Apparently the poorest 30% can’t afford to go on holiday, so they (just do-gooders I think, not the Government) are talking about tax payers paying for them to go on holiday because Holidays are a Human Right.
I am not having a holiday this year, I’m earning pretty good money but moneys tight and some luxuries have had to go.
Why should my taxes be used to pay for luxuries for poorer people. I can understand paying for the basics BUT THAT IS ALL A WELFARE SYSTEM SHOULD COVER.
If this goes through I would be better off not working - at least by doing nothing my family would get a holiday:smack:
This item has some relevence to the jerking motion of your right knee, advocating as it does extending the support poor kids get in school (meals, days out, sports groups etc) throughout the long holidays and providing discounts fo local amenities.
Morning teevee. Great innit ? They have a lot of time to fill, though. Especially in summer when everyone is on holiday, except the poor, of course.
Really, it’s morning teevee. It’s tabloid teevee with comfy sofas, and the girls adorn the weather map instead of page three. Still perky, though. Bless 'em.
I work, my wife works but this year we will not be going abroad for our holiday quite simply because last year we spent 3 weeks in the USA and spent a bloody fortune.
Perhaps if we both packed in our jobs then the nice men at the unemployment office would give us enough dosh to have a couple of weeks in Abersoch or better still Rochdale.
On the other hand if we both turned into mindless thugs we would more than likely get a free skiing holiday :dubious:
So the work that Barnados is a good thing? What are the benefits? Are there social benefits that society as a whole “consumes”?
Who funds Barnados?
Who funds the Government?
Why would this be any less a good thing if it were funded by the Government.
What’s the difference? Is it that one can elect to give to a charity but not to evade taxes?
There are a few things that the Government spends my taxes on that I disagree with in principle, (i.e. not because I believe that the state shouldn’t fund them, but they are not good things in themselves) and if I could I would withhold a proportion of my tax from them.
But you believe that this work is a good thing? The "immediate"beneficiaries (children from deprived backgrounds) of this work are not in a position to help themselves – why shouldn’t such schemes be funded through general taxation? Why should a disproportionate burden fall upon the charitable to do the good and mutually beneficial things?
Because as a middle income earner even I cannot afford a holiday.
If I have to pay more tax there is even less chance of being able to afford a holiday.
So the basic question is who gets the holiday the person who earned the money OR somebody else?
Holidays are a LUXURY. If I have a bit of extra money and decide I’d like to use it to help the underprivellaged I give that money to charity.
The difference between tax and charity is that tax is taken with no thought given to my personal circumstances so it could leave my family worse off, whereas with charity the money I earn goes to my family first with any spare going to help the needy.
Its might seem a fine distinction, but giving people who can’t/don’t or won’t work first call on my earnings just makes me their slave.
There may be more complexity to the issue than the way it has been presented; boredom and deprivation are quite powerful forces in young people; there may be some sort of break-even factor in terms of reducing the volume of petty crimes such as vandalism.