My ex-sister in law reckons she can get her son into a local private grammar school for half price because they are on a low income...

I am on a good income, but with the amount of tax I pay I can't afford the £700 a month so my daughter goes to the local comp.

Can this be right? Can she really get a place at a private school for half price?!

Well I have never heard of this - unless she thinks she can get a scholarship?  That's the only way I know you can get reduced fees!

Seems a bit odd?

There appears to be something called a Bursary - which helps working class children into Private Schools for a reduction in fees.

Typical of this country. If I wasn't working I wouldn't be paying tax, would qualify for free legal aid, help with school fees, and free prescriptions etc. But because I am I have to pay for EVERYTHING and I end up poorer than they are!!

Bursary This is probably also based on ability & will probably also be from a trust/charitable concern set up by someone local(all the ones local to me are-friends son won one whilst she was a single parent & he's now a renown ortheopedic surgeon) If it was the local authority or education department it would be normally classed as a "grant" of some sort

The Bursary will be offered by the school itself.  It does not come from public taxes if the school is private it is simply a charitable thing often paid for from bequests or old boy associations.  Many private schools do this.  They may award it on the basis of accademic achievement but sometimes on sports or music achievement and it may or may not be means tested.  When I say charitable the school also benefits by attracting gifted children who improve their overall results thus attracting more fee payers :).

As Isobel says it is the school that provides the Bursary(ies) not from tax payers money.  Often they come from money donated to the school by a beneficiary for the specific purpose of helping a bright child whose parents cannot afford to send their child there. I am a single mum (ex hubby disappeared and does not help in any way financially),  I work and pay taxes and both my children have benefitted from a 'funded' scheme similar to bursaries.  These are not 'free' places though, and many would simply not be prepared to make the sacrifices in other areas of their life and pay the percentage of their income that they would have to if they were to take up such places. 
They are often not well publicised, which may be why you had not heard of them, but most private schools offer them.  In my daughter's school ALL parents of pupils are financially assessed each year and pay according to their means.

I do agree that it can often appear (and be so) that those on low incomes/benefits are better off.

But as you say, finding that other 50%, or whatever, can be a much harder sacrifice to the low wage earner than the high income family that are paying it in full so an A+ to them for their efforts :) 

Isobel, this is often forgotten.  My brothers' families are always saying how lucky I am to have help with school fees (they have to pay full fees because they are high earners - and can easily afford it) - funny though that the only holiday we have had in the last 10 years was given to us by my parents - I drive a clapped out old banger (need a car for work), while they can still afford their skiing and summer holidays each year... drive their off roaders and people carriers etc....:rolleyes:
It is a wonderful opportunity for those lucky enough to be given this kind of assistance, but you have to make huge financial sacrifices - I know several families who were offered places at my daughter's school, but when they saw the contribution they would have to make they realised that they did not want to give up the lifestyle they had so declined.  I have been doing this for the last nine years - and only have two more to go....yeahhh... then my money will be all mine ;)  well after the tax man takes his bit..:rolleyes:

I disagree :) As a reasonably high earner with 3.5 children things can be just as much of a struggle as a low earner with less children. I *have* to work hard and earn a lot to pay for my children - and they have the best I can afford - and education is one of them, healthcare is another. We don't have expensive holidays but we do try to invest as much as possible incase one of us loses our jobs and we have a ton of insurances to cover every eventuality.

My comments specifically  about hols etc. were really about my own situation - both my brothers are very high earners so it really annoys me when their wives go on about it :rolleyes: LOL
All I was saying is that it is all relative.  We all have a certain amount of income (some more than others) and decide how we spend it.  I too work very hard (as I work for myself, it's days, evening and weekends often), but after the bills and my contribution is paid, there is nothing left.  Nothing for any luxuries - nothing even for any sort of social life - even going out for a drink down the pub is a rarity.   I don't have a pension, healthcare etc...  as I'm self employed I can't afford to be sick ;).  It's my choice, I do it gladly and do not begrudge those who can afford holidays, nights out etc.... 

But my point was that although, on the face of it, these bursaries may seem like unfair handouts, they actually involve huge financial sacrifices that many would not be prepared to make... 

Of course, they would probably not appear so desirable if State education was of a high standard everywhere - but that's another story.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with ChloeH :), I said can be a much harder sacrifice meaning they are not simply the hand-out they might look to be.  As JenP says many parents decide not to take up a place as it would be so difficult to meet the remaining fees.

