Corbyn's question, taxes and "entitlement"

[SpontaneousOrder]

No. Really. You're not.

A man who values himself less than a stranger is hardly worthy of being called a man at all.

[pr1]

A man who values himself less than a stranger is hardly worthy of being called a man at all.

I think NAT meant it more like "if the state has a meal to give out, better to give it to a hungry child than a hungry working-aged-able person" - rather than that we should all be giving away 95% of our income to make sure no child ever goes hungry before we do

(I hope)