Isn't it amazing how we frame political debates?
In the UK we have just had a reading of a new "Welfare Reform Bill
" including a section on a "Benefit Cap" which will limit benefits for the unemployed of most kinds: this has been done on the grounds of expense. Quite rightly people see they are paying out from their taxes what they consider to be "excessive" benefits. One set of figures I saw
mentioned the savings from the Benefit Cap alone would amount to £270M a year, which is almost £5 a year for each person in the country, or almost £10 a year for every tax-payer. However, the House of Lords amended the teeth from the bill
(much against the will of the people, damn elitist House of Lords scum) by scuppering any inclusion of Child Benefit
in the equation.
Now, a few folk with kids would become homeless over this "Benefit Cap" and maybe as many as 60,000 will be affected by it. But the tax-payers, most of whom appear to approve of this return to the values of Dickensian society, aren't too bothered about it, because they'll each be saving almost £10 a year. This could buy three pints of beer or half a bottle of cheap whisky, and that's not to be sniffed at.
And at the other end of the spectrum apparently tax evasion costs the UK some £69.9 Billion a year
. This doesn't apparently take into account legitimate though unethical tax-avoidance. If this could be fixed it would put over £1,100 in each person's pocket, or well over £2,200 in each tax-payer's pocket. Or pay for well over half of the UK's total healthcare budget.
But really, who wants an extra couple of thou, or a decent health service, when we could be evicting families for the price of a few pints of beer a year
. I mean to say, it all adds up, doesn't it?
Noblesse Oblige. The poor are always with us. Unless we can find a way of shipping them abroad, or encouraging them to live a life of homelessness where they will only be a minor drain on society until they die at approximately aged 47
I know folk like Cameron have to pander to the ignorance and prejudices of the voting public. And it sure helps if the voting public are kept ignorant and prejudiced. I mean to say, even the Labour party agrees with the coalition that the "Benefit Cap" is a good thing, because it too has to appeal to the voting public.
I do think that we should educate our folk to be able to think critically, and if necessary, that education should be beaten into folk when they are children. But this is because, as an elitist, a snob, and someone who likes to occupy the moral and intellectual high ground despite my obvious limitations, I have little time for the ignorance and prejudices of the general public, especially when they are informed quite as badly as they appear to be.