Yes a Scholarship or if you are a member of the armed forces as they get reduced fees :)

We are the same here on school fees :rolleyes:

All my nephews go to private schools.

Ther is no way we could afford the fees unless we lived on bread and water. It isn't just the fees either. You have to consider all that comes with it. The uniform, sports equipment not to mention the school trips away.

Nice if you can afford it but I am quite happy with the schools where we live so not too bothered.

Lucy
xx

Yes, but they have to be academically bright I gather...?

What the scholarship or being in the forces :D

Yes you do have to take exams etc to get a scholarship :)

Yes not anyone can take them up on a scholarship!  And believe limited scholarships are offered each year?

Yes, I've heard this from a woman who was at university and so was her husband.  Her children were going into private education yet both parents were on benefits.  Presumably the parents' uni fees were paid for them too.

Scholarships are awarded irrespective of financial background. They are given for excellence in academic study, music or sport. The maximum scholarship given used to be 50% of fees, however as there has been govt noise over money being used to finance people who could afford to pay, and veiled threats to investigate the charitable status of private schools, most have now cut back their maximum award to 25-30% of fees.

As already said on here bursaries are given specifically to people in financial need, however schools still tend to only award them to pupils who shine in a given area. As bursaries are usually given from endowments made to the school, they are not susceptible to govt meddling and can be awarded at a schools discretion, but again usually up to 50%.

It is possible to receive both a scholarship and a bursary, thereby alleviating fees almost completely, but your child would need to be something pretty special !!

All children are pretty special - just in different ways :D :D

Agree to a certain extent. Scholarships can be worth a lot more. A child can win a scholarship at, say, 11, another at 13 and then another on entry to the Sixth Form giving quite a high percentage. Now that the old Assisted Places scheme has been axed, children from poorer homes can't be assisted by the government. We have been through all this, having been able to pay for private educatio for our children until OHs redundancy happened. Our son is extremely bright and already had a scholarship, but this wasn't enough then to cover his fees, so he had an Assisted Place which was gradually reduced as our income recovered over the years. He had a friend (and a younger brother) who came from a very poor, single parent (then no parent) family who were both academically and musically gifted - they were both supported from 10-18 by various schemes and scholarships. The older boy has recently graduated from Cambridge (which also supported him) and the younger is studying medecine. If you have a bright child - nothing is impossible :)

Daisy

Pity you have to have a exceptionally "bright child" in order to take advantage of better education. The point of my using a private school is to help my child go from being middle-of-the road acceptable to fulfilling her full potential.

But many people make sacrifices to pay for middle-of-the-road children to have these advantages - we did with our daughter as long as we could :) Private schools are full of children who come from quite ordinary homes who have decided that their money is better spent on their children's education than foreign holidays, new cars and a bigger house :)

Daisy

>Private schools are full of children who come from quite ordinary homes

I think that depends on which part of the country, or even parts within parts :)  We have three private schools in the vicinity and I can't remember the last time I saw a car more than 3 years old or under a V6 engine pulling up - even then it was probably a teacher's ;)

How else could they hand it out though ChloeH, they always get enormous numbers of applicants for these bursaries, it makes sense to give it to those who are likely to achieve the most and it is charity so it really ought to be for those who could not school their children like this otherwise.

Schools (whether charities or not) have to behave like businesses to survive a very competitive market. To attract the 'average' parent, the school has to provide excellent examination results and facilities. Different parents place different emphasise on these things :) To get the good examination results, they have to compete against other schools, as most parents of bright children shop around to see which school will offer the best 'deal' in terms of scholarships/bursaries. Wealthy parents don't always have the brightest/most studious children, so schools have to do their hardest to get the brightest children one way or another :D

Daisy

The point of my using a private school is to help my child go from being middle-of-the road acceptable to fulfilling her full potential.

Yes and you are fortunate that you are able to do that.  Do children from low income families not deserve the same education? Every child should have the same chances IMO, but obviously some are going to benefit more from their academic education than others.

Actually, I am NOT able to afford it, if you read my post :)

My mother, the oldest child of 5 in a working-class family in Perth in 1920, won a scholarship to the Acadamy.    This meant that her tuition fees would be paid - but there was no bursary to enable her parents to buy the uniform/books without which she could not attend.    So she left school at the age of 14, and worked in Pullers Dyers & Cleaners instead.   

