1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,233
You are.
"The trouble is the trickle down proponenets argue that trickle down is inevitable so the only game in town is to make the rich richer and the poor will benefit by default. I see no evidence for that so it makes more sense to support the poor (make changes that make it easier for them to earn, acquire better lifestyles and better attitudes) rather than simply to set up society (tax and laws) with only the needs of the rich in mind"
I mean that we should not expect the poor to become better off by trickle down alone. We should support the poor.
The better attitudes bit includes helping people to be more self aware, more confident to cross the class and aspiration barriers, and not 'know their place'. I appreciate things have changed but I know several people who passed the 11 plus but were sent by parents to the local secondary modern because 'that sort of thing is not for the likes of us'. I appreciate that grammar schools barely exist now, and that people are much more aspirational across the classes, but having better attitudes to personal growth, health and other people (and not have dickish racist and sexists attitudes like those of some of the people on NSC that I have on ignore) has to be better than leaving the poor in a silo, looking up hopefully for a bit of trickle down.
Clearer?
Thank you. Your last paragraph here does indeed now make it clearer