At last the REAL rise in the cost of living is revealed!

[Longcol]

Two points. First, their choice to use private education releases places - and therefore funds - from the state education system. That should be of interest to everybody whose children benefit from the state system being subsidised by families who choose private education.

 

Secondly, £100,000 is very much middle-income - it's only £50k per head for two people for goodness' sake, and that's hardly big bucks. That's only about what an Army Major earns, or a Police Chief Inspector, or senior teachers.

 

Or look at it as one earner in the house. Doctors, dentists, architects, lawyers are all likely to earn more than 100k – does that mean they are beyond middle class? A head teacher will be on around £75k, or a Police Commissioner, or an Army Colonel. Are they not middle class occupations?

 

I think you are confusing middle class and middle income - two very different things. I haven't got the stats to hand but think a combined income of £100k would put people in the top 10% of earners. That doesn't stop them being middle class.

[Bartfarst]

Not true.. in previous generations families got by because they had to. There was no welfare state, no health service which meant that children and families in the low income bracket suffered terribly and died young..

Well, let's stick to just the last few post-war generations within the last half century or so then, shall we, as I was hardly referring to medieval times.

Never, has a generation practised disciplined family planning as a whole. Maybe the middle classes, but a working class family either began producing children as soon as the ring was on her finger (my grandmother was one of 13) or the lower working class (if thats a correct term) didnt even bother with a wedding and just churned out children.

Which only goes to show - in your own words - that the middle classes are more responsible than the lower classes.

Many of my relatives, mostly working class families, have over the last few generations planned their families, and made financial sacrifices to ensure that they could provide for a family. So have all of the people I work with and socialise with - it is the norm among responsible taxpayers.

 

You mention your grandparents. Around 1920 my maternal grandparents had the first of their 7 children. He was a foundry worker, she mended clothes. They had their family, and he worked extra shifts to pay for that family. His 5 sons and 2 daughters applied the same principles of hard work and selflessness, and provided for their own families, families which they did not have until they could afford to have children.

 

They were all raised to be too proud to be spongers.

[Bartfarst]

I think you are confusing middle class and middle income - two very different things. I haven't got the stats to hand but think a combined income of £100k would put people in the top 10% of earners. That doesn't stop them being middle class.

Perhaps so, but I also wouldn't confuse 'average' income with 'middle' income.

 

The 'average' income is quite low, being heavily offset by the hordes of benefit-dependent types and part-time workers. That should not affect the 'middle' incomes which are what a senior teacher or policeman must be described as.

 

In a study last year of constituencies’ incomes, Sheffield Hallam came among the highest ten in the country in terms of proportion of households with an income over £60k, higher than Windsor among others. I don't see the majority of Hallam constituents as anything but middle-income earners.

[fox20thc]

So in answer to your comment, yes middle class families did practice family planning much the same way as they do now because a family usually interfered with their lifestyle, and they had children when it was convenient to them not because they were saving up and investing.

 

Your second point regarding the work ethic of large working class families is correct and was driven again by the fact that there was no safety net for people without an income (unless you declared yourself a pauper and went to the church for a hand out) which in turn led to people working hard in shocking jobs for little money and their kids going out to work at 14.

 

My grandfather was a little mester and my grandmother a buffer girl, my other grandparents were a steelworker and in service. So likewise they raised their children the same way and my mother did with me.

 

However... (sorry long post) I being the third generation being let down by a husband who decided responsibility was not important unlike his fore fathers. Now find myself in a position of working to support children alone and ensure they grow up to be good citizens. This means I do fall into the catagory of 'poor' in comparision to the national average income.

 

Your post implies that we go back to the good old days of natural selection, no free heathcare and no state safety net.

[Cyclone]

so should i have aborted my child!?! reason being that as we are only on 10K and wouldn't be able to live the life of luxury!!? just because we have to spend all our money on food, bills, bloody gas and electric, that doesn't mean we're not happy! and our daughter is happy too, even better that she grows up not to take money for granted!

 

I don't particularly want to get into an argument with you, nor was my comment aimed at yourself. But I suppose if I have to respond I'd say that you should have thought about it before a decision on abortion was required either way.

Obviously contraception can fail, but in many many cases it's just never thought about in the first place.

[Cyclone]

I think you are confusing middle class and middle income - two very different things. I haven't got the stats to hand but think a combined income of £100k would put people in the top 10% of earners. That doesn't stop them being middle class.

 

The article made no claim that 100k was middle income though.

It gave an example of a middle class family with a combined income of 100k. A perfectly reasonable example, especially alongside the other examples that were given.

[em2007]

i don't want to argue either but seems we're following each other round today for a start i was told at 6 years old, i would never have children, and again at 16 they said, as a result of my chemo as a child it was highly unlikely i would get pregnant naturally, but being responsible:thumbsup: i was on the pill anyway! and one day there she was! what else could i have honestly done, without being celibate, to stop her! she's so damn independant she just does what she likes

[Longcol]

The article made no claim that 100k was middle income though.

It gave an example of a middle class family with a combined income of 100k. A perfectly reasonable example, especially alongside the other examples that were given.

 

I know.

 

It was Bartfarst who used the term to describe a combined middle class family income of £100,000 as "middle income". I wouldn't describe £100k combined as middle income.

[Cyclone]

i don't want to argue either but seems we're following each other round today for a start i was told at 6 years old, i would never have children, and again at 16 they said, as a result of my chemo as a child it was highly unlikely i would get pregnant naturally, but being responsible:thumbsup: i was on the pill anyway! and one day there she was! what else could i have honestly done, without being celibate, to stop her! she's so damn independant she just does what she likes

 

fair enough.

[Cyclone]

I know.

 

It was Bartfarst who used the term to describe a combined middle class family income of £100,000 as "middle income". I wouldn't describe £100k combined as middle income.

 

So he did.