The paper version of this article contains a classic quote:
Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokeswoman Jenny Wilson said: 'It is impossible to understand why, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Britain should have one in five of its children living in poverty.
Er, look love, it's because people with incomes below a fairly arbitrary poverty line choose to have children.
Having a welfare/tax system that encourages such people to have children and then discourages them from getting married or starting a job is of course largely to blame. So how about flat-rate universal benefits that alleviate poverty without discouraging work or marriage? How about reducing means-testing to no more than the basic rate of tax?
How about scrapping Employer's National Insurance, stupid employment regulations and the National Minimum Wage to increase the number of jobs? How about getting rid of VAT, that would make everybody's money stretch further? How about having education vouchers to ensure that children get the best (i.e. most appropriate) education possible at the lowest cost to the taxpayer? Continued page 94.
Nicked Bags
4 hours ago
5 comments:
MW
Blimey - next you'll be wanting people (even poor people) taking personal responsibility for their own lives instead of trusting good old Gordo to do it for them.
Britain also seems to keen to import impoverished families with young children!
S, good point. I forgot to mention that there'd be a waiting period of several years before migrants' entitlement to benefits kicks in.
May I invite you to join the Struggle Against "Appropriate"? The noxious adjective means "suitable", but with an added air of Political Correctness and Stalinist menace. We'll exempt medics, for whom it seems to be trade jargon.
D, OK 'suitable' then. My point was, it would be daft sending every kid to grammar school. Leaving school at 15 or 16 might not count as a 'good' education but for many it is the most 'appropriate'.
Post a Comment