|
Fair enough - as I said, I don't know how far a certain income goes in the UK. But I know plenty of working families who can't afford legal representation, which was my reference point in asking about the $64K income.
It's an ongoing frustration in Ontario that people on benefits have far more than many working families. In PA, low income people on Medicaid have coverage for unlimited office appointments, procedures, and ER visits, whereas people paying for private insurance have strictly limited access to such visits and major out of pocket expenses, while a substantial portion of their income goes to pay for the unlimited visits of those on lower incomes.
I don't begrudge anyone the means to live with dignity. I also think that people should do everything within their power to support themselves, and if it means living in an area with lower costs (like Peoria), so be it. An issue came up awhile back over benefits for those in Ontario who wanted to live in Toronto (provincial capital; very expensive place to live). Some felt that people on benefits should be given whatever monies it took to live in Toronto; others felt that recipients should live where their benefits allowed them to make ends meet. Many, many working people couldn't (and still can't) afford to live in Toronto. I understand the argument that people should live where they can manage their budgets. The same could apply to arguments about London or DC.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi 
|
03-31-2013, 07:48 PM
Hybrid Mode
