posted
There's a fairly interesting article on t'BBC site which points out that 56% of those living in poverty in this country are actually homeowners.
In the dreaded Have Your Say section below the article, a chap identified as "Piers, Surrey" says what a lot of people are surely thinking:
quote:This definition of poverty devalues the concept and draws attention from genuine suffering. Somebody who owns a home will almost certainly have equity which they can cash in at any point. They may have overstretched themselves, but this is poor financial planning and not in any meaningful sense poverty.
...and in response, "Paul, Worthing" says:
quote:The points that Piers, hasn't taken into account are twofold: firstly, having equity in a property is not like having a piggy bank, to be raided at will; in order to release equity you either have to sell the property, or remortgage it. The former is no good if you cannot then get anywhere else to live (housing authorities will not re-house those deemed to have made themselves homeless voluntarily, and in some circumstances include in that category people whose properties have been repossessed), and the latter is only an option if a mortgage lender is prepared to advance you the money, at a monthly repayment you can afford; secondly, that an unforeseen and catastrophic change in personal circumstances (which can happen to any one of us, irrespective of how well-insured we are) is not "poor financial planning". Most of the hardship described on this page has resulted from unforeseen changes in circumstances, such as ill-health; not everyone has the luxury of paid sick leave, and income protection insurance is often prohibitively expensive.
Probably fair points from both contributors, I guess, but what do people here think? At what point is it right to consider someone as genuinely "living in poverty", as opposed to having done some "poor financial planning".
Patched Footwear
We completely overstretched ourselves to buy our house at the beginning of last year, although we knew what we were doing - deliberately buying the most expensive house we could possibly afford in the hope of keeping up with London prices for when we move back. In typical fashion, the day after we moved in property prices started to fall for the first time in 15 years or something. The value of our house has probably gone up a little bit since we moved there, but nothing like what we'd hoped, and there's thousands of properties on the market now and few buyers.
All that means that if we get in a spot of financial bother, like if my contract doesn't get renewed and it takes ages to find another job, then we'll be in genuine trouble. As it goes, even now we are wearing down our saving each month, never quite bringing in enough to cover all the bills. I stopped paying into my pension recently in an attempt to balance the books better.
The stupid thing is that if we did sell up we'd have enough money to buy a house outright in somewhere like Birmingham or Sunderland or something (er, that's a complete guess, but I think those are cheap areas?) But that would be the start of one of those slippery slope things you hear about. It would mean living in an area with, almost certainly, lower education standards and all the other things which Daily Mail readers are terrified of. Property prices are so much lower in those places simply because opportunities to make a good living are so much lower too. And once you're in there, it's not going to be easy to get out again.
Should more support be somehow given to the kind of people who take the risks and make the sacrifices to do the best for their families and then get into trouble, or is it tough shit, and you aint actually poor till you're living ten people in one room down by the docks and selling your old clothes at the local car boot sale?
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
Poverty is about lack of choice, surely? Unpalatable as it might be, a homeowner, if hard-up, has the option to sell their home and realise some money.
posted
That article seems a bit woolly - stating that poverty is defined as people earning 60% less than the average income is all very well, but then it seems to suggest that first time homeowners are stretched by their mortgage payments which leave them with little disposable income. Surely this has nothing to do with what they earn?
Also, this made me laff...
quote: Many can't afford what many people consider to be essentials such as a second pair of shoes.
Up until April this year both my pairs of shoes were way fucked. My DMs were literally falling apart and had been for some time. I maintained I "couldn't afford" to replace them (money better spent on booze; computer games).I only really replaced them because Octavia begged me to. If it wasn't for her I reckon I'd still be wearing (what was left) of them. I don't think I considered myself impoverished. I also don't really think two pairs of shoes is really 'essential'. One pair is enough. I dunno. Not being able to afford a meal is poverty; not being able to afford a second pair of shoes is just... I dunno. Annoying.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Poverty is about lack of choice, surely? Unpalatable as it might be, a homeowner, if hard-up, has the option to sell their home and realise some money.
But it's an option which will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. You sell your house and have, say, 30 grand in equity. What do you do then? Start renting somewhere? That will cost more than the mortgage payments on an equivalent size place, and you'll never see the rent money again. You won't get benefit payments for your rent because you've got a stack of cash in your bank account.