When I passed the 11+ to go to the Grammar school in Reading, I was the 2nd of 5 chldren.   To buy my uniform/equipment, my father sold his bike and walked the 5 miles to and from work, until he could buy another bike (we didn't have a car until I was 17 or 18, I think).

"Affording" things is relative, I always think.   To some families, some things are absolutely essential - and what one family considers they could not possibly go without, is of complete amazement to another.    Who is to say which is right?

Margot

Oh, I agree. But £700 a month is a big commitment to make - especially when you already pay £800 a month for childcare, uniform replacements are easily up to £100 a month when you have 2 in school and a baby, then the average mortgage these days is about £1250 (going up again in Sept I gather) plus all the insurances, not to mention the increases in gas, electric and water bills, £115 a month Council tax just to get the bins emptied AND trying to save for the further education/courses that 4 children might need. All essential - but in need of serious wage earning potential to afford!

The fact is that EVERYTHING is expensive these days - leaving not much fat to spare on luxuries.

Now, if they cut my tax bill because I am paying for private education - that'd make me happy :)

At my kids school ALL parents are means tested.  The figure at which the foundation considers a family is capable of paying school fees is approx £52000 (this is total household income and includes any partners/step parents).  If the household income is below this amount there is help available, above this amount there are only a very limited number of places and the school considers the parent(s) earn sufficient income to pay for their childs education.  The lowest income at which fees are payable is approx £10500 (these figures may be a few years old, but they will not have changed much).  Above this amount, the fee contribution is 50p in the £.

Oh I went to the Academy in Perth although it has moved since your mum went there.

My mum wasn't able to go there though ..... no money for uniform/books :(

Margot

>  "Affording" things is relative, I always think.

I totally agree - very few have enough money for all they want,  no one is right or wrong, we simply each have our own set of priorities. 

That's why the grammar school system is so good. The most academically able children from all the schools in the catchment area have a chance to attend, regardless of their family's income or background.

I agree, if you look at the academic results for schools in areas that still have the grammar school system, you will find that these grammar schools frequently do better than most of the private schools in the area.

"That's why the grammar school system is so good"

is it really such a great idea to decide on a child's future at 11 ? - and if the acdemically bright are 'creamed off' to stock just a few schools then of course those schools are going to top the league tables - it is not difficult to succeed with bright , 'middle class' kids ( as most of these will be ) - the true measure of a schools success should be in how they can turn around those who find education challenging. These are the kids that need the best teaching but will be excluded from this academic 'utopia' - apart from the gifted child there will be no place for those with special needs - dyslexia, behaviour problems, Aspergers etc in a grammar school. This means that they will all be in the other local schools where their presence ensures the 'poor performance' of the schools they attend - thus perpetuating the cycle .

Yvonne

>apart from the gifted child there will be no place for those with special needs - dyslexia, behaviour problems, Aspergers etc in a grammar school.

Not so. My son was diagnosed as dyslexic and yet he got to grammar school, where there were other dyslexics (the 11+ measures more than what you know, it assesses how you learn) and boys with other disabilities. He was by no means a 'gifted' child, by the way!

The huge difference between the grammar school he went to from 11 to 16 and the comprehensive he went to for 6th Form was that, at the grammar school, he was pushed. At the comp he was allowed to coast, which was reflected in his A-level results. :( If the staff there had done their work properly, the schools' position would have been strengthened, because I'm certain he wasn't the only one.

How interesting JG?  My experience was very similar.  My daughter, brought up by me alone since my divorce when she was 2 years old (not a typical middle class family) went to a brilliant junior school where she finished the syllabus a year early and the deputy head hand wrote all her final year lessons.  She was encouraged to take the 11+, which was more like an IQ test than an exam of her learning.  It appeared to measure more the logical way that she thought than knowledge.  She was the only one in her school to be accepted, even thought there were children from wealthy families who had received many private tutor sessions too.
At the grammar school they were given few choices but there was a lot of structure.  They were expected to produce their home work on time - so they did.  They were expected to respect teachers and other pupils - so they did.  They were expected to be well rounded, useful members of the school and the community.  Of course, this was fully supported from home.  She achieved fabulous GCSE results, far better than all her friends who had gone to the local comp.  There were 2 girls in wheelchairs at the grammar school plus many from ethnic minorities but they all shared the same attitude to learning.  She rejoined her old junior school class mates for her A-levels - a big culture shock to move from a small all girls grammar school to a huge mixed comp, where the pupils called the staff by their christian names, didn't open doors, didn't even bother to say please and thank you most of the time! :(  She was bullied for maintaining her good manners and standards and survived.:rolleyes:  The teachers asked them to do homework - it was left until it was convenient to do it - always late! :(  There was no uniform - the bedroom became untidy with all the discarded clothes considered every morning! :(  All the 'freedom of choice' had completely depleted the motivation.  The school work just wasn't a priority anymore and this was shown in the exam results. 

