to get hacked off at journalists moaning about how oh so hard it is to afford school fees

[emkana]

like in the Daily Telegraph for example today

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AFH51SI3AUOK5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/education/ 2008/01/30/faclass130.xml&page=2

Well, if you're a SAHM, you're also a glorified prostitute, although it may be that your well-roundedness qualifies you for courtesan status.

I absolutely love that line

And yet and yet

Also I keep chickens. That has to be one of the compensations for being only a notch above a glorified prostitute- free eggs!

(and yes, Q, I am fully aware of what the word "free" means- it means I finance the eggs we eat from the ones I sell at the bottom of the garden, and at my husband's place of terrible employ...simple market economics- that really are simple, although I myself am not immune to larger market forces; I mean the cost of organic chicken feed is just diabolical this year)

But I digress. I must always remember that I am a very small notch above a tart.

duchesse, re husband not seduced by private sector gold doesn't one just think - more fool him?

As for whether we would want a child as prime minister - that is a rare public sector job where you make decent money (some of them, not all) when you leave but I wouldn't put it at the top of earnings by any means.

Yes, lots of people are employed in the public sector. Far too many. It needs to be hugely cut back.

duchesse - no, one doesn't think more fool him because not everyone in the world is solely motivated by money!
I know - at least I think I know - that you pretend to be this narrow minded and simplistic about very complex things to make a point.
otherwise you are not a very good advert for a private education

harpsi, I think you meant Xenia there, not duchesse

I have just read the first four pages of this thread and it seems everyone hates and resents anyone who has more money than they do.

oh yes sorry
i am not a good advert for a state education either

Xenia, you insufferable old Tory! Should we bring back hanging for all those common criminals and cut back social welfare for all those 'scroungers', too?

I don't think poeple hate those richer. What they do dislike it those with more money thinking they are better, or complaining that its so hard dealing with the nanny/butler/private school etc as if that sort of hardship was actually hard and cold be compared to not being able to afford food or only being able to heat one room because of lack of money.
And then, the rich claiming that with a bit of gumption, everyone can be wealthy and theur kids in a private school. Thats incredibly insulting to those who work extremely hard in low paid jobs and still can't afford those perks. Or those with a PhD but can't get a job because they have cerebral palsy and most employers are bigots, or those who had to give up work to care for a disabled family member.
I have some lovely friends with no money worries but also know some complete nobs who think its ok to complain to me about how tough life is packing for the 4th family holiday of the year and gosh, the nanny can't come, when I haven't been on holiday for 7 years and never even get a nights break from 24 hour caring.

Actually I said give everyone whether they work or not £200 a week and abolish all social welfare which is a cleverer way to do it whilst preserving the welfare state.

I suppose everyone whether in a mud hut in Keyna or on state benefits in Liverpool or "struggling" middle class in some leafy suburb only has their own circumstances to look at and when things get hard for them try as hard as some people do to think of those less fortunate with dying spouses and children etc. it isn't always easy to remember how lucky we all are. So they complain about whatever situation they are in as I'm sure I do from time to time too.

I do think some people could earn more, take second jobs, think laterally, move and do various things to better their situation but they choose not to. I accept others cannot easily do so because of their situation.

I do think the career choices our children make in their teens and 20s will determine what income bracket they will be in when older and that that has a huge impact on their future life so is not a decision to be taken lightly and parents can guide them in that.

'don't think poeple hate those richer. What they do dislike it those with more money thinking they are better'

Totally agree. What the fuck does money say about you when it comes down to it? I know loads of total wankers who earn big salaries. Or rather are paid big salaries, I think earn is perhaps misleading. It doesnt make them interesting, intelligent people, and it doesnt mean they have warm and vibrant relationships with their partners and children.

Some of the people referred to in the OP artice sound like a load of twonks who need to wake up and join the real world!

200 quid a week wouldn't cover my daughters care costs when she reaches 18. try 2000 quid.

