Anna B Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Clear as mud I agree pretty much with tinfoilhat. It might be clear as mud, but that's because it's complicated and subjective. What's your definition? I'd also add small and medium sized business owners, (again size is subjective) people who can afford private education for more that one child and top band private healthcare. even some of the aristocracy are almost broke except for a big stately pile which is mortgaged up to the hilt. Are they middle class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I doubt if Obelix is in the 1% but he is middle class I believe. As for pensioners contributing more, I'm sure I won't have a choice. Nor will anyone else. You just don't get it do you? If you believe we can pay the trillion+ debt then somebody has to pay it. Once the poor have been squeezed dry and can't pay any more they are going to start on the one's who have got money. They won't stop until we're all taxed, penalised, or ripped off into poverty. That means you too. As the economy improves and tax returns increase the tax surplus will be used to pay down the debt, and at the same time the debt deflates (due to inflation of the currency). Any 'squeezing' of the poor is merely tinkering at the edges, the amount that can be saved through welfare reform is pretty minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I agree pretty much with tinfoilhat. It might be clear as mud, but that's because it's complicated and subjective. What's your definition? No cribbin' thee !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The term is used so often and more usually than not in a derogatory manner that I thought it would be helpful to know just who we were talking about.. We've had entire threads discussing the issue before, can't we resurrect one instead of derailing this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I agree pretty much with tinfoilhat. It might be clear as mud, but that's because it's complicated and subjective. What's your definition? I have no definition because I hate the use of "class".. if it's subjective then it's meaningless because it will be different for different people..you may think someone middle class while I think the same person is working class.. If someone had a railway man and nurse for parents,had no degree yet became a bank manager what would that make them? Similarly if someones's parents were lawyers yet they themselves worked as a labourer in a factory what would they be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I'm working class, not many seem to want to own up to that. I'm not a graduate, not minted, don't shop at waitrose. I've also known psychologists who grew up on the wrong side of tracks steadfastly refuse to be called anything but working class. Then again is just on occupation - I forget what it was called now but a scale where A =professional B= middle management C1 = white collar type work C2 = skilled manual (sparkys etc) D = unskilled E = unemployed? I'm not sure that's relevant (or even right - it was 20 years ago!) anymore. That's the NRS social grade system. As you say it's a bit outdated these days. So what's a police inspector then? Middle management? Professional? It doesn't fit all by a long way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 We've had entire threads discussing the issue before, can't we resurrect one instead of derailing this thread? I don't see it as a derailment..As "middle class" is used in the thread title wouldn't we be as well knowing who we were talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes some middle class people do seem to have an unfair advantage when it comes to education, but I don't think charging them is the answer. Many would say that if they should pay to go to state schools, why don't they just pay a bit more and go to private school instead. There's something for me about inclusion, schools aren't just about children learning what's on the formal curriculum, but being able to mix with other children from a wide variety of backgrounds. That's one reason why I'm against faith schools. I don't have the figures or maps to hand, but I'm sure that our country is becoming more imbalanced and divided, with regions becoming more ghettoised on class lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes some middle class people do seem to have an unfair advantage when it comes to education, but I don't think charging them is the answer. Many would say that if they should pay to go to state schools, why don't they just pay a bit more and go to private school instead. There's something for me about inclusion, schools aren't just about children learning what's on the formal curriculum, but being able to mix with other children from a wide variety of backgrounds. That's one reason why I'm against faith schools. I don't have the figures or maps to hand, but I'm sure that our country is becoming more imbalanced and divided, with regions becoming more ghettoised on class lines. Do you reckon that if people had to pay to go to state schools that they'd actually do this instead of going to a private school? If you have to pay you may as well go to which school you think is best for the cash hadn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 As the economy improves and tax returns increase the tax surplus will be used to pay down the debt, and at the same time the debt deflates (due to inflation of the currency). Any 'squeezing' of the poor is merely tinkering at the edges, the amount that can be saved through welfare reform is pretty minimal. I doubt it can recover enough to ever pay this debt, it's growing faster than we can earn it, there's that thing about percentage of GDP. It's higher now than it's ever been, including 2 world wars which were pretty expensive. I agree entirely on your second point. The only way we can make a dent in it is by clamping down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. But basically I don't think it can ever be paid, it will either have to be written off, or the world economy collapsing will do the trick. In spite of evidence to the contrary, can't see that happening. Re Education: Free education is a relatively new thing, it doesn't have a long historical precedence. I believe my grandmother (working class) had to pay a penny a day to attend school, and in Victorian times, before the education act, Mill owners etc used to set up schools to provide education for their child workers. The cost was often docked from their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.