Should ‘poor’ be a protected characteristic?

[ks.234]

To be alive.

...and you accuse me of not answering the question!?!

 

[ks.234]

Well I dodged that easily.

(Note: I dislike football with a passion, and find the large interest of the game baffling.
I only know one Tory and I wouldn’t describe him as scum. He is has views that I do not agree with.
Blair is a liar.)

Not necessarily. The list goes on and includes, people who drive range rovers, militant moderates and people who wear socks with sandals

 

[Big Tabs]

Not necessarily. The list goes on and includes, people who drive range rovers, militant moderates and people who wear socks with sandals

Still miles away from me.

Note: Socks + Sandals = Beard

Wifey likes me without whiskers. “Nobody wants to kiss a broom.”

(not true as a gay mate of mine had a thing for a thick ‘tash.)

 

[Big Tabs]

...and you accuse me of not answering the question!?!

All you are after is ammunition to fuel outrage.

I am fresh out.

 

[DimitryZ]

In the absence of any likelihood of your counter-proposal actually happening, what would you recommend instead?

Are you suggesting that the current classes of protected characteristics are in some way demeaning or stigmatising? We can, if it offends, find a different word to 'poor', so if that's your only objection, I'm quite sure we can address it.

I disagree with your initial premise. In US many jurisdictions and states passed increased minimum wage legislation.

All the other protected classes are immutable conditions of birth. Financial status is not, it can and does change.