You might need to make some exceptions or set up appropriate free residential units. But most people are not in that position.
Or we could make adults responsible for their children and children for their parents. We have a huge old person time bomb at the moment on how we are going to pay for and care for the elderly. One solution many countries adopt is that the family provides for that.

probably wouldn't cover them now what with equipment, therapies, hospital admissions, SN education, drugs and respite.
Plus having to heat one room cos quadraplegics can't keep warm.

in the countries without welfare old poeple and the disabled can stave to death. We don't earn enough in a month to cover one of dd's weekly costs. And once she is 18 she's an adult, shouldn't be dependant on her parents. Either she gets a job or doesn't.
Disabled poeple want independant living too, not 'residential units'

A decent society should take care of its elderly, its sick and disabled. Thats what the welfare state is for. None of us know what might happen next.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't but even the welfare state is rationed and has limits. That will always be the case.

I dislike the implication given off by some that because they earn xxx times more than others, they must be morally superior, and be doing things right, whilst others could just get orf their arses and earn xxx amount of pounds too.

Just think, if everyone did it, those who are feeling so smug about how well they've done, entirely from their own work (glossing over the poorly paid nanny, cleaner, secretary etc who enable them to do these things) now would not be rich any more... Those people are only rich because they are considerably richer than others, and because they assess their status through their pay slip, which means that in order to prove and keep proving themselves, they have to earn more and more all the time.

They say place yourself amongst others who are doing a bit worse than you and you feel happy. Go and live with people earning much more and you won't be, surveys have shown. I am very poor compared to lots of others. It's all relative.

Those who generate wealth tend to benefit those around them too although I expect there are a few doubters of trickledown effect on here. Just look at this next recession if we get one - all those richer people paying nannies, child minders, hair dressers will be cutting back on the most dispensable of things first and those who live off the back of those people will also be affected.

Well, not everyone in the telegraph agrees with the article in the OP, which is nice to see:

Sam Leith's comment piece

where does this myth come from that those on benefits have designer clothes and plasma TV's?
All my friends are now stuck on benefits because they had a disabled child (either hubby has to give up work to help or hubby has buggered off). Not a plasma screen between them. Most only have a car cos of the motability scheme and all of us wear old clothes and fret how to keep the house warm cos a quadrplegic needs warmth but only old poeple, even rich ones, get a winter heating allowance.
Only people I know with nice clothes or big TV's are those in work.

Ye, Sam Leith speaks the truth..
"
This week I read about a couple whose joint income was well in excess of £80,000, putting them in the top five per cent of household incomes. But, they said, they don't "feel rich" - life seems to be an endless struggle to make ends meet. If you are in the top five per cent of the nation's richest people "on paper - but you don't feel rich", imagine what the people in the bottom five per cent are feeling.

I subscribe to the straightforward view that, in general, wealthy people are better off than poor people. Debt is more expensive for poor people; everything is more expensive for poor people. Even moderately wealthy people are living unimaginably better lives than almost anyone else in human history. So let's stop all this self-pitying nonsense and do what the coping classes are supposed to do: cope."

Xenia...I take it on a joint income of more than £80,000 that this couple worked in the private sector???

No idea. Were they the couple who got the fees together with lodgers and the wife worked in Tesco and they'd moved to Cumbria for a new life but foot and mouth put paid to the petting zoo?

Joint incomes of £80k are achievable in the public sector. 3% of GPs earn over £200k now apparently and you might get a teacher and deputy head may be together on £80K? In fact it's a rather public sector kind of figure for two full time workers.

2x £40,000 is very much at the upper end of the scale for Devon wages though. I doubt teachers even earn as much in other parts of the country. The county is aging and skint.

I know people with MAs working for £12,000 a year in office jobs. There is a real pay gap between here and elsewhere, and between average wages and average house price. Luckily we mostly have fairly cheap lifestyles and can nip down to the seaside or Dartmoor at 10 minutes notice.