Phil Not only are schools not free, in the sense that they have to be paid for, but they're actually very expensive indeed when they fail to teach children to read, write and behave with basic consideration to others. Individual parents making their own informed choices would of course bring the cost down.
6 September 2005, 16:21:20 GMT+01:00 – Like – Reply
Andrew Ian Dodge Bill that is not cumudgeonly that is just accurate. Having children is not a right its a responsability. If you can't afford to have them...don't have them!
6 September 2005, 11:49:48 GMT+01:00 – Like – Reply
Bill (Scotland) To take the curmudgeonly point of view, I get fed up hearing parents complain about the incidental costs of having children. Legitimate 'gripes', just possibly, relate to clothing that must bear a school logo or conform to some other arcane uniform code not generally available in the market.
Feeding and clothing a child is an inevitable part of having one and I really don't see why I should subsidise this. I can just about stomach subsidising the children of others in their education, through the taxes I pay which go toward funding state maintained schools, as this will in the long run provide some of the workers who will keep the companies, upon which my investment and other income depends, to stay in business, same goes for health care provided through the state. But more than that I think is just pushing their luck! No one forces people to have children - and those that do should realise that it does cost money; the 'return' they get is undoubtedly huge in terms of emotional matters, that is their 'reward'.
6 September 2005, 09:49:17 GMT+01:00 – Like – Reply
srs Those 5 words sum up all that is wrong with "goverment" paying for everything.
The general population still believe that these services are free, they do not accept that goverments only spend our money!!!!!
1 comment:
Comments made on previous template:
Phil
Not only are schools not free, in the sense that they have to be paid for, but they're actually very expensive indeed when they fail to teach children to read, write and behave with basic consideration to others. Individual parents making their own informed choices would of course bring the cost down.
6 September 2005, 16:21:20 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Andrew Ian Dodge
Bill that is not cumudgeonly that is just accurate. Having children is not a right its a responsability. If you can't afford to have them...don't have them!
6 September 2005, 11:49:48 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Bill (Scotland)
To take the curmudgeonly point of view, I get fed up hearing parents complain about the incidental costs of having children. Legitimate 'gripes', just possibly, relate to clothing that must bear a school logo or conform to some other arcane uniform code not generally available in the market.
Feeding and clothing a child is an inevitable part of having one and I really don't see why I should subsidise this. I can just about stomach subsidising the children of others in their education, through the taxes I pay which go toward funding state maintained schools, as this will in the long run provide some of the workers who will keep the companies, upon which my investment and other income depends, to stay in business, same goes for health care provided through the state. But more than that I think is just pushing their luck! No one forces people to have children - and those that do should realise that it does cost money; the 'return' they get is undoubtedly huge in terms of emotional matters, that is their 'reward'.
6 September 2005, 09:49:17 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
srs
Those 5 words sum up all that is wrong with "goverment" paying for everything.
The general population still believe that these services are free, they do not accept that goverments only spend our money!!!!!
5 September 2005, 19:47:29 GMT+01:00
Post a Comment