The idea is to try and reduce the gap between rich and poor. The idea isn't for there to be no gap. That is called 'communism' and further left than this government has ever suggested it was.
Labour have made the gap bigger.
Much bigger.
You say about getting 'diminishing returns' with regards to public service .. well of course. If we give money to the members of our society that are starving, obviously we are not going to make some kind of profit on the gig. It's not about profit.
You misunderstand what 'point of diminishing return' means. It means the more money we put into X, the less X is able to output (in any form - whether it is health care or social benefit). Take the NHS - we are well beyond the point of diminishing returns there, due to the self-inflating bureaucracy (NHS management has grown by 100% over the last decade, and front-line staff only 35%). The NHS now runs at a quantifiable since 2005 -1% productivity each year; that is, each year that passes, it drops a percentage point in productivity.
I am compeltely right that 'right wing' = worse public services. They reduce tax, they reduce the public sector expenditure, which then as a result gives worse public service. Your statement on this bit was the only part of your post which was way off.
Do you think that the state should be the first port of call for any need? What is so bad about reducing the lowest rate of income tax even if it means a drop in income support?
If Labour would have continued the same tax band increases that the Major government did (which was essentially in line with inflation at most times), the lowest income tax band would kick in at £12k. It is currently 50% of that.
Through fiscal drag (not raising the bands in proportion to inflation), Gordon Brown has stealth taxed the poor - massively. No Government ever before it (and I mean ever) has extracted so much of their tax receipt from the lower 50% of earners in the history of this country. He then hands back the money he takes from the poor to the poor in the form of overlapping benefits (which have a cost to administer - wastage right there).
Not only this stealth tax, but he scrapped the 10p rate.
For the absolute poorest, this traps them in a dependency on benefits. The Government take what little income they have, and then gives them bits of it back (but far from all) in the form of 'welfare'.
The truly, truly sick thing is that Labour has made it in their interest to uphold this benefit trap - benefits are Labour's carrot to attract votes.
Whether smaller government and lower taxes is a good/bad thing is really opinion and what kind of society you want to live in. I like the idea of looking out for each other, even if it costs us a bit. Other people don't, instead thinking 'screw people that can't find a job or can't work for themselves I don't care if they starve I want my money I earnt for me'. Fair enough it's only an opinion.
Oh shut up with your horse trollop. Tories have never been about taking away social security and relying on society's charity. The Tories have always provided state benefits for unemployment, disability and income top up - because a mobile and healthy work force is best for the economy. There is a difference between social security and paying a family to do nothing for god's sake
