[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

How do you work that one out?

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

How do you work that one out?

Pretty simple, people who do not take education seriously find it hard to get a well paid job. Their fault, especially when education is offered free thanks to the tax payers.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Pretty simple, people who do not take education seriously find it hard to get a well paid job. Their fault, especially when education is offered free thanks to the tax payers.

I think that is a very narrow minded view as there are lots of people in situations which are not their own fault and not necessarily from a lack of education.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

I think that is a very narrow minded view as there are lots of people in situations which are not there own fault and not necessarily from a lack of education.

Examples?

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Examples?

People who have lost their jobs due to the state of the current climate, people who have become ill and cannot work, people with learning difficulties..... I am sure I could think of many more.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

People who have lost their jobs due to the state of the current climate, people who have become ill and cannot work, people with learning difficulties..... I am sure I could think of many more.

First one fair enough, but in-time that is likely to correct itself. The others may be not from own doing but in both cases they can receive benefits, yes maybe not to the degree they would want but that is just a unfortunate truth. Anyway that forms a hugely minor sector of the population and doesn't really change the fact I was making. I will however state a rephrasement and I will say healthy people on low incomes.

Plus most people on low incomes obtain cars, satellite television and lots of other goods that are considered wants rather than needs. They have not a leg to stand on to complain about not being able to afford food until they give up the majority of goods considered 'luxury'. We were given legs for a reason but the majority of people drive everywhere.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

First one fair enough, but in-time that is likely to correct itself. The others may be not from own doing but in both cases they can receive benefits, yes maybe not to the degree they would want but that is just a unfortunate truth. Anyway that forms a hugely minor sector of the population and doesn't really change the fact I was making. I will however state a rephrasement and I will say healthy people on low incomes.

Plus most people on low incomes obtain cars, satellite television and lots of other goods that are considered wants rather than needs. They have not a leg to stand on to complain about not being able to afford food until they give up the majority of goods considered 'luxury'. We were given legs for a reason but the majority of people drive everywhere.

Do you have facts and figures or is that supposition?