If you've scrimped and saved for years to buy your own place then how does it help anyone to just sell up and throw it all away? I'm not suggesting that someone with a thousand pound a month mortgage payment and council taxes to go with it should just get that all paid by the DSS (or whatever they're called this week), but people who have bought a little council house or a weeny first-time buyer's flat shouldn't be abandoned when they are obviously the types that are doing their best to improve their lot on their own and not to scrounge off the state.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: you'll never see the rent money again.
Well, durrr. That's renting for you.
No matter how hard the choices. No matter how 'unfair', you can't be considered poor if you own (or part-own) a property worth tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Sometimes things go wrong. Your investment may go down as well as up.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That article seems a bit woolly - stating that poverty is defined as people earning 60% less than the average income is all very well, but then it seems to suggest that first time homeowners are stretched by their mortgage payments which leave them with little disposable income. Surely this has nothing to do with what they earn?
Also, mortgage interest rates are incredibly low at the moment, but people are having to borrow huge amounts just to get started with their own property. If interest rates rise to the sort of level we had to live with in the 80s and much of the 90s then there will be instant mass poverty in this country. There will be no one to buy houses except at a huge loss to the seller, and that will impact on everyone up the line, even people who have practically no mortgage left to pay off.
But, yes, I do agree that the actual level of one's income does not necessarily relate to how much one has to spare, if that's what you were saying? I also think that's largely the point of the article, that "Homeowner" = "Ooh, get him with his buckets of wedge, he's bought his own house while I'm living in a council flat", when if fact it just means the homeowner is spending the same money in a different way - no fly-away holidays or designer clothes or meals out, y'know, that sort of thing.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
Yah, I was just about to say that BM. Deciding to own, rather than rent, a property is really just about greed. We want a long-term investment we can sell to pay for our retirement, or whatever. If that investment then becomes too expensive to maintain, just as if it were a shares portfolio or something, it's just tough titties.
Posts: 4537
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: you'll never see the rent money again.
Well, durrr. That's renting for you.
Yes, that'll be why I said it then, won't it.
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Sometimes things go wrong. Your investment may go down as well as up.
While someone living on benefits never makes an investment, never takes a risk to improve the future chances of their family, and still gets looked after at all times?
Where's the justice in that?
A homeowner is not entitled to housing benefit, even if it would be cheaper for the state to cover the mortgage payments for the period of claiming than to pay for a council tennant's flat.
This is the catch within our society, that there is always a requirement for one section of society to pay out at all times and never ever be paid back in order to support another section of society which receives at all times and never ever pays out.
I think we all understand that, but why is it also the case that the ones paying out are also the most sneered at and disrespected!?
posted
I don't really know about all this grown up stuff. The more I hear about it, the scarier it sounds, to be honest.
Just looking at your reasons for knowingly getting yourself into your present situation, Dang: "deliberately buying the most expensive house we could possibly afford in the hope of keeping up with London prices for when we move back". Essentially, you took a gamble on the future state of the market. If the gamble doesn't quite pay off, well, you have to live with it, don't you?
I'm not really sure how much of a priority helping such families out should be. I'm getting the impression from some posts that as a homeowner you've reached some kind of mythic status, and to go back to renting or buy somewhere smaller is a slip back down into peasant status and inevitable degradation. Is it really that important to have a mortgage?
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by herbs: Yah, I was just about to say that BM. Deciding to own, rather than rent, a property is really just about greed.
It is cheaper to make mortgage payments on a property than to make rental payments on the same property. A mortgage is quite likely to be the only rational way to afford a place to live for many people. And you're not just handing your cash over to some slum landlord, never to be seen again.
It's just common sense to buy a property, which is why so many people strive to do so. I'm sure greed enters into it in some cases, but honestly, that can't be the case for most people can it? It's just part of life and living, not greed!
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
It's a gamble, dude. If things work out, which they do the majority of the time, the homeowner will do very well for themselves. Roof over the head, bought and paid for, retirement nest-egg, blah-blah-blah. Sometimes you don't win. It's gambling. You can't expect the government to bankroll you if you're speculating to make money. Even if the fundamental reason for buying a property is to put a roof over your head you can't escape the fact that your participating in a speculative financial venture, that's why benefits won't (and shouldn't) cover your IOUs.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Just looking at your reasons for knowingly getting yourself into your present situation, Dang: "deliberately buying the most expensive house we could possibly afford in the hope of keeping up with London prices for when we move back". Essentially, you took a gamble on the future state of the market. If the gamble doesn't quite pay off, well, you have to live with it, don't you?
