Canada as I understand it, has even more absurd laws in terms of where government money goes. Having three or four wives all on welfare in the same house for example, while actual Canadians are not allowed to have more than 1 persons collecting welfare in a single household even as room-mates springs to mind. Frankly, no one should be getting welfare at all…
Daily Mail, 11 October 2010 from Melanie Phillips. Click here to read the rest please.
The explosive reaction to Chancellor George Osborne’s child benefit proposal continues to ricochet round the Coalition’s ears.
The plan to axe this benefit for anyone earning above the higher-rate tax threshold, currently just under £44,000 per year, caused a furious backlash.
This has been followed by the backlash to the backlash. The response to the outcry has been to sneer that while the better-off rail against handouts for the poor, they react like scalded cats to the suggestion that they should lose their own from the state.
Such sour petulance is only to be expected from the Left. But what is startling is that exactly the same sneering is also coming from the Cameroons, who have accused middle-class objectors of ‘fiscal nimbyism’ – morphing from ‘not in my back yard’ into ‘not in my back pocket’.
How spiteful. And how unfair. For the child benefit proposal itself breaches the most elementary understanding of fairness.
It is deeply unfair, for example, that a family with one stay-at-home parent will lose this benefit if the sole earner earns more than £44,000, while a family with two working parents earning up to £88,000 will keep it.
Next, it offends against any real idea of social justice that young women should continue to receive what is effectively a financial incentive to have one baby after another, regardless of whether or not the fathers stick around, while traditional, responsible families are penalised.
I agree with her, President Reagan stopped this in the US, but Clinton started doing it again. Welcome to the world of the left.