On 2 January, the Daily Mail reported:
In a scathing assessment, the respected centre-Right think tank Civitas accuses the Prime Minister of using billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to ‘rebrand his party and cement the coalition with the Liberal Democrats’.
The study warns that the wasteful Department for International Development is almost beyond reform and suggests it should be effectively shut down.
. . .
[It] calls for Mr Cameron’s ‘exorbitant and self-indulgent’ target to spend 0.7 per cent of Britain’s income on aid to be scrapped, saying there is no evidence it will help the world’s poor.
The findings come as ministers prepare to increase the aid budget by a staggering 30 per cent in the coming year in order to meet the Prime Minister’s target.
Total aid spending will rise from £8.65billion in the 2012-2013 financial year to £11.3billion in 2013-2014 – an increase of £2.65billion. [my emphasis]
Today, the BBC reports:
David Cameron has said the decision to remove child benefit from better-off families is “the right approach”.
Changes coming into effect from Monday will see families with one parent earning more than £50,000 lose part of their child benefit.
It will be fully withdrawn where one parent earns above £60,000.
. . .
Defending the policy, Mr Cameron said: “I'm not saying those people are rich, but I think it is right that they make a contribution.
“This will raise £2bn a year. If we don’t raise that £2bn from that group of people—the better off 15% in the country—we would have to find someone else to take it from.” [my emphasis]
Now, I do not disagree with the need for cuts and I was pleased the coalition government in the United Kingdom decided to embark on deficit reduction. What I disagree with is, as is the case with many, the government’s priorities and the reasons behind them.
Never mind that £60,000 ($100,000) is not a huge income when there are children, given that, in reality, taxation in this country means the take-home amount is £41,500, or £799 a week, or £159 a day. Never mind that. The fact is that money that could go to help support families with children in this country is being taken away from them, plus some more, in order for it to be sent to Africa to palliate the feelings of guilt that afflict White liberals in the West.
Such policies make sense only in a context where equality is regarded as a moral good, for there is no logical justification for keeping open, and indeed increasing the budget for, a Department for International Development, an organisation predicated on the White man’s guilt at being better off than folk elsewhere in the world, in an age when deficit reduction is a priority and citizens are being forced to make sacrifices, paying higher taxes in exchange for less—or, to put it more bluntly, being forced to foot the bill for the ignorance, incompetence, profligacy, dishonesty, and base opportunism of a handful of spectacularly useless politicians.
Given the incessant talk of fairness we hear from proponents of the egalitarian ideologies of liberalism and Marxism, it is ironic that the profoundly unfair situation highlighted above has its root precisely in egalitarian morality.
Or is it really? Because seems to me that unfairness is part and parcel of the pursuit of equality, because equality cannot be attained without being unfair to someone.