... thinking of poverty.

David Cornock's blog had an interesting comment today,

Comment No. 45. by  paul80  "Poorer parts of the UK should receive more funding. Makes sense. The UK is a sinlge country after all."

I don't think he is right, "why should a poor part of any country receive government funds because it is poorer than other areas ? "

Two questions, both linked, spring to mind, "who would receive the funding, and, who would decide how it would be used ? "

If, for example, it can be demonstrated that an area has such poor literacy that its inhabitants are unable to attract good, well paid, employment, then government might address educational needs of the area.

If, for example, health issues can be linked to poor sanitation, then government can intervene, much like London of the 19th century.

With this in mind, should Westminster fund various regions of the UK as it does, should Scotland receive more per head than Wales, should Wales receive more per head than the East of England, per head ?

I don't think so, funding should be equal across the UK as a whole, based upon population, but a new approach to funding societies deficiencies wherever they are found.

He proposes a sick ...

...joke to be played on Britain's poor people, a proposal by Ian Duncan Smith,

who tells the little people to be satisfied with their poverty !

... he proposes to reduce the redistribution of income from the better off to those living in poverty.



 ... he is another who can be referred to as "all process, no products"...

... unless of course "poverty" is considered a "product" !

... two views, two ...

... quite different perspectives !

The UK government through its Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said the rich of the UK pay sufficient into the tax pool, check out the figures ...

... almost 90% of tax take is paid by the top 50% of the income groups.

This particular coin has a very different other side, the wealth of the top 50% ...

... dwarfs the wealth of the bottom 50%.

You might say that the wealth has been earned therefore such comparisons should not be made, as George Osborne said ...

... beware of "driving away" the UK's "wealth creators"

I have this feeling that our politicians are not being particularly honest with the electorate.

Is it the politics of envy to ask the top 50% of taxpayers to contribute a little more to pay for the poverty that underpins their wealth, Is it true that if taxes increased for the wealthiest 50% they would depart our small island leaving an unfilled vacuum ...

Or could it be true that the top 50% of taxpayers exist because of the production of the little people at the bottom of the pile, could it be true that an economic vacuum cannot exist except in the empty minds of politicians.

It's not necessary to invoke the politics of envy to right an obvious wrong, it is important to maintain a culture where aspiration is a motivating factor ...

... but it's equally important that we do not have a social underclass as a foundation of society.

Economic Justice is as important as Criminal Justice.

Clegg is wrong to suggest the wealthiest people ...

... could be asked to pay more tax for a limited period.

 A weak politician with feeble ideas, if he had a backbone he would have said ...

Every person earning above the average should be taxed to support the lowest paid in the economy, the lowest paid that underpin our economy through their poverty.

The idea is, we are all players in the game of life, and, with a few exceptions, contribute to society, unfortunately some contribute much effort for little return, and those of us who were cast a better hand are given an advantage that is unjustified.

What is the worth of a doctor to society, when compared to his nursing colleague, compared to the hospital porter, compared to the hospital grounds cleaning team !

The aim of the Liberal Democrats could be a levelling game, the levelling of opportunity for people, this is not the model of Marx but the models based on the propositions of John Rawls, deliberations from behind his "veil of ignorance" to promote social justice.

Would we condemn people to poverty if we might be tomorrows pauper, would we set a minimum wage that is insufficient to sustain our existence.  It's true that poverty is relative in a discrete society, it is not useful to compare the poverty of Britain with the poverty of Brazil when exploring local solutions, solutions to issues that Clegg might consider today;  although in the greater scheme such comparisons will expose our humanity or lack of.

For Clegg he might begin a British long march towards Justice and the elimination of poverty, as a start he could do well to consider the reform of taxation in our country, a reform to ensure that no-one person or company doing business in Britain fails to contribute in full.  That is the foundation, a society where contributing is a virtue.

A digression following on from yesterday in the USA ...

... in the USA during 2007 the following words were expressed ...

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democratic president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

... by the conservative Fox news guest and celebrity pundit Ann Coulter.

... she would disenfranchise half of society, what hope for the little people ?

This weeks FoS award goes to ...

... Paul "Petey" Ryan, running mate of Romney.

... written in The Times by Sam Coates Deputy Political Editor

Mitt Romney’s running mate in his campaign to become the next US President has been sharply critical of the NHS, claiming that free healthcare distorts the democratic process because it makes patients dependent on government help.

Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who was announced on Saturday as the Republican vice-presidential contender, has also compared the British economy to those of Greece and Ireland, saying the “day of reckoning” has already arrived in all three countries.

The remarks are likely to cause further transatlantic friction after Mr Romney’s troubled visit to Britain last month in which he criticised preparations for the Olympics. 

Mr Ryan’s attack on the NHS was part of an effort to stop President Obama’s healthcare reforms, which the Republican said would put the US "on a glide path toward European-style socialism". He wrote in the Wall Street Journal:  "We need only look to Great Britain and elsewhere to see the effects of socialised healthcare on the broader economy. Once a large number of citizens get their healthcare from the State, it dramatically alters their attachment to government.

"Every time a tax cut is proposed, the guardians of the new medical-welfare state will argue that tax cuts would come at the expense of healthcare — an argument that would resonate with middle-class families entirely dependent on the government for access to doctors and hospitals." The analysis came in 2009, in an article co-written with Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President Bush.

Our NHS is not "European-style socialism", its a recognition that we are all dependent on one another at some point in life.  A recognition that there are aspects of life that require just a little more intervention than the markets.

In the UK, we as a people through the ballot box, have decided that our imperfect NHS, a service that is totally inclusive, is a better civilised solution to health care than the models that Ryan and chums subscribe to.

For the little people, those who have been denied opportunity by accident of birth, working with asbestos during the 20th century developed incomprehensible debilitation by virtue of occupation.  These people produced products used by all, produced products upon which vast fortunes were made.  This is the single example needed to justify an inclusive health service is provided by all to everyone with a need.

The little people need this service when their earnings hover around the poverty level .... 

Professional politicans rarely experience this type of need .......

 .......... so we award the Full of Shit medal to Paul "Petey" Ryan, not a friend of the little people.

3 years ago you needed £800 million ...

... to get in the top 50 of The Sunday Times "Rich List", now the top 50 have too amass a minimum of £1,400 million to sit at the top table.

If during the past three years these fortunes have increased by over 40%, why are there so many people unemployed, why did 128,687 people need help from Trussell Trust food-banks last year (2011-2012), just wondering ......

...... after wondering about such a thought provoking question, I needed a little music :