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" !

... a fistful of horrors, 400 ...

... in fact.

The richest 400 people in the USA have a wealth that equal the wealth of the bottom 140 million people combined.

To put it into perspective, each of the 400 has the combined wealth of 350,000 citizens.

If each of the 400 wealthy few could corral these 350,000 people they would each need a city the size of New Orleans.

For a more considered opinion you might try the decline of the great American middle class by Robert Reich.

Remember the 140,000,000 are not the underbelly of a nation, they represent almost half the citizens of this powerful country.

Now my question is ...

... are not these 140,000,000 people stakeholders in the USA ?

... and when you say YES, you might like to consider ...

... the 400 have a combined wealth of $7.5 trillion, whilst the 140,000,000 share an equal amount !

Is this Justice or might it be very similar to the society of Moses in ancient Egypt

... and is it so very different here in the United Kingdom .............. I doubt it !

... 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 ?

Where is the justice in ...

... a world where we insist that society is built upon a foundation of poor people, and where we insist that the poor amongst us are further impoverished through insisting they live together in "cheaper homes", which by definition create impoverished and disadvantaged area's, is this a modern form of social cleansing as The National Housing Federation is quoted as saying.

To explore the reasoning we have essential reading from the think tank Policy Exchange, the logic underpinning the 50 page report is based upon land costs ...

Area                                           Total per hectare         Total per home
London                                           £3,000,000                 £100,000
South East/East/South West            £900,000                   £30,000
Other regions                                   £450,000                   £15,000

... to be fair to Policy Exchange there is no recommendation to cut into the standards of design and construction, at least not just yet, as it states ...

We should build to Parker Morris standards (created in 1961, these set a minimum floor space for each property size).

• In one, two and three bedroom dwellings, one flushing toilet is required, and it may be in the bathroom.
• A semi-detached or end-of-terrace house for 4 people should have a net floor area of 72 square metres.
• A dwelling for three or more people should have enclosed storage space for the kitchen of 2.3 cubic metres.
• Dwellings should be fitted with heating systems that maintain the kitchen and circulation space at 13 degrees Celsius, and the living and dining spaces at 18 °C, when the external temperature is −1 °C.

Now the proposals have little effect upon the super-rich, cost is less important to those who build their personal gated properties.

It is with the middle classes and particularly the professional-managerial class of Britain [and other developed countries of the world] that will benefit from the ghettoization of the poor amongst us, the other side of this particular coin is the gentrification of existing social housing, an effect will be to underpin or in some cases increase property values though I do not see this aspect as of great importance, it is the creation of modern serfdom.

Without a lessor group of people to underpin the mobile middle classes what is the point of the middle classes, and if the lessor group are not segregated into their 21^st century ghetto how do the middle classes manage their aspirational lives.

Part of the middle/professional-managerial class are our politicians, the hinge pin that enables our middle classes to engineer society as an illusionary 21^st century version of the middle ages, the ultimate beneficiary of which are the super-rich who continue to own the majority of wealth whilst standing at the Orchestra Podium directing society to internal conflicts that fails to address the real problem of our 21^st century world, the provision of universal justice.

In Wales, we have political powers devolved to the Assembly Government, whereas Policy Exchange would advocate politics coercing social housing providers to ghettoise the less fortunate amongst us, I would encourage a policy that further integrates people into society through the prevention of social housing providers from building social housing in discrete, detached from others, estates.  Social housing providers should be obliged to purchase dwellings within the current housing stock.