Daily Telegraph

March 9, 2018

News

Comments Off on Daily Telegraph


Some people couldn’t believe his eyes and ears. What suggested Ian Cowie in may in a commentary in the Daily Telegraph? All seriousness, he made the proposal to give taxpayers only a Wahlreicht. Who is assigned to unemployed and on benefits, would lose his right to vote then. Now, one could argue that virtually everyone pays taxes, even if no taxes on his salary, he does. Because there is a value added tax in the United Kingdom. But even without this quibble, you do not approve such a discriminatory statement. Wanted to provoke only Ian Cowie? Pronounce it maybe that, what many think and dare not to say? What has to do it, if only those people may participate, contributing something to the State budget with democracy? Care not all welfare recipients over a ridge to Cowie? He even argues that unemployment again motivate settled with this regulation, to look for work.

This has caused this status even not every unemployed or does nothing at all, to look for a new job. Also, some currently as employed, unemployed has paid a more money into the State coffers. Compare only the tax deductions, a 55-year old, who is sacked after 35 years (and would therefore no longer entitled to vote) that a working apprentice who pay low taxes and this only for a short time. Where will you draw the line? Cowie argues that through the deprivation of the right to vote no longer those politicians will receive the most votes, which make the biggest promises of the underclass in the United Kingdom. In the reverse case, then no Government need to fear more, to be voted out due to shortened benefits. Would Government and parties not a bit too easy doing up there? With the proposal, and his line of reasoning, an incredibly arrogant position occupies Cowie (and all supporters). He peeps on the jobless down.

Many are fault in this situation, were dismissed or are sick. Her voice can be not worthless than the a related wage and bread citizen is also full member of society. No, this proposal would be an unacceptable step backwards.