This is today's YouTube short election question:
Yesterday's question was viewed by more than. 4,000 people.
This is the transcript for this one:
If only the UK's political parties taxed wealth more, we could end child poverty in this country. It would only cost two billion pounds a year, or maybe even a little less to do that. And increasing just one tax on wealth, the capital gains tax rate, could raise that sum so easily that no one would really notice.
But no politician is suggesting they'll do that.
Why won't they end child poverty by making those with wealth pay a bit more tax?
Isn't that what tax justice would look like?
So why won't they do it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Andrew Dilnot on the radio this morning talking about the heavy burden of social care costs that falls almost at random on a relative small number of people. Clearly this needs some sort of social insurance model, like the NHS. Perhaps a few billion pounds per year to sort this out. Over 25 years of inaction since a royal commission in 1998 and over a decade since since Dilnot’s report in 2011, yet none of the parties are talking about alleviating this misery.
From their actions, our politicians do not care about the suffering of the old, just as they do not care about the suffering of the young, as if we cannot afford to look after each other. Deeds not words.
Everything to agree with
I would add that a properly resourced social care system would unblock misused NHS and local authority resources so the net cost would not be so great – or at least we would get back further benefits in addition to the services that are funded directly.
A similar example is Sure Start, where the benefits over the long term (in purely financial terms, not even putting a price on the thing that really matters, which is wellbeing) could be greater than the cost. It is a no brainier.
Somehow we can afford nuclear weapons but we cannot afford to look after the old or the young.
So true
The Two Child Limit is a source of National Shame
Why won’t they?
No politician (or hopefu) has children in poverty. It is lack of empathy – & neither can they imagine it happening to them/their children.
Empathy has been absent from the Uk political system for a considerable length of time.
Sometime there is payback (the Tory MP who voted to strip people of legal aid – oh dear he is accused or murder and has to dig into his own pocket (he was not guilt btw)
Tory commentator – against station staff – bad hip – suddenly all in favour.
Without exception Tory/LINO – lack imagination, empathy, humanity & suscribe to fictions such as “we can’t afford it”.
Why is this measured as being 60% of median income adjusted for household size?
I can’t believe that you are calling for politicians to deliver an end to that. Get those households up to just over 60% of median and the job is done, but it isn’t really.
The only reason that definition came into being was to make it something for the simpler activists among us to get angry about.
What we need is policies that will lift every child above the median.
It’s a start
And you do realise how medians work, don’t you?
Yep, everybody should be above average. Then we’d be really motoring.
Geejay
That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long while. A bit like Tpry politicians who complain because half of schoolchildren are below average for reading. 🙂
There are some politicians who make much of the fact that they have a strong religious faith, yet seem unable to be guided by that faith when doing politics. The other day I paraphrased a Jesus of Nazareth quote “The poor will always be with you” which some have used to justify doing nothing about poverty. In fact, more than that, they then go on to blame poverty (and other social ills) on personal failure – a “lifestyle choice”. IDS set up his think tank on this basis.
Now, I’m not religious, but looking into it Jesus was in fact referencing a passage in Deuteronomy, which his audience would have known all about, and which urged people to help the poor, including cancelling debts and lending money even if you think you won’t get it back.
Surely all of us, whatever religion or none, can agree that we have a moral duty to share our national wealth and ensure no one lives in poverty. But why is it so far down voter’s list of priorities and why do those leading the Tory and Lino parties seem not to care? I fear the notion that those who are successful and wealthy deserve it owing to their exceptional brilliance while the poor just need to try harder has infected the body politic.