Difficult one, see. If I'd stayed renting a bedsit in Exeter and was on the income I'm on now then I could be eating out every night in the kind of places Black Mask tells us about and going on the sort of round the World tours that Vikram updates us on occasionally, but I've spent my money on buying a nice house, and that hasn't left me with any spare cash. My choice, and I can sell up if I want and I'll have that money back in my pocket again.
Thing is, it is the family home for two adults and four children. Children that are settled into local schools and working hard to become honest tax payers themselves, no doubt.
How does it benefit society to just ignore a family like ours if we hit the same sort of problems that any other family could hit at any time? Why say, "Yeah, just flog your house and move somewhere cheap. Off you go then."? This just cuts off a stream of tax coming in to the government as soon as I get a new job or recover from illness or whatever.
As I say, I do understand that this is tough shit and it's how things work, but I don't understand why it's imposed with such a gleeful sneer from the rest of the population when it's the people that have taken the risks to get better pay and larger houses that clearly pay for so much of the upkeep of the country.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Sometimes you don't win. It's gambling. You can't expect the government to bankroll you if you're speculating to make money.
But I can expect the government to help themselves to the profits when the gamble works out, and to not pay me a state pension because I've got a nest-egg because I took risks when I was younger. Yes, that all makes perfect sense.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
Louche
Carved TMO on her clit just to make you feel bad
posted
quote:Originally posted by dang65: As I say, I do understand that this is tough shit and it's how things work, but I don't understand why it's imposed with such a gleeful sneer from the rest of the population when it's the people that have taken the risks to get better pay and larger houses that clearly pay for so much of the upkeep of the country.
Is it imposed with gleeful sneer? Or is it more that it's a lol to see the arrogant take a fall? All those poor me, I lost my house posts on the BBC sound rather arrogant and smug to me. Makes me kind of want to say oh, dear, darling, did you decide that the £50 a month they quoted you for unemployment and critical illness was better spent elsewhere? Buying a house is a gamble but you can minimise the risks. Easily.
Oh and Dang, there's a five bedroom family home, detached, nice garden, for sale near my mate. £175,000. And I know for the fact that the local school is class, I've been there and seen all their awards. Just because it's in regeneration area in Salford doesn't neccessarily mean that your kids'll go to rack and ruin.
Posts: 5776
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Is it imposed with gleeful sneer? Or is it more that it's a lol to see the arrogant take a fall? All those poor me, I lost my house posts on the BBC sound rather arrogant and smug to me.
Now this is an interesting point. You see, I have a theory that most people don't actually have a fucking clue what other people's circumstances actually are, but they think they have just going by appearances.
If someone has a big house then your instant impression is: wealthy parents, public school, university, well-paid job in daddy's company, inherit enormous house, have nanny and three cars and swimming pool. Or a variation on that theme.
If someone lives in a council house then the impression is: alcoholic parents, state schooling (occasionally if bovvered), on the dole, bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12, fifth child at 17, on drugs.
Most people would instantly deny thinking that about council tennants, but the large homeowner stereotype is rampant and unrestrained. And blatantly untrue.
Me - Wealthy parents? Nope. Dad a school teacher, mum a nurse. Public school? Yes! One year, completely pointless, hated it, moved to comprehensive. University? No. Never even did A-levels. Only got a couple of CSEs in fact. Well-paid job in daddy's company? No. Worked in restaurants and warehouses, then as a phone engineer, ended up as a web developer. Inherit enormous house? No. All parents still alive and well. May one day inherit some cash. Will be an enormous relief on finances if ever we do. Have nanny? No. Never been able to afford childcare except for nursery place for first child when we were both working. Three cars? One car, one bike. May be selling car soon! Swimming pool? We've got a muddy puddle in the garden at the moment.
