MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

MissMoneypenny

clemmatis wrote: »

And I think you don't understand that the argument is not that all people born poor stay poor, but rather that they are far more likely to remain poor than those born rich are likely to become poor.

Have you got children? If you have, please don't bring them up believing that.

I read a joke once about what people in different countries believed; it was quite funny, but guess what it was for the UK?........that they believed that being born poor meant they would stay poor. I could have (perhaps) understood that if 3rd world citizens believed that, but the UK is a first world country and every child gets free schooling. Unfortuantely, the children don't all have the same type of encouraging parents.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

So, you are not highly educated at all, but are a post graduate.

No, I'm not a post graduate, I'm a graduate.:D

(And I don't rise to the bait offered by fools.)

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

No, I'm not a post graduate, I'm a graduate.:D

(And I don't rise to the bait offered by fools.)

You claimed to have postgraduate qualifications, which would make you a postgraduate, not a graduate.

Dunroamin wrote: »

I have...two post graduate professional qualifications...

Or do you mean two professional qualifications you studied after graduating, but do not confer academic, postgraduate status?

FBaby

Morlock, no offense but I'll pass your offer, it's bad enough having being at the end of your attacks in English, I'll spare it in my lovely language!

I hold a Masters' degree, but certainly don't think of myself more intelligent or educated than those who don't. I do agree that it is mainly a passport to a better looking CV. It did teach me though some valuable skills that I believe has helped me in my career. Of course it very much depends on what you are studying.

I've been raised by a mother educated to Master's level from a prestigious establishment and a father without any 'a' levels, but who succeeded well in his career. My partner 'only' holds 'a' levels but has also done well in his career and earns more than I. Both my children are very academic, both considered talented and gifted, I am therefore encouraging them to go the higher education route, but I certainly wouldn't think it is the only way to become successful.

mrs_motivated

There does seem to be an awful lot of bickering about what is considered intelligence and how important educational achievement is!

I think it's all relative. Many graduates, I would not employ as they have little or no common sense and often little real life experience (much to reliant on text book theory). Some, however, are fantastic at their job. I only emply about 12 staff and the graduates / non graduate split is about even. They are all intelligent people and good at their jobs and more importantly they all possess common sense.

Each and everyone of them would be chuckling in a slightly horrified way at some of these posts by apparently bright people :eek:

. . . . . And we wonder why the country is f***ed :cool:

Morlock

krisskross wrote: »

This country needs to have a stronger welfare system in which a person has a certain amount of welfare support dependent on what they have paid in to the UK....

Perhaps you could explain how that system would work?

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Have you got children? If you have, please don't bring them up believing that.

I read a joke once about what people in different countries believed; it was quite funny, but guess what it was for the UK?........that they believed that being born poor meant they would stay poor.

That isn't what I said.

As for children

1. I have none.

2. In my childbearing/rearing years, I wasn't poor. My children would not have been poor.

3. I would have told my children the truth.

I could have (perhaps) understood that if 3rd world citizens believed that, but the UK is a first world country and every child gets free schooling. Unfortuantely, the children don't all have the same type of encouraging parents.

Look. I'm sorry you don't believe the well known facts I cited, but they are true. I'm sorry you don't understand that I wasn't saying everyone poor will remain poor, but, I wasn't saying that. And moreover, you just quoted my not saying it.

krisskross

Morlock wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain how that system would work?

No idea, but then I am not well educated enough to understand all this grown up stuff:rotfl: Higher Diploma is the most I can manage, bit pathetic for the erudite company I find myself in here.

I do however believe that those who have paid in the most should receive the most if they need to claim support payments. We used to have a system like this many years ago I seem to remember. It cannot be just or fair that someone can work and pay all the dues expected of them for decades but still only get the same amount as a career claimant who has never worked or has worked just token amounts.

How can it be an Insurance system if loads of people never pay any premiums but get the same benefits as those who do?

seven-day-weekend

krisskross wrote: »

No idea, but then I am not well educated enough to understand all this grown up stuff:rotfl: Higher Diploma is the most I can manage, bit pathetic for the erudite company I find myself in here.

I do however believe that those who have paid in the most should receive the most if they need to claim support payments. We used to have a system like this many years ago I seem to remember. It cannot be just that someone can work and pay all the dues expected of them for decades but still only get the same amount as a career claimant who has never worked or has worked just token amounts.

How can it be an Insurance system if loads of people never pay any premiums but get the same benefits as those who do?

I agree with you to a large extent krisskross. However I think exceptions should be made in cases of people who have been unable to pay in through disability or other circumstances totally beyond their control. I agree people who have not paid in because they have just not bothered should get less than those who have.

I am a bit miffed that in the new flat rate State Pensions, someone who has paid nothing because they are career claimants will get £140 a week, whereas I who have paid in my required 39 years will be stuck on my £115 a week. And what about people whose SERPS/S2P already bring them above £140 a week? Will they lose it and get the same as someone who has paid in nothing?

(ETA: as we appear to be giving our academic qualifications, I have a BA degree and a postgraduate professional qualification. My husband has a First Class Honours BA and a Postgraduate Certificate in Education ).

Morlock

krisskross wrote: »

No idea, but then I am not well educated enough to understand all this grown up stuff:rotfl: Higher Diploma is the most I can manage, bit pathetic for the erudite company I find myself in here.

Don't knock it, you are nearly highly educated, just a BA in Basket Weaving is needed and you'll be up there with the rest.

krisskross wrote: »

How can it be an Insurance system if loads of people never pay any premiums but get the same benefits as those who do?

Out of work benefits do have advantages for a claimant who has worked recently. The benefits are contribution-based and conditionality is not as stringent as a long-term claimant.