Wednesday, January 24, 2007
CHILD POVERTY !
I was interviewed by a newspaper today who suggested that 51 % of children in my ward of Ferguslie Park lived in poverty, I persuaded the interviewer that the figure was nonsense. Still there are children who are living below the poverty line and that's a scandal. I once used the example of scientific progress ( man on the moon etc ) to illustrate that there is no excuse for poverty, hunger and disease in today's world, we have the technology and the wealth to fix it. That 'clairwil blog' chose to disingenuously accuse me of attacking science for that, ( read it for yourself ) Anyway I ( personally ) would agree with the 'save the children' report which advocates giving these families more help, £100 in summer and &100 in winter as well as £100 extra in winter for fuel etc. using their figures this comes to approx £1 Billion so, how do we fund it ? well I would tax the wealthy far more, simple eh ? I know you are all shocked by that, but it's the decent thing to do and they can afford it. Winter time means extra expense for fuel, so, utility companies should be told, during the worst parts of winter you will be obliged to give concessionary rates to those in poverty. Family allowance should be raised for the duration of school hols. to compensate for loss of free school meals etc - does this make me a dangerous radical or a man of common sense ? there are other ways, we just have to win the argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You could ask fellow Scottish Labour stalwart Gordon Brown to zero rate the tax on fuel. Or to raise the tax free threshhold to the min wage?
Maybe the "peoples party" should try to give the poor more of their own money before taking other peoples?
How can you advocate giving someone someone elses money after having taxed them at 33 percent of their own?
And if you think raising tax results in more money flowing to government then you would be wrong.
So, you'd tax me more?
I am "wealthy" because I work hard. If tax was increased, what incentive would I have to continue to work hard and earn more?
I should just add myself to the workshy statistics, or do the bare minimum to avoid paying more tax...
Higher taxes for the higher earner is hardly the solution. Would employment and a decent wage for their parents not be a better option?
anonymous - I will respond once to you,I can't get used to exchanging views with someone who hides. you are rather cavalier with your use of the word 'earner' good jobs and good wages, yes, and the redistribution of wealth, it's called Socialism.
angry steve - the incentive would be that you would be doing the decent thing and helping those less well off than yourself - it's called Socialism, you'll feel better maybe even less angry.
RFS clearly you could be running the country if you weren't too busy cutting hair or driving a cab - taking more from those who can afford it is progressive - leaving the 'devil to take the hindmost' is base and typical of the right wing.I wonder again what could have turned you into such a callous young man.
I'm not sure that you're quite in step with your party here over the adoption of an absolute or relative level of poverty as the accepted measurement. I'd say that 51% of children within Ferguslie being in relative poverty was probably an underestimate. I'm not suggesting that half of children in your ward are starving - they're not because absolute poverty (in human terms) is not a huge issue in the UK.
Now - this is where the 51% figure should shame you... relative poverty is not alleviated through redistribution of wealth - all that will do is lower the standard of living for the rich while doing next to nothing to aid your electorate. It is the competent provision of education and social services which, in the long term, addresses relative poverty.
What percentage of your education budget actually reaches the classrooms (as opposed to being swallowed up in your offices)? How long have you been a councillor in this borough and been happy to see over half of the children exist in relative poverty so long as their parents buy into your class-war nonsense and continue electing you?
"the incentive would be that you would be doing the decent thing and helping those less well off than yourself"
So, why wouldn't they help themselves by training, getting better jobs, then they could be just as well off as me, and I don't have my hard earned cash taken away from me... Or would that be too sensible?
Yes we could do a bit better for the poor than chucking them a few benefits and leaving them to rot.
Every child could be made to realise how important they are. Adults could be offered re-training. The tiny minority that 'loaf about' on benefits are by and large people who would love to contribute but feel too low to know how. But what are your party doing other than hounding people?
BTW- I'm with rightforscotland on one thing. The minimum wage should not be taxed.
clairwil - I don't have any problem with this except your rather predictable gibe about what my party is doing. I could inundate you with info. on what we are doing but I suspect it wouldn't change your closed mind any. and that really is a pity.
angry steve - are you by any chance any of the following ?
a) A disgusted resident of Turnbridge Wells.
b) A Sun reader.
Max - I must remember not to overestimate some folk when I'm writing. Poverty - is living on 60% of national average wage, extreme poverty is 40% - so, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor won't alleviate poverty, beam me up, better education and services ,now your talking, payed for by ? come on Max think hard now, do I really have to spell it out ? So another gem " I'm happy to see children in poverty " Max if you didn't exist I'd have to invent you. Class War ? of course it doesn't exist, that's why we are arguing isn't it ? Max you are giving me a headache, is this your best argument ?
Answer my question. Just once, answer a question.
You said you would reply only once as I choose to be anonymous and thats fair, I cannot argue with your conviction in regard to having opinions and anonimity. If you want me to see your reply then post the comment if not then dont. However please consider the following:I did not use the word earner without consideration, I earn my salary and its in full benefit to your ward beleive me, but I do not see the need to subsidise wasters with higher taxiation to those that strive to acheive. Some people are a victim of circumstance however some choose to be that victim, and it is them that turn me against socialism.
max - re-read your post and you will see that you have in fact asked two questions in the last para. 1/ how much money goes directly into education ( was that a real question ?) - answer, I don't know, why don't you look it up and you tell me. 2/ how long have I been happy to see children living in poverty ( another real question ?) - answer, Im not, and I'm beginning to get worried about having to spell things out for you max. if you can't keep up you should take a rest.
anonymous - I'm glad you spotted my ref. to the word earner, far too many wealthy people are not 'earners' they are parasites, far more so than the so called 'wasters' you refer to, calling them willing victims is all too convenient, yes there are those who abuse the system but the abuse carried out by the rich is far greater, by far the greatesy abuse of our social security system and wellfare state is the millions of pounds which do not find their way to those who deserve them and are entitled to them, now that's a real scandal but so what eh ? under capitalism 'you win some and --'
families more help, £100 in summer and &100 in winter as well as £100 extra in winter for fuel etc. using their figures this comes to approx £1 Billion so, how do we fund it ? well I would tax the wealthy far more, simple eh.....
Even simpler, make them stop smoking at a fiver a packet, and stop spending on alcohol.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
far too many wealthy people are not 'earners' they are parasites
So your answer to this is to make more parasites...only poorer ones?
anon - child poverty - delighted to publish - hope lots of people read it. No wonder your anon.
Post a Comment