Friend of ours in council house - Alcoholic parents? Nope. Father very well-off but doesn't support daughter beyond the odd hand-out to buy a new car or something. State schooling? Yes. One of the best state schools in the country. A-levels, but not university. On the dole? No. Has increasingly successful flower business, supplying hanging baskets to local pubs amongst other things. Very good income, as demonstrated by her and her children's clothing and regular holidays. Bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12? Pregnant at 25, split from father but he's still around a lot. Fifth child at 17? Second child at 32 with steady partner. On drugs? She does spend a lot of time in the boozer. Which I would if I had the cash.
Probably both exceptions to the rule though, eh?
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Yes, that all makes perfect sense.
Yes, yes, it does.
You took risks to make money. The government tax you for that, you know? Making money.
Yes, as I keep saying, I do understand this and I don't actually expect the government to cover my family if our "gamble" fails. It's just that I'd have thought it would be worth their while encouraging more people to get to the position where the government can cream off a load profit. At the moment it often appears to be quite the opposite.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: [ Thing is, it is the family home for two adults and four children. Children that are settled into local schools and working hard to become honest tax payers themselves, no doubt.
How does it benefit society to just ignore a family like ours if we hit the same sort of problems that any other family could hit at any time?
Well, ya see, you seem like a really nice bloke, and I'm sure your kids are great and will grow up to be a credit to you. I just don't really see how it's my business whether they grow up in rented or mortgaged accommodation, and why my taxes should help to give YOU security, when I can't possibly afford to join the property ladder and will open up an envelope containing a picture of Tony Blair sticking his fingers up at me instead of a pension on my 60th (or 85th, whatever retirement age will be by then) birthday.
*warning baby rant level has been triggered*
On my Open Uni summer school the other week, as well as learning that locusts carry on twitching for literally hours after they've been decapitated, I discovered that if I'd had a kid and didn't live with the father, I'd get my Open Uni courses FOR FREE, as well as the free flat and free year off work you seem to get for spreading your legs. I know I've always voted Liberal and stuff, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to spend the rest of my working life paying for other people's comfort and security, whilst receiving nothing myself. So far I have:
- worked as a UK taxpayer for 4 years, never taking a day off sick EVER.
- not claimed benefits whilst unemployed, because I didn't desparately need to.
- funded my own further education.
- cost the NHS one smear test, two mole removals, one filling and one set of childhood injections in 27 years.
- contributed £0 to the groaning burden of national credit card debt.
I mean, I don't think single mums should be flogged thrown out on the street, or pregnant teens be forced into abortions, and I support helping those who want to get into eduction or work, but, BUT I just want a little bit of recognition of the fact that I'm a respectable upstanding citizen who costs the state nothing.
JUST A FUCKING THANK YOU CARD WOULD BE NICE!
Where were we, help for those with mortgages and families? Oh right. Yeah. Worker Drone V Poetess 1978#19668459954B gives its consent to empty its bank account to support hive larvae. Take it. Take it all.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
Me - Wealthy parents? Nope. Dad a school teacher, mum a nurse. Public school? Yes! One year, completely pointless, hated it, moved to comprehensive. University? No. Never even did A-levels. Only got a couple of CSEs in fact. Well-paid job in daddy's company? No. Worked in restaurants and warehouses, then as a phone engineer, ended up as a web developer. Inherit enormous house? No. All parents still alive and well. May one day inherit some cash. Will be an enormous relief on finances if ever we do. Have nanny? No. Never been able to afford childcare except for nursery place for first child when we were both working. Three cars? One car, one bike. May be selling car soon! Swimming pool? We've got a muddy puddle in the garden at the moment.
Friend of ours in council house - Alcoholic parents? Nope. Father very well-off but doesn't support daughter beyond the odd hand-out to buy a new car or something. State schooling? Yes. One of the best state schools in the country. A-levels, but not university. On the dole? No. Has increasingly successful flower business, supplying hanging baskets to local pubs amongst other things. Very good income, as demonstrated by her and her children's clothing and regular holidays. Bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12? Pregnant at 25, split from father but he's still around a lot. Fifth child at 17? Second child at 32 with steady partner. On drugs? She does spend a lot of time in the boozer. Which I would if I had the cash.
Probably both exceptions to the rule though, eh?
Excellent! You've expertly rebutted two 'stereotypes' of your own creation. You set 'em up... erm... you knock 'em down, as well.
Also, what was the point of the above? Other than to demonstrate how you wasted every chance you had in your young life to make something of yourself?