Thankfully all the previous education, both from home and from school, hadn't been wasted or forgotten and as soon as she was out of that environment, she turned herself around and got into the college that she had always been aiming for.  Four years of very hard study produced a BSc and a now very successful business lady! :D

I understand the theory of comprehensives where everyone can excel in the area of their particular talent at whatever age it appears.  There were in fact, two pupils in my daughter's old junior class who did 'OK' at the comp.  The rest had middle/poor results and the ones that she's kept in touch with have run of the mill jobs - all important in their own way, or no jobs at all :(.  But in the same way that the underachievers need their own way of teaching, so do pupils at the other end of the scale who tend to be lost in a comp 'because they can do it!' :rolleyes:  If the grammar school way of thinking could be included in the comprehensives, then I'd support a one school systems.  Until it changes, then I'd encourage everyone who thinks that their child would benefit from a grammar school education to bring them up with that in mind.  But then I went to a grammar school, and I really appreciated what they did for me too - even all these years later! :D

they all shared the same attitude to learning

Val you have hit the nail on the head.  I believe that a bright child is able to do well in any school, private, grammar or comp, depending on the attitude to learning.  A child who does not have the correct attitude will not do well anywhere and vice versa.

They were expected to produce their home work on time - so they did.  They were expected to respect teachers and other pupils - so they did.  They were expected to be well rounded, useful members of the school and the community.  Of course, this was fully supported from home. 

This is not only the case at grammar schools!  Although you say your local comp was different (and I think you cannot really judge unless you have been in the school/have a child there), my sons comp and the one I work in in the neighbouring borough are both as your statement above.  My son NEVER has to be reminded to do his homework, and he has NEVER handed it in late.  The children are polite and I think in contrast to schools where the be all and end all is exam results, the children are well rounded in all aspects.  Obviously I have no first hand experience of any other schools so cannot say about others.

She achieved fabulous GCSE results, far better than all her friends who had gone to the local comp.

My son has always had a state education (as have his brothers) and all 3 are doing brilliantly.  My son has already reached a level 7 in maths and science at the end of year 8 - well above the national average.  I myself went to a comprehensive and have a degree, so it is not necessarily down to the schools!

The change in your daughter may just have been due to her age and the fact that 6th form colleges are much more relaxed than schools.

I do agree that maybe grammar and private schools might push their students more, but when my son was given the chance to go to a local school where you sit an entry exam and have an interview to get in (still a comprehensive officially, but really more like a grammar) which achieved really top notch results, he declined.  He felt, as I do, there is more to life than academic achievement and he didn't want all his spare time taken up with homework.

I believe that a bright child is able to do well in any school, private, grammar or comp, depending on the attitude to learning.  A child who does not have the correct attitude will not do well anywhere and vice versa.

Although you say your local comp was different (and I think you cannot really judge unless you have been in the school/have a child there)

I agree with the theory but it's a very difficult thing for adolescent children, who all want to be different (but the same as all the rest ;) ) to be in a minority and be bullied for being different.  My daughter had a dreadful time trying to maintain her standards - she DID go to the local comp 6th form - with less abled children jeering at her manners! :(  It is sooo much easier for them if they are surrounded by similar minded children.

there is more to life than academic achievement and he didn't want all his spare time taken up with homework

Couldn't agree more.  My daughter will tell you that the only thing that she hadn't learn before she left school was skiing! :(  She could swim, ice skate, dance, do judo, was a winning junior handler, would write KCJO projects every year, ride, drive and everything else in between.  She had asked for typing lessons for her 14th birthday because her school didn't teach that and she thought it would help her studying and save time if she had a word processor.  She had also earned enough money running her own little business by the time she was 17 to buy herself a 3 year old car (better than most of her teachers!) to drive to school.

