Yet more hand wringing about 'child poverty' over at the BBC. This is the best bit:
"A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said the government was committed to the cause. She said: "We have lifted 600,000 children out of poverty...
Nope, the taxpayer has. And it is the self-same tax system that is pushing low and average earners back into poverty.
... we are introducing free nursery education for all two, three and four year olds ...
Not true. The much-vaunted 'free' nursery education only pays for two-and-a-half hours a day.
... and have seen an increase in educational outcomes at all ages" ...
Not sure whether I should dignify that with a response.
... She said local authorities and other service providers had to help it raise family incomes, encourage people to apply for tax credit and benefits and help parents work. She said the latter was known to be one of the best ways for families to get out of poverty."
WTF? Getting a job and earning your own money is "one of the best ways ... to get out of poverty"? Not, er, "the only way"?
So What Will Be Done About The Officer?
53 minutes ago
7 comments:
The problem is that "poverty", child or otherwise, is an example of politicians jacking up a word & slipping an entire new definition underneath.
Poverty menas being poor. "Poverty" on the other hand means income inequality. The only way to solve poverty is to increase the size of the economy. The only way to solve "poverty" is with an ever larger state sector enforcing ever more redistribution. This is why "poverty" is greater in South Korea than North despite the fact that the South is the world's 12th largest economy & the North has people starving.
The should not be allowed to get away with this lie. Most "anti-poverty campaigners" are actually campaigning for poverty.
NC, agreed - in our case, the cause of about 90% of child poverty (however defined) is when poor people (however defined) have more children than they can afford. So why are these people trying to encourage this via the Welfare State?
..local authorities and other service providers had to help it raise family incomes, encourage people to apply for tax credit and benefits ..
there just has to be a better way.
Poverty in the rest of the world means your child dies in your arms from malnutrition.
Poverty in the UK means your kids have to borrow someone elses hair straighteners.
WTF? Getting a job and earning your own money is "one of the best ways ... to get out of poverty"? Not, er, "the only way"?
I'm sure that a blogger called Mark Wadsworth showed that for most people that are on welfare, it actually is the worst thing to do to get a low paid job. (Which is what they're most likely to get. :o)
Or am I mistaken?
Obo, you get today's award for Double Think. I am outstmarted and out gunned.
Fish in a barrel, Mark. Fish in a barrel.
Nonetheless, I agree with your destruction of this bureaucratic numpty.
Nick
Post a Comment