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Well, ya see, you seem like a really nice bloke, and I'm sure your kids are great and will grow up to be a credit to you. I just don't really see how it's my business whether they grow up in rented or mortgaged accommodation, and why my taxes should help to give YOU security
[snip]
So far I have:
- worked as a UK taxpayer for 4 years, never taking a day off sick EVER.
[snip]
JUST A FUCKING THANK YOU CARD WOULD BE NICE!
Sorry for the 'liberal' snips there, but I've worked as a UK taxpayer for 23 years (probably paying for your education while I was at it ), so I guess it would be more of my own taxes which I might be hoping for (but don't actually expect to get of course). A thank you card is kind of what I'd been thinking of too, but (before Black Mask points out the bleedin' obvious again) it doesn't work like that either.
Louche
Carved TMO on her clit just to make you feel bad
posted
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Now this is an interesting point. You see, I have a theory that most people don't actually have a fucking clue what other people's circumstances actually are, but they think they have just going by appearances.
If someone has a big house then your instant impression is: wealthy parents, public school, university, well-paid job in daddy's company, inherit enormous house, have nanny and three cars and swimming pool. Or a variation on that theme.
If someone lives in a council house then the impression is: alcoholic parents, state schooling (occasionally if bovvered), on the dole, bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12, fifth child at 17, on drugs.
Are you telling me that I seem to have giant preconcieved assumptions about people based on what they happen to have?
I was simply pointing out that some of the people who posted on the BBC site seemed a bit smug. Fucking hell Dang.
Posts: 5776
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Excellent! You've expertly rebutted two 'stereotypes' of your own creation. You set 'em up... erm... you knock 'em down, as well.
Yes, you've got me there. Obviously those weren't accurate stereotypes at all and no one actually views either large homeowners or council house tenants in that way at all. I do apologise. And may I apologise on behalf of all sitcom and sketch show writers of the last twenty years as well.
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Also, what was the point of the above?
I think it was in response to Louche's point about arrogant and smug homeowners. An attempt to rebuke that stereotype. Sorry.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: On my Open Uni summer school the other week, as well as learning that locusts carry on twitching for literally hours after they've been decapitated, I discovered that if I'd had a kid and didn't live with the father, I'd get my Open Uni courses FOR FREE, as well as the free flat and free year off work you seem to get for spreading your legs.
Looking after a babens alone and doing an OU course at the same time would be pretty tough. I reckon anyone who did that would have the gumption to make the most of the qualificatation that resulted and thereby provide a better life for her childe.
posted
I fucking work full time and am doing an OU course. Does that not make me a good person? I pretty much have a part share in next door's ickle babykins, as I've shared every sleepless night with them.
Dang, I see that your 23-years-as-taxpayer rant is going to dwarf my puny version- I guess I can look forward to increased outrage in later years. I'm not sure how the exchange works (a leaflet accompanying my first taxable payslip would have been nice). I mean, I probably wouldn't mind helping your lot out a bit, as you all read Harry Potter and seem quite respectable and stuff. It's just that it seems a lot more likely that my taxes would just support Croydon pikeys in the life of indolent chavdom they seem to enjoy.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: the life of indolent chavdom they seem to enjoy.
'Enjoy' seems a bit of a strong word. The sack of crap next door seems pretty miserable if the relentless shouting at her toddler, child and boyfriend is anything to go by, and the social life must be pretty non-existent, as these noisy and passionate exchanges are sustained all day, every day.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I fucking work full time and am doing an OU course. Does that not make me a good person? I pretty much have a part share in next door's ickle babykins, as I've shared every sleepless night with them.
I could toast marshmallows on the burning vibe of thwarted entitlement coming off this post - you know, I'm sure the FT work/OU combo does make you a good person... but does that righteousness blind you to the fact that offering free OU to single mothers offers a cost-effective way for a self-selecting minority to have a crack at improving life for themselves and their offspring - in the long term, perhaps even reducing the burden to 'the state' and, by extension, 'yourself'?
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I fucking work full time and am doing an OU course. Does that not make me a good person? I pretty much have a part share in next door's ickle babykins, as I've shared every sleepless night with them.