And I don't think for one minute that my daughter is "a bright child" but before she even went to school I had taught her self discipline, self worth, pride, caring, sharing, consideration, how to structure a day to be productive whether for work or for pleasure, and the greatest gift that my grammar school had taught be - how to learn! :)

If you are pleased with the education that your comp provides, then that's great! :)

I agree with the theory but it's a very difficult thing for adolescent children, who all want to be different (but the same as all the rest  ) to be in a minority and be bullied for being different. 

Children are bullied for all sorts of reasons and I do not believe for one minute that this does not go on at private schools   I agree though that in some areas, where the people are not concerned about their childrens education, that in a comp. bullying can occur if someone is hardworking and/or bright - Just NOT in ALL comps.

My daughter had a dreadful time trying to maintain her standards - she DID go to the local comp 6th form - with less abled children jeering at her manners! 

This is a subject close to my heart really.  Do you mean that ALL children in the comp were less able and had worse manners than you daughter?  Even at a private school not all children will be of the same ability - in fact far from it - Just because a childs family is wealthy certainly does not make the child more able or bettered mannered! It also does not make those children similar minded.  I had a friend years ago who was a teacher in an Inner London schools and she more or less said that all working class children are thick - with teachers like that how are children expected to achieve?

Comprehensive schools also offer many of the extra curricular activities that you mention.

And I don't think for one minute that my daughter is "a bright child" but before she even went to school I had taught her self discipline, self worth, pride, caring, sharing, consideration, how to structure a day to be productive whether for work or for pleasure, and the greatest gift that my grammar school had taught be - how to learn!

You daughter does sound to me to be a bright child, after all she was clever enough to realise how important it is to work hard at school  which is what I am trying to teach my boys :).  I also think that many parents of comprehensive children teach their children the values you taught your daughter - I certainly did and so do my friends. :)

Children are bullied for all sorts of reasons and I do not believe for one minute that this does not go on at private schools
My daughter went to a council grammer school, not a private school.

Do you mean that ALL children in the comp were less able and had worse manners than you daughter?
None of the pupils in the 6th form that she joined at the comp had comparable results for their GCSEs. 
She would stand up when a teacher or any adult entered the room - none of the comp children did because it was not expected.  She would address the teachers by Mr/Mrs/Miss and their surname.  All of the comp children would call them by their Christian names - because that was acceptable.  They jeered at her because she refused to change what she considered to be appropriate behaviour but she had enough strength of character not to let if bother her too much, but it was hard at times.

Just because a childs family is wealthy certainly does not make the child more able or bettered mannered!
Nobody has said that it does.  I was certainly not wealthy and my daughter wore school uniform bought from the school second hand shop!:rolleyes:

You daughter does sound to me to be a bright child
She is the product of a 4 O-level grammar school girl (me!) and a privately educated Father who left school with no qualifications whatsoever but has worked to become senior staff in a national company.  So not naturally gifted but as I said, given my undivided attention, which of course I couldn't have done if I'd had more than one child (but then that was another choice that I made) and taught how to learn.

after all she was clever enough to realise how important it is to work hard at school
That's not clever.  She was brought up to believe it was 'normal'!

You're happy with your sons' comprehensive education and I'm happy with my and my daughter's grammar school education.  So we're ALL happy! :D

> That's not clever.  She was brought up to believe it was 'normal'

:) Definitely :) :)

Daisy

> He felt, as I do, there is more to life than academic achievement and he didn't want all his spare time taken up with homework

Most good schools will also have a wealth of extra-curricular activities providing all, willing, children with many opportunities. A decent academic life should not restrict other activities :)

Daisy

Attitudes to learning are made, not born, though. By definition a child will be childish and can't reliably be given responsibility for its own future. Guidance from those with experience is needed, and the better teachers at whatever sort of school will encourage and push each child to fulfil their potential, not just allow the brighter ones ("Oh, he'll get by okay") to coast.

My son's schooling was 100% state, not private. He was reading after his first term in the reception class (at 4½), off the reading-age scale at 10, got excellent GCSEs at the state grammar school but was badly let down by the comprehensive - who decided he was dyslexic. :rolleyes: Yeah, right. He could write better at 6 than he could at 17. Some children are dyslexic, there's no doubt. Others, like my son, are given that label as a cop-out for laziness.

is it really such a great idea to decide on a child's future at 11 ?

