We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Public Sector workers laughing all the way to the bank

1111214161725

Comments

  • LizEstelle
    LizEstelle Posts: 1,559 Forumite
    This is just another thread from the people who brought you 'all teachers are scroungers' and 'social workers eat babies'.

    The SunMailite tendency at play...
  • Donald Troll is very droll.
    He likes to start a fight
    So people get mad
    call each other bad
    and he sniggers on into the night.
    My favourite subliminal message is;
  • macaque wrote: »
    Social services employ huge resources to rescue a small number of cute children from outrageous abuse and cruelty. They don't have so much time for the armies of less cute teenagers who end up unemployable, chronic alcoholics, drug takers, thieves or mentally ill by the age of 20. The older human wrecks who spend their lives going in and out of prison score even less on the cuteness scale and get almost nothing. As for old people, well they are just not cute at all and they can have have a helper for 17 minutes a week.

    We all know the formulae for reducing childhood misery: stable marriages, close links with grand parents, stable jobs, good teachers and well brought up parents. So why do government policies systematically undermine these values. Part of the problem is that the state has convinced itself that it is better qualified at bringing up children than parents.

    The child services director of a local council can earn up to £200,000. There are much better ways of using this money to reduce the sum of childrens' misery. My first option would be to take money off local councils and give it to schools.

    It isnt the responsibility of schools to raise children. Personally I think if you cant look after your kids then your kids should be taken into care - and we should put a lot more resources into providing state care, and early intervention into problem families like parenting centres - which have proved to be very effective but under resourced.

    Single parent families are an emotive issue - many are fine but we cant ignore the fact that a lot of single mums got pregnant so they could get a council flat and move out of home. Fine, we need children, all countries do - but if the taxpayer is paying you to raise your child then the taxpayer has a right to see that you do it properly and well.
  • treliac
    treliac Posts: 4,524 Forumite
    So we pay them to have kids and then we take the kids away. Something doesn't seem quite right here.

    Perhaps we should start again from the beginning.

    It isn't the responsibility of schools to raise children but what choice is there if they arrive unable to use a toilet, socialise with other children or eat at a table with a knife and fork?
  • ruggedtoast
    ruggedtoast Posts: 9,819 Forumite
    edited 16 November 2009 at 1:21AM
    treliac wrote: »
    So we pay them to have kids and then we take the kids away. Something doesn't seem quite right here.

    Perhaps we should start again from the beginning.

    It isn't the responsibility of schools to raise children but what choice is there if they arrive unable to use a toilet, socialise with other children or eat at a table with a knife and fork?

    Because those are all massive, glaring signs that that child is being neglected.

    It is possible to be a parent on benefits and be a good parent. Unfortunately some poor people in the UK see having children as a financial choice. This isnt unusual as poor people all over the world share this view.

    However, whereas a poor parent from Asia will want to have a dozen kids and educate them all as much as possible so that they can provide for them in old age, their British counterpart may be mire likely to see them as an extra sum added onto their giro and a step up the housing priority list.

    This cycle of benefits dependency has to stop.

    Edit : if people have a right to have children, and guaranteeing housing and money to parents is basically saying they do (which I agree with) then they must take on the responsibility for raising them.
  • treliac
    treliac Posts: 4,524 Forumite
    edited 16 November 2009 at 1:26AM
    I know what you're saying rt. Unfortunately, there won't be enough quality foster or adoptive homes to look after all the children who would qualify under these criteria. And that's leaving aside the massive misery to children born into these circumstances plus the human cost they will pass onto the next generation.

    As an approach it's the wrong way round. The carrot and stick need to be applied before this cycle begins.

    .
  • Andy_L
    Andy_L Posts: 13,075 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    macaque wrote: »
    I agree that lots of single parents do a fantastic job. If however, you take 1000 single parents and 1000 married couples, the children from the married parents will, as a group, do better in lots of ways. That is just a fact.

    You appear to have missed out the 1000 couples who aren't married :rolleyes: & how many of those 1000 single parents used to be married?
  • treliac wrote: »
    I know what you're saying rt. Unfortunately, there won't be enough quality foster or adoptive homes to look after all the children who would qualify under these criteria. And that's leaving aside the massive misery to children born into these circumstances plus the human cost they will pass onto the next generation.

    As an approach it's the wrong way round. The carrot and stick need to be applied before this cycle begins.

    .

    I envisage large 'super orphanages' staffed by unemployed bankers.

    And as soon as the kids go the benefits go - no KFC bucket and 20 Rothmans for you - get a job!
  • SGE1 wrote: »
    Do you understand how the pensions system works?

    If so, I assume you're therefore happy for other younger workers not to contribute to your pension when you retire.

    You sound old and bitter with jealousy, I'd take a bet that I'm considerably younger than you. The idea that I'll have to pay towards your pension doesn't fill me with glee. Maybe we could make a deal?

    I think you've got the totally wrong end of the stick.
    In the private sector NOBODY else contributes to your work pension.

    So yes, I understand how pensions work and you obviously have no clue how much public sector pensions are going to cost.
    You sound old and bitter with jealousy, I'd take a bet that I'm considerably younger than you. The idea that I'll have to pay towards your pension doesn't fill me with glee.

    I think you'll find that is all in your head. :rolleyes:
    I sound old!!! I'm not.
    I'm not jealous. I want people to stop living off my back. How is that jealousy?
    As for having a poor pension. Not me! But i have paid for it of my own back. Big difference....
  • donaldtramp
    donaldtramp Posts: 761 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 16 November 2009 at 6:21PM
    Graham
    As I have always said in these types of threads. The pension is the single benefit public sector workers have overall.

    There are no bonuses, for a large majority there are no christmas holidays, there are no company cars for the major majority, there are no expenses for the majority.

    People need to weigh up the pro's and con's of each sector. I agree that the pension is not currently sustainable. But to strip it down and retrospectively change things for these people, when we are spending billions rescueing the private sector, I don't think is all that fair.

    What a nonsense. The majority of private sector workers have no company car or expenses. A ridiculous generalisation of private sector benefits.
    Trust me the pension outweighs ALL of those.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.