etc.

Life now is an absolute world away from that, our household income has literally quadrupled, but it's not that long ago... just 10 years or so.

So yeah off on a slight tangent - just saying, I guess, that a lot of parents absolutely will trim something away from themselves to shield their children, and taking away small things like this, even in cases where it doesn't seem to have a huge impact on the kids themselves, means they'll have to find some more, somewhere, to skim from their own outgoings in order to not impact their kids. A truly horrible situation to be in.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes and no... I think when children go without, it's often (tragically) inevitable... when things like this are taken away across the board, most parents will do whatever it takes to have it impact their kids the least, which means that they will siphon funds out of other things to keep their kids properly fed. And that's how people end up with unpaid bills and debt spirals, with the stress and anxiety of being chased by creditors for years, or eventual insolvency and everything that comes with that. The irony there of course is that that also actively damages the economy... FAR more than just helping people out in the first place.

I'll never forget what things were like for me in my mid-20's with a toddler and **** all money. She would never, ever have gone without but I can vividly feel that jolt of absolute panic that would come with an "unexpected bill" because other finances were so close to the wire. Or the feeling of walking 2 miles to the shop in shoes with holes in them so that she could have decent clothes and a decent buggy etc.

Life now is an absolute world away from that, our household income has literally quadrupled, but it's not that long ago... just 10 years or so.

So yeah off on a slight tangent - just saying, I guess, that a lot of parents absolutely will trim something away from themselves to shield their children, and taking away small things like this, even in cases where it doesn't seem to have a huge impact on the kids themselves, means they'll have to find some more, somewhere, to skim from their own outgoings in order to not impact their kids. A truly horrible situation to be in.

...I meant in terms specifically related to judging parents of not spending the allowance on food, TS...if and when that judgement is made ...that a family funding wouldn’t be spent on food ...?....it’s the child(ren) who will lose out...so effectively they’re the ones being judged...