Secondly, an £83bn cut in spending accelerates both poverty and inequality. There is no escape for the obvious reason that most spending is on those who need it most.
Mike Brewer of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a cautious outfit, says it is bound to hit the poorest most: \”It would be astounding if cutting a quarter of public spending were not regressive.\” He can say it with certainty even before we know where next week\’s cuts fall hardest.
For if most of the spending is on the poor then cutting the spending will obviously hit the poor.
This isn\’t exactly a revelation.
he is beguiled by tokenism while ignoring unavoidable iron laws: cuts will fall unfairly.
But that doesn\’t follow. For you\’ve leapt from obvious fact to a partisan interpretation of the word \”fairly\”.
Let us conduct a small thought experiment. It is an absolute part, a bedrock of belief, for Polly that those who get more should pay more. Those who get more money out of the economy\’s current set up should pay more in tax for example.
If we were to be consistent then, having decided that the current structure of the economy is unsustainable (yes, having made that determination, this is not the place to be discussing whether) then we really shouldn\’t be all that surprised that those who get the most out of the current structure of redistribution will lose the most as that redistribution changes.
This also looks very odd to me:
It will take a while longer for the first victim of a drunk driver to find that even for paralysis of a bread-winner maximum damages will now be capped at £25,000, to the delight of the insurance industry.
I really and absolutely do not believe that anyone has tried to cap damages in that manner.
Punitive damages, possibly, but not economic damages. Absolutely no way can I believe that.
Anyone know where Polly got that from?