If we lose the winners then we’re all losers

I SAW Labour man John Chater’s well-intended letter about ‘income inequality’ (April 12) but wanted to address some of the core points.

He refers to ‘income inequality’ but surely we must and should look at absolute poverty as the start line, not an ever increasing national increase in affluence (aside from a temporary present hiatus) and thus how the averages or baseline figures match against that?

A fixation based upon ‘but they’ve got more than me’ is wrong. It should be ‘do I have enough for my basic needs?’ After all, too, if we taxed the really wealthy so hard, then they would leave and, yes, the gap would shrink but there wouldn’t be any winners – there’d be losers, as the super-rich wouldn’t be investing in us any more (the top 10% of income tax payers also pay half of all income tax, for example!).

We should consider ‘absolute poverty’ definitions – so that we can tick off targets of base line universal comfort so that anything above that is a gain and success for society (and the world) generally and of course still leaves goals for which we aspire.

Instead, all the statistics baying

‘one in four on the poverty line’ constantly look at comparative poverty, so the wealthier a nation’s inhabitants become, oddly enough 25% or whatever of those are still in ‘comparative poverty’ and 25% always will be.

Indeed, it also encourages a permanent state of discontentment, hard-done-by-ness and envy of others – ‘enough is never enough’ and the definitions keep widening in terms of what being ‘poor’ means today in the UK.

Instead, we seem to have created a system which says that being on benefits and having Netflix as a necessity and not a discretionary spend is fine, as 52% of all households now have a subscription (no doubt on top of the TV licence), or the most ever cars on the road – have we gone really mad? We ignore how well-off we are too, compared with billions across the world in real and abject poverty.

We must not overlook spending patterns too – the amounts spent on discretionary causes across society and yes, it includes the poor too. Too many things have shuffled across into the ‘must have’ camp and no wonder so many struggle (regardless of their incomes) as they live way beyond their means and do not challenge themselves over their spending patterns, let alone others daring to suggest that maybe there is better management week-by-week.

Another elephant in the room is that the benefit system does little to encourage people to make wise decisions in life. There is a moral vacuum which eschews commitment in relationships and certainly two parents connected and committed together to help with

the raising of and financing of their children. It seems to reward feral existences and foolish and frivolous choices, as well as uncommitted relationships (especially in the having and raising of children – is it any surprise the ‘poorest’ in our society are single parent families, where the children are the innocent victims in this) and the inability of taking responsibility for those decisions (or even extended families bothering to care about the situations in which their close relatives may find themselves)?

Indeed, as it is considered to be discriminatory (and it isn’t the true evidence of our caring society), the ‘system’ is not allowed to suggest counselling for relationships or indeed in the responsibility of having children and even their basic finances, as simply ‘give them more money’ is the apparent answer and quickie no-fault divorces to speed the separation now.

I’d love to see benefit qualification and food bank access linked to obligatory, basic financial management and budgeting courses to really help people, showing we really do care as individuals and a society. ‘This is the taxpayer’s money, you are expected to use it wisely and we’ll help guide you in that, so that you can make it work as hard for you and to best effect as it can, for best outcomes for you and your family and also to help you escape benefits’. It’s also why our firm (Philip J Milton & Company

Plc) created a charitable foundation of which one of its objectives is financial management education for those most in need.

Unless we are prepared to face these issues properly and, yes, maybe being cruel to be really kind sometimes too, then we shall continue to apply sticking plaster to the wrong side of the leaky dam. We’ll keep proving we don’t really care about these people at all but simply want to salve our consciences by making the State more responsible, so they’ll go away.

And, yes, life will always have people falling between the stools needing help from the security of a safety net and a benevolent society but it can’t be right when it seems to be heading towards such ludicrous levels of benefit entitlement (and job vacancies unfilled at the same time), surely?

No, I do not say we should discriminate against those who find themselves in unfortunate situations – it’s life. We must help them of course. However, we should help people to stay together, especially when children are involved (and who were procreated through love at the time). We should bring back a moral, spiritual sense in what we do and decisions for which we have to shoulder our own responsibility.

We should reward commitment and begin to diminish the sex act from its modern day (albeit transient) importance above caring long-term relationships. We’d save billions and wouldn’t need so many homes, there wouldn’t be so many broken people condemned to decades of difficulty, problem and financial shortage (especially children who have no choice about the consequences thrust upon them by selfish adults) and less poverty, as two-adult families find it easier to survive comfortably, oddly enough. There’d also be less unhappiness and fewer unfulfilled, casual relationships flitting from one person to another, juggling all the baggage from past broken existences.

Philip J Milton Trimstone, Devon