A child's future is not decided at 11 just because they do or do not attend a grammar school. A school that is appropriate to a child's ability and is suitable to the individual child's personality is the one I would choose every time. It is not fair to assume that because a child does not go to a selective school it will not achieve but will be assigned to the scrap heap. It is far better to be coping well in a high school than struggling at the bottom of a grammar school.

Selection happens all the  time in life and sometimes we will be seen as "successfully selected" by society and at other times not. To me personally I couldn't care less about sort of house, car, job a person has as it is the person themself who is important to me.

There are  pupils at my children's grammar school who have various additional needs  - Dyslexia, Aspergers and other variants on the Autistic spectrum as well as those with quite profound physical disabilities. There are also pupils with behavioural problems.


Interestingly the school is one of the first - certainly in our area - to drop an A-level education in favour of the International Baccalaureat (sp) as used on the continent. It will be interesting to see how their results compare with other countries that use this scheme.

The IB is a good qualification - but not for everyone. My daughter's secondary school did it in the Sixth Form (it was a state day/boarding language college). She chose to leave after GCSEs and go to her brother's school (with our blessing) because she preferred to do A levels :) The IB is a very broadly based qualification and so may not be to everyone's taste - particularly where A levels can be an alternative :)

Daisy

I have to say Daisy that I am glad my daughter was able to take A-levels at her school and was one of the last there to be educated and examined at A level. I have seen the curriculum for the IB as it was sent home to all parents and think, for her, that A-levels were better suited to her choice of career as she could study the 5 subjects that are relevant to her proposed future career.

The IB seems a fairly good scheme for those pupils who have no idea as to what they want to do in their future working life as it does not channel them into an area that they may later decide is not for them but continues to have a wide-based approach to their education. As I understand it though they do have to pass all subject exams to achieve the award and will not get it if one area lets them down - whereas the A level scheme treats each subject as a seperate item and each subject taken stands in it's own right.

A different advantage of the IB is it is internationally recognised which would be of use if wishing to undertake higher education abroad but I would have to know more about it to persuade me that it was a better scheme than the current A level examinations.

Daisy and JG I agree totally.

A child's future is not decided at 11 just because they do or do not attend a grammar school. A school that is appropriate to a child's ability and is suitable to the individual child's personality is the one I would choose every time. It is not fair to assume that because a child does not go to a selective school it will not achieve but will be assigned to the scrap heap. It is far better to be coping well in a high school than struggling at the bottom of a grammar school.

Selection happens all the  time in life and sometimes we will be seen as "successfully selected" by society and at other times not. To me personally I couldn't care less about sort of house, car, job a person has as it is the person themself who is important to me.

I also agree with you Harley.  I have nothing against selection - what I object to is the view of some that if you go to a comp then you must be less able at the least. I also think that it should not only be well off parents who can send their children to the school they desire. It should be the same for everyone (but then that is life I suppose - don't have to like it though :) )

It should be the same for everyone
That's the sort of attitude that makes the unemployed around here trash nice cars belonging to hard working people - they want one without the effort! :(

If I wanted a Rolls Royce I could have worked fulltime, got a loan and made the payments.  I preferred to work part time and do the most important job that I'll ever do, spend as much time as I could raising my daughter and drive an Astra! ;)

If a particular school is where we want our children to go, then we change our situation to make that a priority.  If we're happy with the school over the road, we change nothing.  I moved 40 miles so that my 6 year old daughter could go to what I considered to be a good school.  It was a good decision - it's not always like that!:rolleyes:

Life isn't fair.  We are not all equal in abilities but equal in value.  We all make our own choices as to what is important to us and not everybody else.  That's life. :D

It should be the same for everyone

I was referring to the education system!!!. I certainly never said people who can't be bothered to make the effort should benefit, quite the opposite in fact.

If a particular school is where we want our children to go, then we change our situation to make that a priority

This alone is more than alot of families on low incomes can do.  And why should people have to move house to ensure a good education for their children, after all we all pay tax?  Again the lower incomes suffer - maybe that's right though as they pass less tax than high earners? :rolleyes:.

Life isn't fair.  We are not all equal in abilities but equal in value.  

Here I agree :)

We all make our own choices as to what is important to us and not everybody else.  That's life

And here we are back to the beginning - where is the choice for those on a lower income?