The Tories are cowardly scumbags

My opponent asks "The Tory-led Government wants to raise a few quid, so who do you think they approached? Was it: A – Parasitic, tax-dodging aristocrats who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, but thanks to being born into privileged families, have more money than they know what to do with, or B – Deprived and impoverished little kiddies with no way of defending themselves. " I object to this question on the following grounds. 1: My opponent attacks tax-dodging aristocrats, he fails to state who these aristocrats are, and how they are avoiding paying their taxes. Though his link shows that tax fraud is a problem for the UK, it fails to lay the blame on the shoulders of this privileged elite. 2: My opponent assumes that these aristocrats and Etonians have never done a days work in their lives, however a number of them are CEO's, Company Directors and Captains of Industry. Such positions are indeed hard work, generate intense stress levels and can only be fulfilled by a minority of the population. Though 'high birth' may have eased the ascent of many into such lofty positions the private sector is not a charity and is not feudal, such people are there because they have the ability to be there. They command vast salaries due to the scarcity of people who are capable of fulfilling such roles, and the profits that they generate. The government generates from such people, income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and so forth. The companies that they lead hire people, those people pay their taxes, spend their money and add to the economy. The economic truth is that the rich do contribute. 3: My opponent refers to the plight of impoverished and defenceless children. The reality is that they are not being cruelly forced to bear the burden of Government finances. My opponent posts a link that simply suggests that the Prime Minister had decided to withdraw free milk for nursery school children, and then changed his mind. The reality of the situation is that, a) The economy is weak, b) Government coffers are empty, c) Children will not suffer or die if they don't drink milk at nursery school, d) Any family in the country can afford to buy their own milk, retailing as it does at approximately 40p a pint [1], e) It is not the role of a resources strained Government to supply milk to children, unless they be wards of the state. f) The Prime Minister is desperate for ideas to save money [2], and is under intense pressure to be seen to be doing something as the country is in imminent risk of financial collapse. [3] g) The Prime Minister changed his mind. Many of these points can also be extended to the general consideration that the Conversative led Government has given to the potential of cutting public services (I am sure my opponent has only fixated on the milk issue as an example and a 'homage' to Margaret Thatcher in order to establish a wider point). My opponents conclusion, "The obvious answer, from a moral point of view, would be A – that is: to ask the over-privileged, idle rich and other fabulously wealthy people if they wouldn't mind, you know, paying their fair share of tax. " Is therefore obviously flawed. The rich already pay tax. They also allow the middle class and working class to pay tax by creating the jobs from which they derive their salaries. In addition what is moral is best judged on a consideration of intent, consequence and the greater good. I will offer my opponent two scenarios and would like him to consider the most moral option. 1: A cash strapped Government during a time of economic woe can continue to provide unneccesary services that could be provided by the people themselves through punitive measures against the rich. Ultimately leading to debt, job losses, more people on the dole, higher prices in the shops, the loss of investment, resulting in economic collapse, mass poverty and greek style rioting. or 2: A cash strapped Government during a time of economic woe can cut unneccesary services that could be provided by the people themselves and in doing so give the economy a chance to recover. I am sure that it is obvious that option 2 is the more moral option, which in turn invalidates my opponents position that the tories are immoral or indeed 'scumbags' as they have attempted to take what is ultimately the only truly moral option. Further Points Such cost cutting measures would not have been required if the former Labour Government had not pursued a 'scorched earth policy' intended to obstruct the new Government. To play party politics at the cost of the national economy was an act of obscene party politics [4]. Which the former government gleefully admitted to [5]. [1] . http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk... [2] . http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk... [3] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [5] . http://www.guardian.co.uk...