It's true that redistributing income to the needy is politically easier in a growing economy than in a stagnant one.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The fact is that, except for those very few whose wealth is overwhelmingly or entirely inherited, the more affluent have usually worked harder than the less affluent.
Funny thing is that the poorer people are, the more generous they seem to be.
I'm not saying that people on welfare don't contribute in their own way, but as many as possible should be encouraged to be economically active as well as socially and culturally active.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
It turns out that the rich are much better placed to feed at the public trough. The poor get crumbs.
True generosity is too frequently eaten up by prosperity and riches.
If the country's poorer, it's got less money.
Poverty is not just about income: it's about aspiration. It's not just about giving people a couple of extra pounds a week, welcome though that is.
Contrary to popular belief. It's much wiser to take money from the poor than the rich.
Helping the poor doesn't mean redistributing the wealth. It means removing the breaks that give the wealthy an advantage so huge that big chunks of the nation's income are automatically removed from individual economic competition.