I could toast marshmallows on the burning vibe of thwarted entitlement coming off this post - you know, I'm sure the FT work/OU combo does make you a good person... but does that righteousness blind you to the fact that offering free OU to single mothers offers a cost-effective way for a self-selecting minority to have a crack at improving life for themselves and their offspring - in the long term, perhaps even reducing the burden to 'the state' and, by extension, 'yourself'?
I don't think VP is arguing against offering single mothers the chance to do OU, I just think she wants to rant a bit, a letting go of the steam that sometimes rises when you realise that despite the fact you are trying to play the good girl for the government and they just don't care and certainly aren't going to give you any attention or breaks as long as you give them the money.
Posts: 786
| IP: Logged
Dear Vogon, I just wanted to drop you a line to say a great big "thank you!" for all the tax you have paid and for not being a parasite draining the lifebloods of the state. There are some very needy people out there and it's thanks to yuor hard work that they will be kept in microchips and Tennants! lol - just joking. But seriously: I felt I had to give you a pat on the back to recognise that it's people like you - the 'little people' if you will - who keep this Great Britian "great". And isn't it just. I'm sure you'll agree.
posted
Yeah, I'm struggling to reconcile the fact that I think the OU is great, and that it's absolutely right that it's open to everyone (in Germany, you can't do their version of the OU unless you have the equivalent of A-Levels) with my resentment at the fact that none of the benefits ever come my way, and are never likely to.
I know it's beneficial for single mums to have a helping hand onto a better life, but I really can't be gracious about it.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
A lovely sincere thanks from Tony B and a sneer from BM! My long overdue Secret Santa has finally arrived.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
Don't quote me on this but I think it works like this: Basically if you're a struggling single mother, recovering crack addict, massively obese internet addict, or otherwise unable to have a full time job, and your yearly earnings total less than a certain amount (not 100% on that amount but i know it's way less than anyone in full time work earns) then you're entitled to financial assistance with your OU course, up to a certain amount, usually a percentage, and depending on the level of the course and the amount you earn. A similar scheme is also open to people currently serving a sentence at her Maj's pleasure.
Proof of earnings need to be demonstrated, and current benefits are taken into account too so if you're on jobseekers, incapacity, single parent benefits and the like then you'll need to stump up at least some of the readies.
Of course it's not totally fair on people who are working full time, who end up having to pay more than people who are unable to work (like the dole, I don't think you can just get this if you're too lazy to work, you have to have some reason for it) but if it's relevent to your job then there are a huge (and growing) number of students who are having their courses funded by their employer on various partner schemes, and I think the NHS runs one such scheme, so that's worth looking into.
The Open University is just that - Open to Everyone. I know it sounds like the kind of corporate sloganeering you hear day in, day out from soulless office automatons, but I do genuinely believe this ethos, and I'm proud to work for such an establishment which is generally trying to make a difference to the world.
Posts: 12211
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I know it's beneficial for single mums to have a helping hand onto a better life, but I really can't be gracious about it.
what do you want? somebody to welcome your every achievment with "well done veep?".
i know its not easy i know its not nice to look around and think "when am i gonna get mine?", but just think: you haven't got 6 kids, you don't live in sub-saharan africa, you don't have aids and you've probably got another 30 years to live. by which time you'll have probably been able to retrain and get into science and earn some cash.
(though if you think a BSc is going to save the day, you're clearly delusional).
i'm almost certain you don't think : "i wish i'd got pregnant at 16". because you cannot honestly think that life would be any easier for you. do you think you'd have got the chance to go to university, teach abroad, then come back have some fun, goto nz, and then think "i'd like to retrain?". come on. because you haven't got kids to raise, you've got the ability to indulge yourself and do what you want. surely that's a pretty fucking good thing?
so in summation: quit your moaning, there's a bloody war on. and life is tough when you're middle class and white.
and dang: you've got a great big pile of bricks in the north, if size and status is so important to you, why move south to a smaller house?
i don't understand, i know, i know, you've been doing the treadmill for so long and it appears someone else is doing better than you with less effort. maybe they just know how to play the system better? and maybe if you didn't have multiple mini-dangs to worry about, being a free-lancer, trying to secure a future etc you would have time to work it out. maybe they met people early on who helped them play the system. maybe you didn't.
"And you may ask yourself What is that beautiful house? And you may ask yourself Where does that highway go? And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? "
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic