I know I shouldn’t have, but I read this piece in the Telegraph called “Why should I pay for Jeremy Corbyn’s friend Claire to have so many children?” Please have a look if you want to before continuing on while I respond to Ms. Hartley-Brewer.
I read this piece you wrote in the Telegraph in which you assert it shouldn’t be up to those of us who work hard to pay for those who apparently don’t. You seem to want nothing to do with the welfare of other people who live in your own country, so I shudder to think what you must think about the refugee crisis. (Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.) In this piece you specifically “question why a family with two able-bodied earners should need tax payers to subsidise their income in the first place.”
Let me explain something about government, which you clearly do not understand.
Government routinely subsidises activities deemed good for society in general. This isn’t new in the slightest. It’s why we educate all children and treat the ill in this country. It’s also why we:
- feed breakfast to children at school
- subsidise renewable energy sources
- subsidise maternity pay for new mums
- subsidise pre-school for under-priviliged two year olds
- give money to employers who want employees
- give money to businesses to sell things – to the tune of £93 billion a year
- bail out banks when they’re about to go bust
- sell those bank stocks at a loss to the country – by £13 – £26 billion
- sell Royal Mail at a loss to the country, and only to pre-selected 1 %ers
- give and sell schools and property at a loss to the country
- leave tax loopholes intact
- allow government ministers to claim £39 breakfasts on expenses
Oh wait, how many of those are actually good for the majority of the people in this country? It’s all debatable isn’t it? But, you see, some of us believe in education, health care and welfare for all the citizens of the country.
You see, children who grow up in poverty don’t have much chance in pulling themselves out. The mere fact that they have grown up with out the security that better off children have means that their brain development is essentially stunted. David Cameron knows all about this because he chose not to fund a program created specifically to combat the effect. He also knows that cutting tax credits does the same thing, again. So, some of us believe that making sure all children are fed, housed, warm and safe is a top priority for the good of the whole country and it’s future. Quite far above subsidising the lives of people who are already millionaires in fact. So if you want to talk about whose lives we should subsidise, have a look at the bigger picture would you? Because corporate welfare is a bigger problem and a bigger waste of tax payer money than social welfare could ever be.
My question is, what kind of psychopath would you have to be to disagree?