ALF Young (February 23) is wrong in his arithmetic to suggest abolishing poverty, as defined in terms of "relative" low income, would require taxation of 100% on those earning little more than the average wage. Our governments have been elected on commitments to eradicate child poverty defined in just such relative terms. Significant progress, while not nearly fast enough, is being made. It is perfectly possible to raise everyone above the poverty line (as defined by living in a household with less than 60% of median income) without drawing everyone down to below 60% above the median, or requiring the extreme taxation Alf Young claims. International comparisons reinforce the point - Scandinavian countries achieve "relative" child poverty rates, which if not yet zero, are far closer to zero.

Furthermore, it is vital we don't let the use of the word "relative" blind us to the very real material and social deprivations people in poverty face. For them "relative" poverty means choosing between paying the fuel bills or paying for school outings. It means going without food yourself to feed your children. It means being unable to afford bus fares to visit close family. It too often means living in cold, damp housing.

Yet the solutions to this poverty are not as elusive as suggested. We need to tackle the low-pay, family-unfriendly employment practice and lack of affordable childcare that mean work is too often not a route out of poverty. But we also need to invest in the benefits safety net to protect from poverty those who, due to caring responsibilities, ill health, or disability, are unable to work.

If we are not to consign another generation to the deprivations of poverty we must focus debate on what more needs to be done - not waste time discussing whether poverty can be abolished. It can, and it must be.

John Dickie, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) in Scotland, 94 Duke Street, Glasgow

ALF Young asks us to "explore new pathways" to get rid of poverty. Here's one! Dismantle Frankenstein, the bureaucratic monster that gets bigger and heavier by the day. Dynamite the behemoth, for God's sake, and save the poor! Does no-one see that the bigger the bureaucracy, the greater the cost, because each "initiative" set up by the Scottish Executive requires to install its well-paid administrators to run each its own little empire? Poverty increases in proportion to this gross ever-increasing spending.

One small page of such posts appeared in The Herald on February 20 and I suspect that if the cost of filling such posts were calculated there would be little change from £1,500,000.

No-one on the platform at the conference, "Transcending Poverty", was either poor, unemployed or socially excluded. Indeed, who better to represent the poor than the one I'll single out, Sir Muir Russell, whose hobbies include "food, wine and music" and whose salary has risen to £211,000. He's a successful businessman, of course, who'll identify with those who work for £5 an hour! He won his "success" by somewhat impoverishing his university, through cutbacks. By adding to poverty, he increases his salary then addresses a conference about getting rid of poverty - this sums up Scottish politics today.

But further to that, all 300 groups represented at the conference were the manifold bureaucracies/busi-nesses that run the country today, administered by the richly rewarded who are not going to revolt against poverty.

The policies and behaviour of New Labour in Scotland today are a monument to stupidity and hypocrisy and only show contempt for the growing underclass of dispossessed.

Morag McKinlay, 36a Weir Street, Falkirk