To think we can feel for poor people without bashing on those who have more ?

[bereal7]

I've just been reading a thread where the OP is going through a very hard time and everyone, ofcourse, sympathises. Then , like is usual, someone brings up the fact that CEOs are earning millions plus and we should be angry about this. This isn't a TAAT; it happens too many times where people divert the thread to attacking people who are earning more than average (I.e lawyers, bankers, CEOs etc). I just think this doesn't help the OP , or anyone for that matter, and just contributes to a divide amongst the well - paid and average/below - average earners. So AIBU to think we can all (or most) feel sympathy for poor people whilst celebrating other people's success?

Inim, I dont know your financial situation so I cant comment. I never said anything about 'deserving' children. I just think you should be able to afford them before you have them. If hard times fall after children arrive then of course there should be a safety net to help. But to apply that safety net when you're doing calculations before having a baby? No, sorry. Not clever.

Most people in this country are not net contributors. Most people are not self sufficient. If your social plan involves most people not having children, I don't think it's very realistic or desirable. When most people living in a society cannot participate in the basics of life, they don't have a stake in the ongoing functioning of the social system.

Pragmatically, nobody wants 60% of the population with nothing to lose.

IAmACat no one has to have a baby. Not in mainland UK anyway. There are choices.

So you would be happy with 65% of families not having children and the remaining better off 35% waiting until they were 40?

I don't have any problem at all with people who earn loads. What I don't like is the way this government is treating the poor and the undeserving poor rhetoric. But that is not the fault of high earners. Most of my friends are higher rate tax payers and a good proportion of them have socialist ideals.

^Top earners don't work hundreds of times harder, they just get themselves in positions where they are able to profit from the efforts of those below them.

The are talented in the art of diverting money into their own pockets ^

Its not about just working hard, its about working smart, most of the high earning folk I know worked their socks off academically, went to a top uni with a certain professional career path in mind, got a good degree, joined a reputable firm and put the further long hours in to get various charterships and in some cases went on to get post graduate qualifications. They did not trample on anyone on their way to success, they are not horrible people, more oftenthan not they sacrificed other life opportunities to get to where they are now, and you know what, fair play to them, they deserve the trappings of their success.

And, no their success did not involve going to a 'posh' school, or having daddy pull a few favours, they are working class folk who wanted to better themselves

You think individual success has to by default be at the expensive of those less well off. A simplistic but false dichotomy

Micro how many families in that 65% are only entitled CB? Because a family could be earning up to 80k a year and still be entitled to that - but not relying on ctc/etc? Or does that 65% also include any benefits that aren't means tested? I need the full facts before giving an informed opinion...

Why is it ok to claim cb? It is still a benefit.

Quite Pan. My dh was born to a work class couple. He went to state school and then did day release to get his degree. He thought about what he wanted to do and what the prospects were. He's just smart, not bloody privileged.

Batman so if someone accidentally gets pregnant, you think their choice should be abortion or starve?

Some people don't want an abortion for various ethical reasons, that doesn't mean their child should have no support

micro are you being deliberately obtuse?

No not at all. I receive £200 in cb a month.

I have also always worked full time as has dh and we have claimed tax credits.

yes Batman, we are all dim and you know best
thats why you deserve every penny and we deserve to be poor...right?

You asked me my opinion based on a figure I know nothing about. I asked to see a break down of the figures because that could change my opinion. I didn't ask what you were entitled to.

Frankly, Batman, your policy is: to have a revolution. Maybe I should support it too!

It's an unrealistic ideology to say that people should just not have babies. I mean, what's in it for them? And if most people in one of the richest countries in the world are immoral for wanting a baby, then what must you think about everyone else?

There are more of us than there are of you. Think carefully. Review history.

But the answer to the OP question is as ever, it's about inequality. The 8k handbag woman is criticised for wanting a handbag; the poor woman is criticised for wanting a baby. These things are not equal.

Well our family does a lot more hours than your family as do many others but in your mind none of those families should have children?

Suzanne, as long as you believe that all high earners went to private school and threw caviar at poor people, you're really not worth talking to. It's pointless. Bye.

You are talking of your dh not yourself batman

IAmACat no one has to have a baby. Not in mainland UK anyway. There are choices.

Seriously? I didn't get pregnant on purpose, bit I certainly wasn't going to have an abortion just to avoid tax credits. I guess their should have been some kind of financial assessment where they declared me as scum and ordered an abortion. Or we you know, starved to death. Great choices , there.

Again, micro, what are you on? I'm not arguing about who does more hours. I was pointing out to some other dimwit suzanne on here that a high earners working day doesn't mean they are given a job, swan in at lunch, expense it then go play golf with their Eton chums all afternoon.

MY POINT AND OPINION IS, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN IF YOU'RE BUDGETING ON THE PUBLIC PURSE FUNDING YOUR LIFESTYLE CHOICES. AND DIRECTING YOUR ANGER AT HIGH EARNERS RATHER THAN THE POLICY MAKERS THAT ALLOW COMPANIES TO PAY LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE IS NOT ONLY POINTLESS BUT ALSO VERY ILL WILLED.

You want basic communism? Have a look at that history. Enjoy.

Why is it not clever? Tax credits provide a livable wage for working people. They are there because the government has had no balls to challenge the corporations on the pathetic wages they offer people who work hard. Tax credits are the government recognising that these workers deserve this wage for their contribution.

The fact is that due to wages not rising with inflation, the average full time salary cannot support a family and the government has provided a (however flawed) system of almost making up the shortfall. I think it's an incredibly ignorant attitude to think that people should wait to meet targets that may not be possible in their lifetime. I know many amazing parents who just scrape by with the help of tax credits. Their children are wonderful and have no idea about any financial problems. Suggesting that they shouldn't of had those children is at best short sighted, and at worst pretty vile.

Neither being poor nor being rich gives you the moral high ground. I'm sure that there are plenty of rich people who completely deserve their success. But it is asking a bit much for those who work equally hard and are poor to look upon them as though they are somehow more worthy of admiration. The current width between rich and poor is what is so demoralising.

Ah, 'vile'. My mumsnet bingo bullshit card is complete. I'm off to get my pedicure. Cheers!

The CEO's are the bastarding people not paying the proper wages and the people that have more influence than they should over an increasingly right wing government. so they actually are more or less the correct people to aim your anger at.