The Guardian has reported that:
The government has officially admitted it is unlikely to meet its target of halving child poverty by 2010.
As Larry Elliot in the same paper says:
It says something about political debate in Britain that raising half a million children above the poverty line should be seen as less important than taxing the small change of 15,000 non-doms.
And, as I showed, this is a choice that has been made. The cost of relieving child poverty is now estimated at £3.4 billion. Abolishing the domicile rule, allowing for all those likely to leave would raise £4.3 billion.
It's a very sorry choice the government has made.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Child poverty exists in the UK
mainly because money channelled from government
to obviate the situation
goes on drink drugs and bling.
Non-doms have nothing whatsoever to do that wastrel attitude.
Why be so unreasonable as to try and link them in this way?
BBG
P.S. Your mis-analysis will only encourage more people to scrounge off their children.
BBG
How extraordinarily abusive of you to think that all who get benefits binge drink
You destroy your credibility with that absurd and abusive slur
Richard