Well, an interesting change in tack by Chanellor Kwarteng. (I do hope the Daily Mirror gets the right photograph on its pages tomorrow.)
But any government should be starting from the points:
1. In what areas is government help needed and
2. What is the absolute minimum amount of money we have to take off the citizens to achieve it.
Saying, as Scotlands first minister effectively has said overnight, that a 45% rate is morally right is just infantile. If the need for taxpayer funded government intervention fell surely it would be immoral to keep taxing at a high level just to fill the governments coffers.
To keep on with the first ministers dubious claim to be the moral guardian of the nation. I am not sure how moral it was to have primary school children forced to sing songs of praise to her. “We are so grateful thank you for always keeping us safe, working so hard, for being strong for us.” It was just like what children sing to Kim Jong-un. Very disturbing.
Sticking to morals. Is it morally right for the taxpayer to keep funding the treatment of sick people who have, through their own actions, created their illness? That is why people have to insure their own car third party. It is not morally right that other pick up the tab for your driving.
Morally, if taxpayers money is to be used in health care, should the funding not be put into stopping people becoming ill in the first place?
Or end of life care. Instead of spending a significant amount of the NHS budget on keeping people alive for a few months, should we not accept that death is inevitable and pour that money into stopping people getting ill in the first place? Or into palliative care?
Discuss.
